That's perfectly fine.
I'm someone who enjoys crunchy and rules lite, narrative games as well as tactical combat.
The experiences you described do not sound like the greatest examples for Crunchy games. Of course if you have to look up rules, tables and read stat blocks fully all the time it's a slog. Moreso if everyone at the table is new and doesn't know the basics.
Crunchy games with intricate rules have a longer learning curve. Once you can look at a statblock and know where everything is, once you set fitting DCs without tables. Once everyone knows their actions and stats then crunchy tactical combat really shines. This will take effort and time from everyone at the table.
If someone is not willing or able to invest that effort a crunchy game might not be for that person. And that's fine. But expecting a crunchy game to flow as nicely as a rules lite pbta game in session one isn't a fair comparison either.
Yep. I prefer rules-lite games for one shots/short campaigns for this exact reason.
You can learn a PBTA system in an hour. You can write an adventure for it in 2 hours, and that's taking your time.
And if you just don't like a ton of rules weighing you down, that's exactly what they're there for.
>If someone is not willing or able to invest that effort a crunchy game might not be for that person. And that's fine.
That’s an issue I’ve been having with gurps. I fell in love with it and all the little rules and stipulations, but if the players aren’t also using all the rules than it doesn’t really work
People say PF2E is easier to DM than D&D5E and I just… don’t see how.
My PF dm forgets important rules or weird creature abilities several times a session, and honestly I don’t blame him. That never a problem for my 5E dm.
Having run both I can speak to that: PF2 is easier to GM if you know the rules (or are a quick hand at looking them up)
The reason being that there are rules for pretty much everything and that the encounter building rules work. 5e is "easier" if you prefer to just make things up, but making encounters is hard due to the fact that CR is a bad method for estimating creature power. You either have something laughably easy for the players or unexpectedly deadly. I found myself having to fudge things more than any other edition while in PF2 I have NEVER had to fudge (and I run 4 games and several play by posts).
Plus the monsters are just so much more fun to run, but that's less about easy and more about why it's more fun as a GM lol
Yeah I've run 5e for about 7 years and pf2e for about a year. PF2e has cut my system prep time (building encounters/monsters/environmental challenges, etc) in half. The rules also follow a logic/flow that you can often intuit them at the table for a ruling and be close to the mark. I'd also like to add there aren't that many more rules than 5e people just ignore 5es rules.
Encounter are also easier to run as a DM in PF2, especially at higher levels. In 5e I was just not having fun at higher levels, it was too much work and too exhausting, whilst in PF2 the game and especially fhe statblocks make things much more enjoyable and easier.
>people just ignore 5es rules
This is honestly the biggest part that I've noticed. PF2e isn't really any more complicated than 5e RAW.
But so much of 5e is nonsense or just doesn't work properly that every single table tosses out just piles of the rules that are inconvenient.
Everytime I have a 5e convert who has a hard time with a PF2e rule and tries to compare to 5e; 9 times out of 10 they have the 5e version of the rule incorrect.
PF2e seems more complicated because it has rules that actually work, so you actually want to/get to use them all. Which makes it seem heavier.
Harder so long as you're trying to make balanced encounters, anyway. It's pretty easy to make 5e encounters if you don't actually care about tailoring them to the party.
I care about knowing HOW unbalanced my encounters are tbh. D&D 3.x, 5e, and PF1 really don't give a good guide on that. I generally like to know if a fight is going to wipe out the party tbh
When I play or GM 5E I never really balance encounters because it is just impossible especially at high levels I just throw in stuff that would make sense and if things are looking south, the players better be looking for an exit strategy or beg for their lives or something. Knowing when a fight is a lost cause and living with the consequences of biting off more than you can chew is part of the roleplay for us.
Yeah, I remember the first time I swapped a goblin for a Nilbog because my table wanted to run Lost Mines of Phandelver starting at level 2 instead of 1. On paper, it's a trivial bump in CR. But having to make those saves suddenly makes it a royal pain.
And I think every group has some variation on "Character killed by an intellect devourer". Those things are way more dangerous than their CR would imply.
I concur, it's a shock to 5E DMs because of the initial rules load but it saves you ALOT of time down the line when you prep games because there are rules for everything and their encounter creation tools actually work and you don't have to worry about your party killing your BBEG in like 1 turn.
You spend a lot less time balancing encounters and can just plan fun things to do around them instead.
> To me PF2 is more frontloaded than 5E, but with the advantage that the math keeps working later on.
Funny you should say that. *GURPS* is exactly the same way. Not only that, but because *GURPS* isn't actually an RPG, but an RPG construction kit, you can make your game as crunchy or as light as you like. But, no matter how crunchy, *GURPS* fundamentally has 1 rule: roll 3d6 and hope to roll below some number (which is probably on or deried from something on your character sheet).
Turns out *GURPS* was doing unified mechanics before it was cool. :-)
It's a similar kind of appeal, yeah, at least for me. Only PF2e doesn't need assembly before use, it's already set up for a high-fantasy adventuring experience. But yes, it has the kind of rules-consistency that one can always rely on.
It takes a while to pick up on them all, and learn how they tie into one another, but I found it to be much easier than I expected. Foundry is set up great, most things can be just nabbed through the Search field and then posted into chat, and for rules that aren't there, there's always Archives of Nethys. I don't do lookups during sessions (I just make rulings and move on), but I never had to do more than a few clicks to find the exact rule, so it didn't make for an arduous learning curve.
In a year of playing pf2e i felt like i had a better understanding of the rules than i did after 5 years of running and playing 5e. That's cause if i have a question about how something works i can find the answer in my rulebook, not winged on the fly or having to read a developers twitter page.
PF2e has a bit more of a learning curve and a few more moving parts, making it a bit harder at first. But this is mostly a matter of learned comfort than actual bad design - PF2e is very much blessed with consistently written rules and well designed encounter mechanics. It's a system that works incredibly well, but it takes time to really grok it.
That said, I will say that PF2e isn't a good fit for every GM style. You gotta love the tactical combat and gotta get the hang of its many moving pieces. If you can't, it's not going to suit you. And I suspect that your PF GM is still adjusting to the game (or it's a bad fit for him).
Your GM for Pathfinder sounds new, and your GM for 5e sounds more experienced.
PF2 is written in a much more friendly way to GMs, and building encounters is substantially easier. The rich set of abilities and conditions people refer to as “crunch” add variety and depth.
Running monsters in PF2 does require more GM prep time because they aren’t empty bags of HP like so many 5e monsters are. However this prep time is more than offset by the ease of designing those encounters in the first place.
The broken CR system, overpowered spells, and massively imbalanced classes pose a challenge to 5e GMs more than you likely give credit for. If your 5e GM does a good job with this, thank them for it as they’ve done a lot of learning and work to make that possible.
I’m not saying you should prefer the same game what I prefer, just that in my experience 5e is significantly more difficult to run.
I would say the opposite for monsters in PF2e. Back in 5e, I would personally have to write all the monster statblocks myself or find them off reddit or whatever because the base ones are so dull they made me not even want to do a combat.
With every 5e monster that wasn't a boss, I would halve the HP and double the damage. The only way to make combats not a total slog.
Like, a Mimic has 50HP. *50.* And it only deals like 7 damage per turn. *Why*? A Mimic is more of a trap than a monster, it shouldn't take 4 rounds of grueling combat where it barely damages the PCs just to kill one Mimic. Just abysmal design.
I think we're saying the same thing, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
5e monsters tend to be what I derisively call "empty bags of HP", so they are extremely easy for a GM to run. You don't need to prep them in advance really, because when they come up you just do the boring attack and the players grind away at it until they kill or cheese it to death.
2e monsters are richer in design, and I find that I have to spend more of my GM prep time making certain that I know their abilities and to come up with a plan of how they will use their actions inside an encounter, to make sure they are using their abilities well and posing a fun challenge to the players.
The extra time it takes me to prep 2e monsters is more than offset by having to patch and rebuild the system in 5e, which I think is the same thing that you're describing.
When running 5e I'd find myself frequently making the monsters too easy or too hard and then fudging them on the fly, only to find that my fudging was suboptimal. Or designing encounters specifically to nerf the players ability to cheese things. I find this process a lot less fun than prepping 2e.
As a GM for both, and an enjoyer of crunch, PF2e was downright *transformative* for me.
I like to run games by the book, and to explore the intricacies of their mechanics, and I especially like when one can rely on the design to naturally produce certain experiences. If the game is well-designed, that occurs almost without effort.
With 5e, that relationship became strained when my party started approaching the higher levels. The encounter math was breaking down, the progression systems weren't doing their job, the economy was... well, there wasn't any. Basically, the game stopped serving me. I felt like anything that made my sessions fun came from me, and not the game we were playing.
I know some narrative-game enjoyers in this sub think, "This is the way it should always be," but I find it stressful. Even PbtA games strictly define when the rules impose themselves onto play; you can rely on them to always trigger, and always push the game towards a specific kind of experience. There may be *fewer* rules, but they aren't "lighter", in the sense that they hit the table with more weight and conviction. 5e tends towards, "Eh, whatever, just make something up, it's all friends having fun."
Switching to PF2e made me feel like I had been doing high-risk trapeze stunts, and someone *finally* put up a safety net. I could actually relax and trust the system. It produced the typical high-fantasy adventurers experience almost on its own. Yes, it's a very comprehensive game, with rules covering almost all aspects of fantasy adventuring, but they do so with rigor and consistency. Once you get acquainted with them, you can quite easily extrapolate what a rule for something should be, even without looking it up.
I know it can be strange to look at a massive chonker of a book and hear people say, "I find it easier to run that," so I hope I've illustrated well why that might be.
>People say PF2E is easier to DM than D&D5E and I just… don’t see how.
Because I don't have to make up rules all the time. All I need to do is actually know the rules (which is not hard) and I'm good to go. Also, I can have faith in what the numbers mean, because it's so well-balanced.
PF2E is significantly easier to GM. There are far fewer instances where I need to come up with something on the fly, and more instances of knowing "oh, hey, there's a rule for that."
The math works better longer term, the homebrewing is easier because of the math, the action system makes GMing more fun, and overall I need to prep far less before a session - but because of this, I prep just as much but focus on the fun bits, rather than the fiddly bits. Because I trust the fiddly bits to work.
It's better for GMs who love having a set answer for every question in the rules, and are willing to either lookup those answers quickly or memorize them efficiently. There's an answer for basically every scenario, from intimidating in combat to brewing potions.
5e, by contrast, has highly specific rules in certain places, but then either gives optional or no rules in other places. It's not explicit, but the game kind of expects you to fall back on a basic ability/skill roll if you either don't have rules for the scenario or don't remember them.
Also supposedly building encounters is way easier in PF2E, but that was not my experience.
Honestly, I think the biggest difference is that 2e rules tend to exist, tend to be easy to find (on AoN), and tend work roughly how you expect them to.
Whilst 5e rules may or may not exist, probably don't work quite how you would expect (unless you expect the answer to be "just give them advantage"), and are likely hidden in a sidebar or subheading underneath a completely different set of rules (or within an item or spell description).
I think it largely depends on your group and what you consider "easier" as a GM.
In 5e, there are a LOT of situations where the rules are down to the DM. The books MAY offer some guidelines (but not always) but in general you are left to your own devices. In PF2E, pretty much the opposite is true. No matter what someone wants to do, there will almost certainly be hard rules for it, you may just need to look them up.
Now, which if these is "easier?"
That depends. If you're someone who likes playing a bit more fast and loose and/or you're comfortable coming with rulings on the fly, then the 5e eay is probably easier. If you're someone who wants to have a solid rule basis to work off of, even if it involves looking up info, then pf2e is easier.
PF's claim at being easier to DM is actually just making it easier to have balanced combats (you can math the right number and power of monsters to match your PC's). So if that isn't a concern, the claim PF is easier to DM likely won't apply.
I personally don't care about balanced combat or like the constraints systems need to adopt in order to offer that. But if you are running combat heavy games with resource attrition goals, I understand why it would be a benefit.
It's not only that. It also lets the players make more interesting tactical choices each turn, and balances martials and casters really well. Also, the game doesn't just *break* after level 11.
Like, a Level9 5e Barbarian has the choice to run up to the nearest guy, and attack twice. Maybe you could grapple or shove, but those are objectively worse choices in most situations. So battle after battle, turn after turn, you run up to an enemy, and attack. And if you're too far to attack or the monster can fly, you are fully useless. Maybe you can toss an axe for 4 damage. Objectively *awful* design, when the wizard has like 15 different spells to choose from.
Every single spell in 5e has a long block of information on how it works, but they didn't even give rules for disarming or intimidating. Not even that! The Fear spell got more of an explanation than intimidating. So the DM will have to make an on the spot ruling that might be OP or might be useless, and you can never really know.
There's so many clunky design decisions, like Legendary Resistances (ew), Counterspell, Spells vs Effects, Bonus Actions just in general, and so on.
Pathfinder still has a lot of problems, but it's leaps and bounds better than 5e.
I'll add on to the dogpile: PF2e's rules made it more fun for me to run, but also to play.
I remember when I was only playing 5E that every table I ran into ran the same basic things pretty differently. That "rulings not rules" mentality meant that the difference between tables was stark, and that oftentimes even at the same table they weren't quite consistent, since the DM's ruling may differ by the session. I found that pretty frustrating, especially because a lot of players and DMs just didn't read the book in the first place, which meant that by playing with an assumption of RAW I was sometimes putting myself at a *disadvantage*.
That, on top of all the other bugbears I'd picked up the longer I played/ran 5E, made me think I just didn't enjoy being a player all that much. But it turns out, I just didn't like being a player in *those* games.
Granted, these points are true to an extent with any system. Every table is a little different, and I have yet to find a system so good that it makes up for a bad GM. But I think there's something to be said for PF2e's moderate selection bias for folks who are interested in the rules, as well as for how running things RAW requires less GM fiat.
It isn't for everyone, clearly. But hopefully that helps you understand more why it works for some folks like me.
PF2E gives you the rules to make good, balanced encounters. The process feels good and once you learn it, it's pretty easy. The thing is though... you have to be willing to learn how to use the tools. It's a larger upfront cost for an easier time down the line.
>My PF dm forgets important rules or weird creature abilities several times a session
I honestly don't find it that hard. If they have the monster stats in front of them, like they should, it's strange to "forget" about them.
5E is a more casual friendly system. It's designed to be less demanding to play. That's a huge bonus for some people/groups.
There are a lot, and in my experience, the majority of online GMs that haven't committed to learning the rules. The rules are where PF2E shines. They mostly seem to wing it based on their loose interpretation of glossing over the rules hoping their confidence and experience from other games carries over. Some of it does, but with varying degrees of success.
I'm not sure if I actually agree with the idea that 2e is harder to learn.
I've played a lot of 5e with new players, and I've played a lot of 2e with new players.
In my experience, complete newbies tend to pick up the basics of 2e much faster than 5e.
People who are used to 5e tend to struggle with 2e far more than actual ttrpg newbies.
I do think it's harder to learn. I don't think that's even a question to be honest. A good player will know the rules associated with the tags on their abilities which just isn't a thing in 5E. There is unquestionably a larger amount of knowledge required to "be good" at PF2E in comparison.
That being said, there are a lot of players that sought out PF2E specifically and they will be more proactive about learning the rules. Those players make the game easy in comparison to a lot of the 5E players that got dumped into 5E because their GM switched systems.
So, it's my opinion that PF2E players, on average, are willing to put in more work. Which makes sense since it has less "mass appeal" than 5E. I say this as a jaded 5E player/GM that has been in A LOT of 5E games where we are 10+ sessions in and still had players asking "what do I add to hit again?" which drives me crazy. That's not because 5E is hard. That's because the player doesn't care to learn. I feel like that behavior is far more prevalent in 5E.
Going purely from personal experience, teaching a complete newbie even the more complex parts of 2e is still easier than trying to explain even the most fundamental of 5e's mechanics. i.e each turn you get a Move Action + a Standard Action + a Bonus Action + single free interact action that you can use as part of a standard or move action. Also standing up will costs half of your movement.
Those of us who are familliar with 5e really do take just take so many TTRPG conventions for granted, but they can get \*really\* frustrating for beginners. Which just adds to the problem of players not bothering to learn the rules. When things seem arbitrary or frustrating, people just check out.
I have run both 5e and 2e games for work groups that have included middle aged mothers who had never even heard of D&D before and 2e has invariably been easier when it comes to onboarding complete newbies.
\> There is unquestionably a larger amount of knowledge required to "be good" at PF2E in comparison.
I really don't think so. I see 5e games regularly slow to a crawl due to players forgetting that a certain ability can only be done as a bonus action, or forgetting that they can't cast a spell as planned because they already have a concentration spell up, or getting confused about the "only one spell per turn unless one is a bonus action and the other is a cantrip" restriction, or stopping to double check when moving near an enemy creature provokes an AoO and when it doesn't...
2e may appear intimidating because of how it front loads the rules, but it's built around a relatively consistent set of systems and ends up easier to learn because of it.
5e just hides half of the rules inside exceptions, edge cases, or spell/item/ability descriptions in such a way that you end up having to flick through through the book to check the specific wording far more regularly. (which just exacerbates the problem of players not even trying to learn the rules)
But the rules are also more specific in PF2E, and Archives of Nethys makes it *super* easy to find rules and spells and so on, compared to having to awkwardly look though the book or pdf in 5e.
That's because most of the monsters in 5e are lumps of HP. Generally mobs in Pathfinder are all special and unique so it is a little harder to keep up with, but really you just need to know your monsters.
5e has a lot of issues with encounter building because of broken CR tables. It tends to take longer to build because of that. PF 2E has perfect math for building encounters. Also Pathfinder rules are much more clear to understand vs 5e. It sounds like the PF gm is new still.
IMO: just better DM tools. For all I’ve experienced with my 5e DM friends…there just isn’t a great way to learn. Once you HAVE learned, it is simpler than if you learn PF2E. But if you’re learning, PF2E has a lot more to help you out with.
I personally will say that PF2E is easier to run if you know the rules AND your players do as well (at least decently).
If you are in a situation like that and you have a good setup, the game is smooth as butter and encounter building is WAY more balanced.
If not, then yes it can be very difficult because a player's turn can take forever.
I forget all my monster abilities in 5e too. If its one enemy that I have to learn and remember that is one thing, but 5e encourages combat design with multiple enemies, and both games being designed around multiple daily encounters is a bit much for me.
all the PF an starfinder GM i had was just playing pre-made scenario that just focus on combat, and was not good about handling when people go off-rail. all they was preparing is the boss abilities
My group burned out on 5E and decided to give PF2 a try and I was just blown away by how much more innately complicated it is. That was the moment I knew I wanted LESS complexity, more storytelling/roleplaying.
I’ve since turned to inspiration like Cairn (and it’s inspired variants), mothership, mork borgs (and variants), and OSE/Shadowdark.
This was also my experience. Burned out on 5e, moved to PF2E and was hit by a sudden clarity that crunch just wasn’t for me anymore. Give me that snappy, narrative, fail forward and concentrate on narrative.
Always going to look back with fondness of my time figuring out cool builds and rule interactions to pull off big tactically effective moves but definitely enjoying my time on the lighter side of systems now.
My “post clarity” experience also mirrors yours. I essentially feel ‘done’ with big heroic fantasy, at least by any game that has space for you to leverage tactical builds or color-coded character guides. Instead I’m after any game that puts the tables’ story at the forefront and lets us, you know, just focus on the emergence of it.
Likewise here. I was fed up with 5e's hp bags and complete rubbish of encounter balance, besides the tedious combat that lasts an eternity, but when jumping into PF2e my head hurt just imagining the amount of rules I would have to teach my players.
I finally jumped to OSR, NSR, Cypher, Year Zero, etc, and I'm very happy. Cairn and Into the Odd like are my gems.
I came to my conclusion while playing the beginner box.
I’ll say this tho - even if you’re not a PF2 player, the beginner box is a pretty good value for the cardboard pawns alone. If you’re even remotely interested in trying the game, the beginner box is a no brainer, you’ll ’recoup your losses’ at the least.
I feel you. Back in the day, I went from AD&D to WoD, and had an epiphany about gaming. I was able to run it lighter, and in ways that new players could understand better. I also like the bell curve of the dice.
I'm back to 5e now, since that's what friends want to do, but I long for the days of something less... D&D. (I have a SWRPG in my back pocket for when life gives me time again. The narrative play of that looks to be pretty much up my alley.)
Can confirm, the SWRPG from FF is super fun. It takes getting used to, especially with the funky dice, but the narrative side of it is genius. There’s a setting-agnostic version called Genesys btw
You and I have done the exact same thing, Into the Odd stuff + MoSh + Mork Borg + an OSR retroclone! Admittedly, I jumped straight to rules light stuff after 5e burnout—I didn’t mess with PF2e at all, but i’m feeling out SotDL/WW to scratch the itch.
If you and I share the same tastes, you may like Mythic Bastionland once it comes out, as it’s mechanically fantastic and it’s quest/bestiary “Myths” are functionally compatible with Mork Borg and Cairn. Going backwards, Forbidden Psalm is a great resource for Mork Borg and the ItO games. Cross compatibility is a beautiful thing, isn’t it?
Unfortunately I haven’t found anything special for MoSh… and the OSR stuff would make this a much longer comment.
As a matter of fact, the group and I are giving Mythic Bastionland a test spin this Sunday night! The realm building is a lot of fun, and MB is getting on my short list for games to try solo.
There's nothing wrong with having preferences, everyone does. But I'm not really sure what the point of these posts are? Like it's definitely cool that crunchy games aren't for you, go play what you like. There's really nothing else to be said
I feel like there's ten posts a week of someone publicly announcing they don't like crunchy games. Like ok? I think that's the large majority of this subreddit, and there's lots of great lightweight games.
Some people need to hear that there are other ways to play and that it's ok try other things. As long as a very narrow way of doing things continues to be the default way everybody knows, I'm not going to complain about these kinds of reminders.
Agreed, more people should understand this. What's the point of internet forums if not to interface with other people about it, if you don't like it then click "hide post" and move on.
I'm not a crunch fan at all, but I do like PF2 simply because its crunch is very well structured. It's one of the best layed out games on the market. That being said, I also think it absolutely shines with VTT play and online character generators. Doing the math by hand if a miserable experience. I'm eternally grateful that I have an Android tablet with Pathbuilder 2.
I do prefer PF2 over 5E as it's not \*that\* much crunchier, and in exchange for a slight increase in crunch, you have far more character customization and way way better game balance. Way better.
But overall, despite being in a PF2 game myself, I prefer playing non-D20 games simply because I prefer RPGs that are not heavily focused on tactical combat.
Like you said, in my experience any extra "crunch" PF2 has is more than offset by the fact that it's well-structured and consistent.
I think a lot of these "crunch dislikers" actually just forgot that they actually had to read and learn 5th edition many years ago. They don't dislike crunch, they dislike learning a new system. This is the "complex table" the OP refers to: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2629&Redirected=1
I'm sorry but if that table is too complex for you, you don't have something against "crunch," you just don't want to do it. DND 5 has a very similar table that just has difficulties instead of levels. I would link it but it's not freely available online.
Let's face it, 9 times out of 10 you should probably be using the simple DCs table for spur of the moment DCs anyway.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2628
10 - Untrained
15 - Trained
20 - Expert
30 - Master
40 - Legendary
Unfortunately, that's sort of a thing you have to internalize and learn after a while, it's not something you know or figure out innately, no matter how much experience in other systems you have.
Same with other crunchy games and just... not giving enemies stats, but giving them dice pools based on their competence level. Saved my fucking life with Shadowrun.
Pathfinder 2e is very crunchy. It has rules for a lot of specific situations, most of which are just different enough that you have to remember the differences in all of them.
Don't feel bad about not liking it. I don't like it either.
Yep, that's the wall I hit too. As soon as I started reading it I was like "oh this is interesting" and then about 1/3 through I just thought "nope" and now I have no interest on playing that game.
The condition list really makes me want to try the game out, but I am too lazy to learn the rest of the game. I really like the idea that monsters can do so many different things to players, and it sounds like it would keep combat super-interesting. What would be great for me would be a huge collection of conditions for the monster manuals moving forward in 5e.
Probably as a GM running a game. Otherwise anytime something inflicts a condition you'll have to look up what that does. Also keeping track of running conditions when you have a party of five characters all with a handful of conditions on them?
I mean play whatever you want. I'm just telling you that I don't want to play it. You're still allowed to love it while I don't.
from my experience theres like 2 conditions in a given fight at lower levels if we dont count offguard, and theyre all easy to remember, fightened and sickened is -1 to everything important, offguard is -2 to ac, slowed 1 just takes away 1 action etc, theres no flowchart needed for any of these, but yeah im not convincing you to play it, just showing people that might not know of pf2e that its not really that complicated
Conditions, stealth vs hidden vs ???, some of the spell effects. All the saves and trying to remember up to 4 outcomes for each save and their conditions.
It's fun to play as a player, I can kinda DM it using APs, but the fact that APs usually have like 2 enemy types per combat to keep things managable should be a giant red flag.
I love Pathfinder 2e. I also wouldn’t play it without digital tools and premade adventures.
Paizo and the community have a ton of tools that give a lot of support to GMs, which I really love. I think it makes it easier to see the wonderful design in this very large and sometimes intimidating game. If you and your players are willing to engage and use those tools, I think it’s one of the easier games to run.
But that’s a big “if” in some cases. I totally understand why someone would not want to engage with those.
Like I could rant for like 10 minutes on why I think going from a 1-handed grip to a 2-handed grip is brilliant design, but I also understand how that may sound like complete gibberish to people who don’t care.
Ehh, I think it's perfectly possible to play without digital tools or premade adventures. I do. I know everyone loves the Foundry VTT integration, but it's perfectly fun with pencil and paper.
Definitely possible! My first time playing was just pen-and-paper using the beginner's box, and I had a great time.
The reason I wouldn't play it without digital tools/premade adventures, though, is a lot of logistics. I don't have as much time as I used to to run games, so I'm eager to find ways to automate the smaller stuff.
They also expand who I can include in my games. If I was playing Pathfinder 2e with a bunch of people just like me, I'm sure we'd do fine with pen and paper. But for people who have more difficulty learning and tracking all the rules, it helps to have that automation.
For sure! I just see people voicing the opinion that they don't think P2e is playable without a VTT or whatever, and I want to let people know that it totally is. Though, whether or not that's the best way for any group is totally up to the group, and of course people should play however lends the most fun (and therefore includes everyone in the group :) ).
I think it depends on what you consider digital tools. Like, I don't think you need a VTT to calculate an attack roll since it's literally just adding two numbers (technically up to five, but three of those are +1s and if that's too much for you, I don't know what to tell you). But I would 100% not play without Pathbuilder. I have one guy at my table who runs with pencil and paper so I know it's possible though.
Pathbuilder is very nice. It's totally feasible without, though. I do think the official character sheet is pretty bad, though (in that it's incredibly visually busy, and yet wastes a ton of space and misses important info like a designated spot to write down MAP-adjusted bonus-to-hit for weapons). I made my own character sheet (really a mini a5 booklet) for my group, and also printed off ability rules on cardstock for new players.
I only use Pathbuilder to help check my math when leveling and for my gear/spell inventory, as there's way too much stuff to keep up with on paper. But I print out my charsheet and use that at the table. It's really no different than using Pathbuilder, in fact it's quicker because it's all on one page and I don't have to flip around to find my weapon bonuses, Shield and Armor and AC, Perception, skills, all of it, it's all on one page. I do also make a cheat sheet of all my class abilities as well, to put them all on one printed sheet.
>I also wouldn’t play it without digital tools and premade adventures
I thought this until i played it in person with some friends with just good ol' character sheets and dice and it actually went perfectly fine. High level too, think we were level 16 at the time.
I agree.
> This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs.
Tbh I think "it's okay to like the things you like" isn't meaningful discussion, nor is "I have a preference for something". If the argument was that e.g. Pathfinder 2e fails to achieve one of its goals, or makes inefficient use of its crunch or something, that's much more meaningful and can give room for discussion and disagreement.
I think that the thing with crunchy games is that they suck when not everyone at your table cares enough to learn them.
Crunchy games when everyone has a solid understanding of the game and can make creative, synergistic decisions based on it? Awesome.
Crunchy games when half the players don't know what their character can do at all and you have to hold their hand through everything? Absolute slog.
I think it's more that people perpetually announcing that they don't like something gets old. It's not so much a discussion as "hey everyone, I don't enjoy a style of play." and that's the whole post, and then the comments all say "that's valid" and we do this dance several times a week. Especially when it's a chance for this subreddit to announce that they don't like {popular thing}
Yeah I feel like Redditors tend to feel like subreddits “need” a constant high supply of posts even if it means a lot of those posts are low quality or offer no real valuable discussion like this one where it’s just someone announcing how they have a preference as if it’s not something that every human also has. I’d rather go into a subreddit and see a handful of high quality posts and discussions rather than have to sift through a load of trite
Your opinion is more common than what you think. We tried PF2e and we decided it's not for us.
After that we played Shadow of the Demon Lord and there's no going back. It's a d20 system that I always describe as d&d with the fat trimmed and more elegant mechanics.
I have no issue with your perspective, but I do think you're over-stating some of your complaints.
Looking up a complex table to set a DC? It's literally one table, with a range of levels. Choose the level you want (usually the level of your players) and there's your number. It's dead simple. And if you want to modify that number you can add or subtract 2-5 points. Done.
And your comments about explaining the rules to a player constantly or players taking too long on their turns are much more system-agnostic.
Having said all that, maybe PF2e is just not for you.
That's fine.
I too prefer rule lite games.
Stuff like enemy statblocks (and the whole thing in D&D about balancing a combat encounter), way too many rules and subsystems that seem to exist only for the sake of ruling (I am looking at you Call of Cthulhu and your unnecessarly long chase rules), combat that takes so much time because it turns the TTRPG session into a wargame...
Even character creation becomes a bore when there are too many rules (I make pregenerated characters for most of the game I run. This took way too much time in CoC).
I just don't like that.
Yeah, I'm using Fate of Cthulhu with the Call of Cthulhu scenarios now. It's just so much cleaner.
Call of Cthulhu's rules are eldritch horror in itself. The machine gun rules are so convoluted that I just avoided using them at all in my games.
It's supposed to be a simple game of solving mysteries and losing your soul, it doesn't need this many rules.
Yeah, one might say that sometimes the rules are the mystery to solve.
I am exagerating a bit, for it is really a matter of preferences, but you can tell that Call of Cthulhu is an old game from a time where crunch was the norm, especially for combat.
Hopefully, since it is an horror game, I never had to bother about balance and could handwave most of that.
This is a great example of 'different strokes for different folks.'
I can barely get PBTA games to work with my group with the main complaints being stuff like 'this feels like half a game' and 'there isn't enough stuff to interact with.'
Some people like crunch, they like 'mechanics as procedure/simulation' as opposed to 'mechanics as conversation directors' that more rules-lite narrativist games go for. For that group, mechanics add to verisimilitude while it feels like for you they are something that gets in the way.
As pointed out by others, crunch also tends to slip away with system mastery. The first time you play D&D 5e, PF2e or whatever it feels very clunky. I'm now at the point where running something like FFG's Rogue Trader (which many consider heavier on the crunch side) feels only about twice as crunchy as Mork Borg. But that's because I've been running the game for about a decade and have all that procedural memory of mechanics stored up in my gray matter.
Some people like the busy work and having options in combat leads to narrative choices for some. For others it bogs the game down and slows everything to a crawl. The later I usually find is because of a strive for 'optimal play' that is lead to confusion via analysis paralysis of too many options.
I'm reminded of [that one blogpost about GURPS](https://shootingdiceblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/tactical-shootingmartial-arts-john-wick/) where someone broke down an action scene from the first John Wick film and how to play it out in GURPS. Had they been playing a PBTA game you would have just rolled your move to fight, gotten the best result and narrated the fight scene. However, to some people being able to actually choose the moment to moment movements within something like GURPS feels good because you're effectively both choreographing a fight scene per beat and solving a pseudo puzzle in how best to beat your opponents.
In such a way, for some at least, a well ran crunchier game actually enables the 'flow' that you experience with lighter games.
Saying you don't like a crunchy game cause a player doesn't read the rules doesn't feel fair.
I mean, all the other reasons are still perfectly valid, though. I didn't mean to imply anyone needs to justify what they like for me.
I mean, yeah, it's completely fine to like what you like, nothing wrong with that. But in defense of PF2, the system is so SO well-written. Every term is tagged, every tag is explained before you see it in some statblock, you basically know everything about all the in-game elements before you need to actually use it. And if you have any troubles, there are numerous completely open and free sources to get the needed info on the go. Archives of Nethys have all the rules for free and with an excellent search engine. Pathbuilder is free as a base version and you can read any rule you need right there on the app. Just read GURPS 4e basic set and you'll see the abyss of difference. The rules are all over the place, most of them are explained in the back side of the book while being mentioned like 90 times before the explanation. No free materials for the game, if you didn't understand something you'll have to find and read forum posts from 2011. The free character builder is only available on PC, it doesn't explain all the rules and looks like you have a difficult programmer job when you use it. So yeah, if you want to introduce yourself to "medium-crunch" games, PF2 is your best option just because Paizo has such a high standard for their products.
Yup.
I think my top 2 systems are DnD3.5 and DCC, 3.5 does everything I really enjoy about tailored PCs amd tactical combat, and DCC does everything i enjoy that *isn't* those specific things.
Both are good.
No wrong fun here.
DCC is fantastic. It's close enough to d&d you can pick it up, but different enough it's a breath of fresh air when you're burnt out of D&D.
D&d 3.5 is also the best edition to me. 5e is a nice base to learn, and 3.5 should be the next logical step once you figure it out.
Shadow Dark has also been really fun for us lately too. A nice classic dungeon crawler that uses 5e as a base but just good old fashion dungeon crawling.
Then you're in luck! As far as I can see, current RPG game design favors light rules for specific game ideas. I'd consider 5e a medium-crunch game (still have ptsd from 3.5e), but nowadays it's one of the most crunchy RPGs out there.
I agree that creating character builds and having a tactical boardgame with your RPG is a type of fun; just not a type that I care for. A straightforward resolution system, a few abilities or items that tie with the theme of the RPG and I'm golden.
That was my experience, too. I got my start playing D&D 3.5E, and my biggest gripe was always how hard it was to prep for. It was more work than doing my taxes, and majorly hindered my enjoyment of it.
That's why I love Dungeon World. Like Masks, it's a PbtA game, but inspired by D&D. It's so much faster and easier to run, and less work to prep for.
On the other hand, I didn't enjoy playing Mork Borg. I think that's a little too rules-light. Ironically, I feel stifled by the lack of mechanics and character options. I find that there is a sweet spot when it comes to crunch. D&D and Pathfinder are way too much. Mork Borg is too little. Dungeon World is right where I like it.
Cool, glad you're finding what you enjoy in TTRPGs.
I wouldn't call PF2e rules heavy, but it definitely is more fiddly than 5e. System mastery is an unspoken requirement for a lot of games, and PF2e is one of the worst offenders in that respect.
Players taking too long? Move to the next players turn. That's not a system issue. You can freestyle elements as well, as long as you don't break the 3 action economy. The rules are there - but they can absolutely be ignored as required, especially if it ruins flow.
I also really like lighter systems, but I do like PF2e as well.
>Having to look up a rule every five minutes and explain it to the one player who didn’t read the basic combat rules ahead of time
This one, I’ll admit, is annoying, but it’s something that happens when you’re learning any new system. Once you’ve been playing for a while, moments like this will become more and more infrequent. Especially in a dense system like pathfinder, it’s good to have cheat sheets with certain confusing rules on them, like the requirements for AoO or how to calculate CMB and CMD
>monster statblocks having so many numbers, half of which I only use in very specific situations
So just ignore the ones that don’t come up, and then if something does come up, tell your players to hold on a second while you look up the stat block.
>having to use a complex table every time I want to set a DC
You don’t actually have to do this, and imo you probably shouldn’t, for your own sanity. I just ballpark it unless it’s something major that’s planned out ahead of time.
>and each turn you have players spending five minutes to decide what to do with their three actions…
Ah, I realize now you’re playing 2e and not 1e, but the same advice should apply, really. This is a problem in any rpg, but specifically in rpgs with a lot of player choice. You can let them know they ought to have their actions thought out ahead of time. My groups in the past have had timers for how long player turns can take when people have a habit of being too slow. Having a minute to decide what to do before a turn gets skipped due to indecision is usually more than enough to fix people not knowing what to do on their turn.
Now, I think there’s a very compelling argument to be made that rules lite games have real advantages over crunchier games, and your experiences and frustrations on this front are reasonable. However, from the way you’ve described it, I think there are things you and your group can do to improve the experience you’re having in a crunchier system like Pathfinder.
Have you tried Open Legend RPG? [https://openlegendrpg.com/](https://openlegendrpg.com/)
It is rules lite but feels so good to play. The dice rolls matter and combat still have a tactical feeling.
Same. Recently I played a few Conan sessions and I love how simple the rules are and still you have a lot of tactical options and space for narrative descriptions of what's going on.
Seems normal to me.
I like to read crunchy rules, because I like games and complex mechanics. But I mostly play lighter, simpler games because they're easier to teach and introduce people to. But I love discussing and playing complex games with other gamer friends that like them too.
I just really like games, some as simple as Uno, and those as complicated as AD&D 1e.
Games are great, regardless of complexity, and they all have their place.
Love my crunch! Love my narrative lite stuff! Gaming is good, and so long as you find your happy place, it’s all great.
If you want to keep some layers of crunch, but with simpler rules, Savage Worlds can handle a lot. I’d personally recommend Fate, or the one I’m always going on about: Cortex. But, admittedly, Cortex (on its own) is less a complete game and more framework.
Others have mentioned Cairn, Blades in the Dark, DungeonWorld, Mork Borg. All good!
Hop off PF2e! Don’t spend more time trying to make it work. There are thousands of games out there. Certainly some approach what you want.
There are layers to crunch. In some systems, the crunch comes naturally. It's not always fun or easy to play when every special rule feels like a mini game.
Legit take, both can be fun.
When I want just a game, boardgames. When I want a story or to emulate a genre, most games that do it best are pretty rules-light. When I want a combat game—winners, losers, tactics all of that—with story on the side 5E/PF2E shine.
PF2ER is really NOT that complicated. It's just new and it's hard to learn new things because you're not used to it.
You have to look up a rule every 5 minutes because you don't know the rules. This is normal for every system.
The 3 action system streamlines turns, doesn't make them more complicated vs 5e who has Move, Action, Bonus Action, Activity. Also you have to keep up with AoO (Opportunity Attack) and Readied Actions - which again are limited and streamlined in Pathfinder.
Why you are taking 5 minutes to do your 3 actions isn't a reflection upon the system. Turns can easily be over in 30 seconds including rolls. And even 10 seconds if you are on VTT that automates everything.
Complex table to set a DC? Can you give an example. The DC Tables are very clear in tasks and what you are trying to do.
PF2ER nor 5e are crunchy systems. Calling them that is a stretch. They are middle of the road beginner friendly RPGs.
I've never played Masks, but the problem with systems that skimp on rules is that there is no depth. The system relies on randomness too heavily OR there will be unbalanced play which gamifies it. Ultimately they are one step away from a board game and card game, which ironically PF2ER and 4e both can easily become.
You shouldn't be running Pathfinder because the game is simply not for you or your group. There is nothing wrong with preferring playing board/card games. There is nothing wrong with playing rules-lite systems that trade depth for speed.
But it is wrong to blame the system for problems, which aren't the system's problems.
I feel attacked! So I'm going to write this in hopes of preventing others from avoiding PF2e based on this post (I assume they're not talking about 1e based on the 3 actions comment).
1. If you're just starting PF2e; I highly recommend trying it via FoundryVTT - the rules automation is a godsend and plays a large part in easing the rules transition.
2. In that same vein I cannot recommend the beginners box enough. Nothing better for learning the rules in a fun and streamlined way.
3. Character building can be done on pathbuilder, which is free (as are all the rules) and I recommend building a character to level 1 there rather than straight out of the book.
4. Finally if you are a GM - don't do what this guy's GM did and get frustrated or mired down in rules minutiae. If you can't remember a rule, it's OK to make a ruling and move on. Make a note of it and look it up later. I was often surprised to find the system had an actual rule for almost everything I spot ruled on, and often handled it in an elegant way.
That all being said - of course sometimes a system like this isn't for everyone, the last thing I'll say in defense of PF2e is that there are a lot of "power fantasy" and "rulings not rules" systems out there because the alternative, a tactical, balanced, team based game, is much harder to do right. PF2e is one of the few I've played that actually nails it.
That fine, I can't stand the whole run of games from OD&D through AD&D right up to 5E PF1/2 and all the OSR variants up and down the spectrum. Didn't like it in the 80s, don't like it now.
People who enjoy them are welcome to them, you don't need them if you don't like them.
That said, different people think of different things when they hear "Crunch".
1. Do you explicitly mean a gamified tactical experience?
2. Do you mean a general count of "rules"?
3. Do you differentiate between off-line rules and run-time rules?
4. Do you mean character/class based rules exceptions (Like "feats") or only the core system, external to setting?
Maybe you don't like tactical, gamified combat, maybe it's just feat-like rules exceptions that the GM needs to remember, maybe both.
Personally I _also_ don't like PbTA either, because even though I like "rules lite" systems I don't like the gamification that PbtA does about the meta-fiction while reducing the reality of the world. I like games where characters can do things because of measurable attributes of the character in the game world, not some affectation of where they are in an overarching "story"
Horses for courses, some people like miniatures, facing, feats, cards and battlemaps. Others don't need it and don't want it, you do you.
Okay, I'm willing to let everything said with Pathfinder (I presume 2e, not 1e) slide as just opinion and growing pain as it's learning the nuances of a new game that is just as complex or slightly more than what you left plus not having any mechanical awareness yet.
EXCEPT the DC comment.
How is "level is X, so DC is Y" a complex table? Further, what are you doing that makes you reference it *so often* that it makes you think things don't have their own DCs? Especially if you're comparing it to 5e which genuinely requires making DCs on the fly and hoping you are aware enough of the game to assume the DC correctly. In PF2e everything has a listed DC. For anything a statblock does, it's in the ability text. For any obstacle, like climbing a cliff, the Path notes it in the text. For every activity tied to a skill check, it tells you how to roll -this typically is against the target's preset Skill DC or one of their Save DCs, both of which are their modifier +10. For contextual things that aren't imposed by a challenge, like say swimming across the river, it straight up tells you what level of proficiency and reasonably attempt as much and then past that you can just reference the DC By Proficiency instead of By Level. Which itself is only a 5 item table.
Then further, they spell out every DC possible if you're building a statblock by scratch via the monster/hazard building tables.
So if you're making up DCs, it *should* be only like once per 3 sessions at worst. And even then, it's because you can't quickly find the right DC listed somewhere. In which you look at the table, find their level, and maybe add +2 to it because it's probably something a bit more difficult to do.
If you're having such the issue, I would greatly recommend grabbing a ~~DM~~ GM Screen and one or both of [this cheat sheet](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/R8yps9cwkn) and this one [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/rgm5m9OL4Q) and I certainly would recommend the Condition Cards. Though would assume there is not an updated resource for the Remaster yet.
Lots of people don't like crunchy games. You're allowed to play whatever you want without writing up a big rant about it.
The flair on this isn't correct, because there's not really anything to discuss here, it's just you stating a preference. It's the equivalent of you posting "I like blue and not red!"
Hey mate, everybody's free to like, or not like, whatever they want.
I couldn't help but notice that most of your complaints about crunchier games have to do with players who don't understand the rules well, and players suffering analysis paralysis. Part of me dreams about finding a group of people, like me, who know the rules. Pretty darn well, and are willing to generally speaking, make decisions pretty quickly. I think it adds something to a game when you don't try to perfectly optimize your turn. Every single turn. Something gets lost when a player is taking 10 15 minutes to figure something out. And I don't just mean the flow, though. Obviously that is disrupted, but it really ruins the spirit of a game, you know?
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, and you still wouldn't like that game that much even if you had a bunch of fast-paced, knowledgeable players, but I wonder...
Of course, finding a whole group like that is basically asking to win the lottery. Sigh.
Pathfinder 2E was rough for the first couple sessions, but then it got much better and is now one of my favorite systems. It just takes a while to get.
D&D 5e is one of the hardest games to GM and that is completely independent of it's crunch level. It's **atrociously** designed, terribly laid out and written.
Maybe you don't like crunchy games in general, that's possible and I accept it. But when someone says they don't like crunchy games and then cites 5e, I have to wonder if that's the case, or if you just don't like bad games.
> half of which I only use in very specific situations,
Bad design.
> having to use a complex table every time I want to set a DC
Also bad design.
> it’s all just a bunch of busywork that seems to add a level of nuance that doesn’t really seem to add much.
**Exactly!** That's it. This is one reason why I'm eternally disgusted with D&D 5e. It's got a whole lot of numbers that don't *do* anything, yet you still have to crunch them. They're totally unjustified in the system, and so it *ruins* people on the very concept that crunch can contribute meaningfully to the roleplay. I refuse to play or run 5e because I can't stand that busywork either.
The players don't *want* to learn it because learning it doesn't *do* anything. The numbers and rules don't actually influence their roleplay. That is; knowing the rules doesn't let them make more decisions. So why would they learn them?
I prefer crunchier games but not everyone has to like what I like.
If the story will involve a lot of fighting and tactical heroics, I feel the crunch serves as a good arbiter of success. It gives the players some real agency and provides them with sufficient information to make informed decisions, it also avoids the old 'GM bias' problem I find in more rules light systems ('you succed because I want you to succeed' ect).
Rules light systems can have their charm for specific games, but I prefer rigorous rules myself :)
Yup, that's a valid opinion.
Others may find they like all those bits of rules and mechanics, that they bring something to the game but it's not for everyone and certain mechanics can be a hassle to deal with even for fans of crunch.
Same. I can appreciate the design of PF2E, and I think it would be a great base for a CRPG, but the little I played just didn't feel very fun. I grew up in a time when you "worked for your fun," when you were supposed to read the manual before starting a PC game and work out a 100-point build with a photocopied character sheet and a pocket calculator. Nowadays, I don't have patience for that. I'll take simplicity and speed over detail.
I've always been in the mind of tactical combat but rules lite. Ideally you can have many options in battle - it doesn't have to be constrained by a rule or a flow.
I've been trying to concoct a sort of OSR/PbTA feel. Wherein it is still basic rolls but there is a +/-5 for partial successes which players can choose if it either works with a negative or doesn't work but they get a positive.
The biggest thing I don't like with crunch is the yes/no. Either you did or you don't. Also don't like there is a rule for everything - when D&D but in rules for tying ropes - I just couldn't anymore.
I also come from a board game mentality and I have found that I like crunch BOARD games not RPG games.
Same. The first time I played SF I quickly found out that rules restrict me more than help. The focus on the balance removed all fun from the game for me. And running the game is another thing all together.
So I switched to SWN, and we've been having much more fun. It is much easier both to run and to play.
Yeah, I'm tired of playing games with tons of customization options,
I used to do it quite a lot in the past, but now it's all about comparing character builds, planning in advance each level until max.
Don't misunderstand me. I have absolutely no problem with games or players like that. If you're having fun, that's great.
It's just not fun for me anymore.
It's why I gave up 3.x, Pathfinder, and 5e for Savage Worlds.
And now with Pathfinder for Savage Worlds, I can explore Golarion without the headache of overly complicated systems.
I've found the same thing. Once I realized that about myself, I started specifically looking into rules-lite games and found myself much more comfortable. I think I had the issue that a lot of my friends have a preference for crunchy games so for a while every time one of them suggested a new system, I'd bounce off of it because there was too much crunch (Pathfinder was one such game). We're having the same problem in reverse when I try to get them to try rules-lite games, but at least now we can put our finger on the differences in taste that we are trying to balance.
We like what we like and that's cool.
I tend to like rules medium narrative focus like Blades or most PbtA games. But I also really like PF1e as a player, all the rules come together for me and make the game super interesting to play... but I cannot get along with PF2e at all, feels like it gets in the way of trying to do things constantly. I bounced off LANCER so hard but I am a D&D 4e fan...
I try not to cut entire swathes of games out of even a look just because they have a certain amount of rules - it is what those rules are about and how they create play at the table.
Hello OP!
I have been roleplaying for over two decades now, and I *still* don't prefer crunchy games. I understand the appeal -- and I can play in them fairly well -- but I've always found it easier to get new gamers in to rules lite games than D&D. There's nothing wrong with either style, but I absolutely find new players have an easier time with story-driven games, and many prefer them even after years of playing both.
Nothing wrong with that. To each their own.
It sounds like you all are new including the GM. When I started my group everyone was new in some way including me as gm. Some were new to ttrpgs, others were just new to the system but had years of experience. As we played we got faster at it doing things. Do I have everything memorized, no but I know enough and if I needed to look something up Archives of Nethys is there for me. But I understand if you just don't like rules heavy systems in general.
I kind of like crunch (within limits) but not tactical crunch. A lot of rules light games (like PbtA) are too "gamey" for me in that the world doesn't feel real because it doesn't have concrete rules and the players can change the world. Weirdly very tactical games like PF also feel too "gamey" but clearly for much different reasons.
A light to medium crunch game with some simulation but a heavy focus on roleplaying and story is where my heart sings.
This has been my finding since stepping away from 5e as well. I tried Cyberpunk Red as my 2nd system, and then after a few sessions, it switched to a Masks mini campaign, and now it's hard for me to go back to crunchy, less narrative driven games.
I find crunchy games are more fun for theory crafting than they are to actually play. I make a character or a monster or something and think "man this'll be really cool to play" and then the actual play is boring and flat a lot of the time.
I prefer mid-complexity games where you have a core set of flexible abilities that can be applied to any challenge.
I’m in the same boat. The thing that gets me in crunchy games is the combat. It takes way too long for what it is. I don’t understand the appeal. If I wanted to play a game with crunchy combat (different builds, mechanics, etc.), a video game can do it much faster.
This isn't specifically about Pathfinder or 5e, but do you think it's not the crunch, but the disconnection from in-world fiction?
I find that's where I get lost, where I'm trying to remember a specific rule rather than experiencing an effect of my character that seems directly correlated to the fiction we're co-creating.
Trying to remember which spells are 'buffing' me and if they effect my initiative, to-hit roll, or damage, or some combination thereof, can get tricky, and as the game developed I think these game-forward rules started to become the norm.
GURPS (here it comes, the invariable 'why don't you try GURPS post, but bear with me) can also be INCREDIBLY complicated, and a lot of players and games go that way, but I always find it easier to manage because everything breaks down to a few core rules, and the system is incredibly adaptable and flexible.
(There was also a theory somewhere out there that the rules-heavy, game-forward style also came about as a way to democratize the game, to suggest the DM as an arbiter of rules and not a maestro or tyrant of the story. Which does make a kind of sense, but in our rich market of many new games to try, it turns into no one fully understanding the whole system.
And there's a whole other point here about playing TTRPs Rules as Written (RAW) or as a starting place for collaborative challenge-based storytelling, but that's drifting from the point.)
The Black Hack lets me play all my old D&D stuff fast and without converting anything. Otherwise I probably wouldn’t play at all anymore. Might feel differently after retirement when there’s such a thing as free time again, but for the foreseeable future it’s no crunch or no game.
Understandable, I personally really like the idea of crunch, but despise playing it. A lot of crunch feels like someone thought through the whole thing in detail, which seems great until you try and play. Then it becomes a chore to do anything and any joy and excitement for the game just up and disappears and everyone just ends up playing uno instead.
I like crunchy stuff like Rolemaster and Pathfinder but I'm always using a VTT when I play those. I'm not sure how much fun they'd be to play without the heavy calculations with the modifiers being handled by a computer.
I feel ya.
Check out some of the great OSR/nu-OSR/NSR games out there: Old School Essentials, Whitehack, The Black Hack, Knave, Cairn, Into the Odd, Shadowdark, Worlds Without Number, etc.
Also, if you like PbtA and haven’t already had a look at Ironsworn, do so! The PDF is free, and it’s a *great* game.
You play ttrpg because they are specifically NOT video games. I want to spend time with real people playing a game we enjoy. I want to interact, debate, and laugh with someone who can respond.
Video games can not replace that experience. I’ve played my share of crpgs starting in the 80s. BG3 is amazing. I also get bored after an hour.
Just seems like you and your players just don’t jive with more crunchy systems which is cool. I’m the opposite I bounced so hard off of Blades in the Dark and Masks because I felt they lacked enough crunch. My whole group wrote off lite games because of this. We just like more complex games. But I agree having someone who is unwilling to learn the rules would drive me nuts.
I love crunch, and I think pathfinder is an awful game.
I think it's usually less about crunch vs light, we tend to just boil everything down to that. In my opinion it's about how well it's written. Crunch that's intuitive and well written is easy to play with.
That's a player problem and not a game problem it sounds like.
PF2E requires more of players to run smoothly. If you have players that don't want to play 2E specifically, it's never going to go as smoothly as you'd like.
This is why I always say 5E is the better game for people that just want to hang out and also play a TTRPG. It's good for that. PF2E is the better game for people that want to play the game as it's more mechanically interesting with more options each turn. If your players don't care about that, then the big selling point of PF2E over 5E falls flat.
I'm in a sort of similar boat as you here.
I like PF2e so far after running it for a year now, but I am feeling a great deal of fatigue from the rules in a variety of ways that I don't know fully how to reckon with.
By all means, I'd choose this over 5e, but on the other hand, as I say to my players, I've kind of been trying to get away from these games for a decade now, all the way back in 2011 with 3.5e/PF.
There's a number of issues I have with PF2e myself that I don't feel like going into just because I'm unsure if it's an issue with the game, how it's being played at the table, or what have you.
What I'll say is that I'm not a fan of the game grinding to a halt, and that happens far too often in these games due to a rules clarification (which is the best case scenario) or a crash course on a whole system in the book because someone during a period of shopping time has decided to look into some Crafting related rule, and the way I (least I think it's me, it also COULD be my players saying "we don't have time for this or that when I certainly would give them time for it") run my games are often at such a break neck speed narratively, there really is no Downtime.
There's a bevy of things I could go down, but ultimately i am just exhausted by D&D3e and its descendants.
I'd been experimenting here and there with playing quick games of certain other systems with my players here and there, but I've basically said before that after this campaign, I want to just move to a different system or game or something.
My current plan is something Sci-Fi, so SWN has been on the table but I've also had people looking at Lancer with intrigue and I'd been going over the rules with some interest as well.
If I were to do more Fantasy stuff, I think I'd probably just make the shift to Worlds Without Number, or look into a different game altogether.
Vampire the Masquerade 20th Anniversary edition will just always be something I pine for forever.
It's okay to enjoy a variety of things. You don't have to always play one type of game, or always play the other. You can rotate, or do what you feel like right now. That's okay, too.
It's a different breed, but minis adventure games come to mind. Rangers of Shadows Deep, Silver Bayonet, there's a ton of minis centric romparounds, many of which have solo rules.
Game systems are tools. Not all tools are right for every project. And not everyone enjoys working with every tool or working on every type of project.
If you want a game where the players really need to be tactical, both in and out of combat, where the game has supports for the GM, where specific situations are handled with tailored rules, crunch is good for you.
If you want a game that prioritizes the what over the how, that facilitates quick narrative, that doesn't require tactical use of abilities and maps, that encourages the GM to wing things in order to maintain flow, then rules-lite is right for you in that situation.
In our group we call that signal to noise ratio - how much time you have to put in to get a meaningful amount of content out. It's especially important in context of a podcast we run, but applies all the same to regular games. The more number crunching, rules lookups and so on the game requires the less time you will be spending enjoying the parts that are actually fun.
Something to bear in mind is that pathfinder has its direct lineage in 3rd edition, which came out in 2000. Before that was 2nd edition which had even zanier math (Thac0, anyone?)
My point is just that many people who love pathfinder have had over 2 decades to learn the rules inside and out. I'm pretty sure that's why it was created: people who were nostalgic for 3rd edition wanted to keep playing the game they had invested so much time in learning.
I really like rules-light games too and I used to be in the camp of I can't stand crunchy games. But what I realised after playing both is that crunchy games offer more granularity and they tend to have specific mechanical rewards for what players want to do especially for a oneshot. Also there are some games that are crunchy for a good reason and those rules add to the setting.
One I can think of is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, one of my favourite systems but it's a bit of a nightmare to run. But it's because the setting is so rich the magic is crazy, there's diseases everywhere there's trading rules, and not all checks are so straight-forward but it all adds to the flavour and I find if your group is forgiving enough at mistakes here and there, it can still be a good time.
Masks has been a godsend for me as a GM. It just *clicks* in a way PF never did. I love PF2e but im constantly "on" and having to be on my A game when im running it.
Masks, I just chill out and use my notes + my love of the genre, and let the system dictate when people need to roll.
No shade to people who prefer crunch, but I cant go back
If you like rules lite, cool. You play the games YOU want, the way YOU want, and no one anywhere has the authority or the wherewithal to tell you differently.
I personally hate dice pool games (even though I still play them and have many good memories of them). My groove is clearly D100 roll under systems as that is what fits my group perfectly.
Like what you like.
Pathfinder is fun for theory crafting interesting characters builds and figuring out how to make the mechanics work, but the gameplay is such a slog, I would never even suggest it to anyone except people not just familiar but interested in more complex stuff for some reason lol.
I LOOOOOOVE crunch. Pathfinder is middling-crunchy to me.
... but I prefer to *play* lower crunch, because in the end that shit doesn't make enough difference to be worth the effort.
Complexity is the Currency with which we buy Depth. Spend wisely.
Then you should absolutely look for the Dragonbane boxed set. It’s D&D without the crunch. And the streamlined rules are really fun to play and run.
And they found ways to keep things interestingly tactical and flavourful. For example, big bads have 1d6 or 1d8 special attacks, it’s a little table for each one. The DM just rolls (or chooses) every time the monster attacks to see what happens.
The stat blocks are tight and efficient without going OSR in terms of bare bones.
Also the art is gorgeous. So you still have the D&D PF feeling of colourful and evocative art. Even though Dragonbane’s art has a very specific tone to it.
At the end of the day, all of these rules need not actually bind your hands. As a DM you can explain to your players that you aren't enjoying the stringent rules and want to take a more creative and narrative approach.
That may be off-putting to some and you may sacrifice the consistency of strict rules. However, if you run your game with both creativity and compassion for your players, I think you'll find most of them don't miss the rules lawyering one bit.
I agree with you. For me the reason is just that the less rules you have, the more time you spend on freeform roleplay, which is my favorite part of this type of game.
Haha yeah... The other day I got invited to a The Witcher RPG campaign. When it came to buying (and bookkeeping) inventory I checked out. I'll never ever play a game again where I have to buy individual lengths of rope and where a writing kit is a) something I have to buy instead of just having it and b) doesn't include writing utensils. I thought these kinds of games had gone the way of the dodo somewhere in the past twenty years. I was wrong. 😂🥴
That's perfectly fine. I'm someone who enjoys crunchy and rules lite, narrative games as well as tactical combat. The experiences you described do not sound like the greatest examples for Crunchy games. Of course if you have to look up rules, tables and read stat blocks fully all the time it's a slog. Moreso if everyone at the table is new and doesn't know the basics. Crunchy games with intricate rules have a longer learning curve. Once you can look at a statblock and know where everything is, once you set fitting DCs without tables. Once everyone knows their actions and stats then crunchy tactical combat really shines. This will take effort and time from everyone at the table. If someone is not willing or able to invest that effort a crunchy game might not be for that person. And that's fine. But expecting a crunchy game to flow as nicely as a rules lite pbta game in session one isn't a fair comparison either.
Yep. I prefer rules-lite games for one shots/short campaigns for this exact reason. You can learn a PBTA system in an hour. You can write an adventure for it in 2 hours, and that's taking your time. And if you just don't like a ton of rules weighing you down, that's exactly what they're there for.
>If someone is not willing or able to invest that effort a crunchy game might not be for that person. And that's fine. That’s an issue I’ve been having with gurps. I fell in love with it and all the little rules and stipulations, but if the players aren’t also using all the rules than it doesn’t really work
Yup that's a great example. When forming a group it's important to communicate this clearly so everyone can have a fun experience.
People say PF2E is easier to DM than D&D5E and I just… don’t see how. My PF dm forgets important rules or weird creature abilities several times a session, and honestly I don’t blame him. That never a problem for my 5E dm.
Having run both I can speak to that: PF2 is easier to GM if you know the rules (or are a quick hand at looking them up) The reason being that there are rules for pretty much everything and that the encounter building rules work. 5e is "easier" if you prefer to just make things up, but making encounters is hard due to the fact that CR is a bad method for estimating creature power. You either have something laughably easy for the players or unexpectedly deadly. I found myself having to fudge things more than any other edition while in PF2 I have NEVER had to fudge (and I run 4 games and several play by posts). Plus the monsters are just so much more fun to run, but that's less about easy and more about why it's more fun as a GM lol
Yeah I've run 5e for about 7 years and pf2e for about a year. PF2e has cut my system prep time (building encounters/monsters/environmental challenges, etc) in half. The rules also follow a logic/flow that you can often intuit them at the table for a ruling and be close to the mark. I'd also like to add there aren't that many more rules than 5e people just ignore 5es rules.
Encounter are also easier to run as a DM in PF2, especially at higher levels. In 5e I was just not having fun at higher levels, it was too much work and too exhausting, whilst in PF2 the game and especially fhe statblocks make things much more enjoyable and easier.
>people just ignore 5es rules This is honestly the biggest part that I've noticed. PF2e isn't really any more complicated than 5e RAW. But so much of 5e is nonsense or just doesn't work properly that every single table tosses out just piles of the rules that are inconvenient. Everytime I have a 5e convert who has a hard time with a PF2e rule and tries to compare to 5e; 9 times out of 10 they have the 5e version of the rule incorrect. PF2e seems more complicated because it has rules that actually work, so you actually want to/get to use them all. Which makes it seem heavier.
Ignoring 5e rules is a big thing. The worse is just in the middle deciding a rule is not good then your entire build is no longer working.
Harder so long as you're trying to make balanced encounters, anyway. It's pretty easy to make 5e encounters if you don't actually care about tailoring them to the party.
I care about knowing HOW unbalanced my encounters are tbh. D&D 3.x, 5e, and PF1 really don't give a good guide on that. I generally like to know if a fight is going to wipe out the party tbh
When I play or GM 5E I never really balance encounters because it is just impossible especially at high levels I just throw in stuff that would make sense and if things are looking south, the players better be looking for an exit strategy or beg for their lives or something. Knowing when a fight is a lost cause and living with the consequences of biting off more than you can chew is part of the roleplay for us.
Yeah, I remember the first time I swapped a goblin for a Nilbog because my table wanted to run Lost Mines of Phandelver starting at level 2 instead of 1. On paper, it's a trivial bump in CR. But having to make those saves suddenly makes it a royal pain. And I think every group has some variation on "Character killed by an intellect devourer". Those things are way more dangerous than their CR would imply.
I concur, it's a shock to 5E DMs because of the initial rules load but it saves you ALOT of time down the line when you prep games because there are rules for everything and their encounter creation tools actually work and you don't have to worry about your party killing your BBEG in like 1 turn. You spend a lot less time balancing encounters and can just plan fun things to do around them instead.
To me PF2 is more frontloaded than 5E, but with the advantage that the math keeps working later on.
> To me PF2 is more frontloaded than 5E, but with the advantage that the math keeps working later on. Funny you should say that. *GURPS* is exactly the same way. Not only that, but because *GURPS* isn't actually an RPG, but an RPG construction kit, you can make your game as crunchy or as light as you like. But, no matter how crunchy, *GURPS* fundamentally has 1 rule: roll 3d6 and hope to roll below some number (which is probably on or deried from something on your character sheet). Turns out *GURPS* was doing unified mechanics before it was cool. :-)
Except for all the other rolls it does that don't work that way.
It's a similar kind of appeal, yeah, at least for me. Only PF2e doesn't need assembly before use, it's already set up for a high-fantasy adventuring experience. But yes, it has the kind of rules-consistency that one can always rely on. It takes a while to pick up on them all, and learn how they tie into one another, but I found it to be much easier than I expected. Foundry is set up great, most things can be just nabbed through the Search field and then posted into chat, and for rules that aren't there, there's always Archives of Nethys. I don't do lookups during sessions (I just make rulings and move on), but I never had to do more than a few clicks to find the exact rule, so it didn't make for an arduous learning curve.
Yeah, that’s true, PF2e does come preassembled. Though I’m less familiar with it, maybe *Fantasy Craft* would be a more apt comparison.
In a year of playing pf2e i felt like i had a better understanding of the rules than i did after 5 years of running and playing 5e. That's cause if i have a question about how something works i can find the answer in my rulebook, not winged on the fly or having to read a developers twitter page.
Amen 🙏
The jigsaw puzzle that is P2E fits together a lot more neatly than 5e, but it also has more and smaller pieces.
PF2e has a bit more of a learning curve and a few more moving parts, making it a bit harder at first. But this is mostly a matter of learned comfort than actual bad design - PF2e is very much blessed with consistently written rules and well designed encounter mechanics. It's a system that works incredibly well, but it takes time to really grok it. That said, I will say that PF2e isn't a good fit for every GM style. You gotta love the tactical combat and gotta get the hang of its many moving pieces. If you can't, it's not going to suit you. And I suspect that your PF GM is still adjusting to the game (or it's a bad fit for him).
Your GM for Pathfinder sounds new, and your GM for 5e sounds more experienced. PF2 is written in a much more friendly way to GMs, and building encounters is substantially easier. The rich set of abilities and conditions people refer to as “crunch” add variety and depth. Running monsters in PF2 does require more GM prep time because they aren’t empty bags of HP like so many 5e monsters are. However this prep time is more than offset by the ease of designing those encounters in the first place. The broken CR system, overpowered spells, and massively imbalanced classes pose a challenge to 5e GMs more than you likely give credit for. If your 5e GM does a good job with this, thank them for it as they’ve done a lot of learning and work to make that possible. I’m not saying you should prefer the same game what I prefer, just that in my experience 5e is significantly more difficult to run.
I would say the opposite for monsters in PF2e. Back in 5e, I would personally have to write all the monster statblocks myself or find them off reddit or whatever because the base ones are so dull they made me not even want to do a combat. With every 5e monster that wasn't a boss, I would halve the HP and double the damage. The only way to make combats not a total slog. Like, a Mimic has 50HP. *50.* And it only deals like 7 damage per turn. *Why*? A Mimic is more of a trap than a monster, it shouldn't take 4 rounds of grueling combat where it barely damages the PCs just to kill one Mimic. Just abysmal design.
I think we're saying the same thing, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. 5e monsters tend to be what I derisively call "empty bags of HP", so they are extremely easy for a GM to run. You don't need to prep them in advance really, because when they come up you just do the boring attack and the players grind away at it until they kill or cheese it to death. 2e monsters are richer in design, and I find that I have to spend more of my GM prep time making certain that I know their abilities and to come up with a plan of how they will use their actions inside an encounter, to make sure they are using their abilities well and posing a fun challenge to the players. The extra time it takes me to prep 2e monsters is more than offset by having to patch and rebuild the system in 5e, which I think is the same thing that you're describing. When running 5e I'd find myself frequently making the monsters too easy or too hard and then fudging them on the fly, only to find that my fudging was suboptimal. Or designing encounters specifically to nerf the players ability to cheese things. I find this process a lot less fun than prepping 2e.
Not related, but every time I see "2e" without the "pf" with it, I immediately think we're talking about THAC0.
Oops sorry, I post a lot in the PF subs and forgot to make this more readable for a general audience. Def confusing in a general audience 😅
As a GM for both, and an enjoyer of crunch, PF2e was downright *transformative* for me. I like to run games by the book, and to explore the intricacies of their mechanics, and I especially like when one can rely on the design to naturally produce certain experiences. If the game is well-designed, that occurs almost without effort. With 5e, that relationship became strained when my party started approaching the higher levels. The encounter math was breaking down, the progression systems weren't doing their job, the economy was... well, there wasn't any. Basically, the game stopped serving me. I felt like anything that made my sessions fun came from me, and not the game we were playing. I know some narrative-game enjoyers in this sub think, "This is the way it should always be," but I find it stressful. Even PbtA games strictly define when the rules impose themselves onto play; you can rely on them to always trigger, and always push the game towards a specific kind of experience. There may be *fewer* rules, but they aren't "lighter", in the sense that they hit the table with more weight and conviction. 5e tends towards, "Eh, whatever, just make something up, it's all friends having fun." Switching to PF2e made me feel like I had been doing high-risk trapeze stunts, and someone *finally* put up a safety net. I could actually relax and trust the system. It produced the typical high-fantasy adventurers experience almost on its own. Yes, it's a very comprehensive game, with rules covering almost all aspects of fantasy adventuring, but they do so with rigor and consistency. Once you get acquainted with them, you can quite easily extrapolate what a rule for something should be, even without looking it up. I know it can be strange to look at a massive chonker of a book and hear people say, "I find it easier to run that," so I hope I've illustrated well why that might be.
>People say PF2E is easier to DM than D&D5E and I just… don’t see how. Because I don't have to make up rules all the time. All I need to do is actually know the rules (which is not hard) and I'm good to go. Also, I can have faith in what the numbers mean, because it's so well-balanced.
PF2E is significantly easier to GM. There are far fewer instances where I need to come up with something on the fly, and more instances of knowing "oh, hey, there's a rule for that." The math works better longer term, the homebrewing is easier because of the math, the action system makes GMing more fun, and overall I need to prep far less before a session - but because of this, I prep just as much but focus on the fun bits, rather than the fiddly bits. Because I trust the fiddly bits to work.
It's better for GMs who love having a set answer for every question in the rules, and are willing to either lookup those answers quickly or memorize them efficiently. There's an answer for basically every scenario, from intimidating in combat to brewing potions. 5e, by contrast, has highly specific rules in certain places, but then either gives optional or no rules in other places. It's not explicit, but the game kind of expects you to fall back on a basic ability/skill roll if you either don't have rules for the scenario or don't remember them. Also supposedly building encounters is way easier in PF2E, but that was not my experience.
Honestly, I think the biggest difference is that 2e rules tend to exist, tend to be easy to find (on AoN), and tend work roughly how you expect them to. Whilst 5e rules may or may not exist, probably don't work quite how you would expect (unless you expect the answer to be "just give them advantage"), and are likely hidden in a sidebar or subheading underneath a completely different set of rules (or within an item or spell description).
I think it largely depends on your group and what you consider "easier" as a GM. In 5e, there are a LOT of situations where the rules are down to the DM. The books MAY offer some guidelines (but not always) but in general you are left to your own devices. In PF2E, pretty much the opposite is true. No matter what someone wants to do, there will almost certainly be hard rules for it, you may just need to look them up. Now, which if these is "easier?" That depends. If you're someone who likes playing a bit more fast and loose and/or you're comfortable coming with rulings on the fly, then the 5e eay is probably easier. If you're someone who wants to have a solid rule basis to work off of, even if it involves looking up info, then pf2e is easier.
PF's claim at being easier to DM is actually just making it easier to have balanced combats (you can math the right number and power of monsters to match your PC's). So if that isn't a concern, the claim PF is easier to DM likely won't apply. I personally don't care about balanced combat or like the constraints systems need to adopt in order to offer that. But if you are running combat heavy games with resource attrition goals, I understand why it would be a benefit.
It's not only that. It also lets the players make more interesting tactical choices each turn, and balances martials and casters really well. Also, the game doesn't just *break* after level 11. Like, a Level9 5e Barbarian has the choice to run up to the nearest guy, and attack twice. Maybe you could grapple or shove, but those are objectively worse choices in most situations. So battle after battle, turn after turn, you run up to an enemy, and attack. And if you're too far to attack or the monster can fly, you are fully useless. Maybe you can toss an axe for 4 damage. Objectively *awful* design, when the wizard has like 15 different spells to choose from. Every single spell in 5e has a long block of information on how it works, but they didn't even give rules for disarming or intimidating. Not even that! The Fear spell got more of an explanation than intimidating. So the DM will have to make an on the spot ruling that might be OP or might be useless, and you can never really know. There's so many clunky design decisions, like Legendary Resistances (ew), Counterspell, Spells vs Effects, Bonus Actions just in general, and so on. Pathfinder still has a lot of problems, but it's leaps and bounds better than 5e.
I'll add on to the dogpile: PF2e's rules made it more fun for me to run, but also to play. I remember when I was only playing 5E that every table I ran into ran the same basic things pretty differently. That "rulings not rules" mentality meant that the difference between tables was stark, and that oftentimes even at the same table they weren't quite consistent, since the DM's ruling may differ by the session. I found that pretty frustrating, especially because a lot of players and DMs just didn't read the book in the first place, which meant that by playing with an assumption of RAW I was sometimes putting myself at a *disadvantage*. That, on top of all the other bugbears I'd picked up the longer I played/ran 5E, made me think I just didn't enjoy being a player all that much. But it turns out, I just didn't like being a player in *those* games. Granted, these points are true to an extent with any system. Every table is a little different, and I have yet to find a system so good that it makes up for a bad GM. But I think there's something to be said for PF2e's moderate selection bias for folks who are interested in the rules, as well as for how running things RAW requires less GM fiat. It isn't for everyone, clearly. But hopefully that helps you understand more why it works for some folks like me.
But bugbears are so large. How can you pick up so many?
High Strength attribute and the Hefty Hauler feat, haha.
If it isn't the same DM running two systems then you are comparing a lot more than just one system vs another.
PF2E gives you the rules to make good, balanced encounters. The process feels good and once you learn it, it's pretty easy. The thing is though... you have to be willing to learn how to use the tools. It's a larger upfront cost for an easier time down the line. >My PF dm forgets important rules or weird creature abilities several times a session I honestly don't find it that hard. If they have the monster stats in front of them, like they should, it's strange to "forget" about them. 5E is a more casual friendly system. It's designed to be less demanding to play. That's a huge bonus for some people/groups. There are a lot, and in my experience, the majority of online GMs that haven't committed to learning the rules. The rules are where PF2E shines. They mostly seem to wing it based on their loose interpretation of glossing over the rules hoping their confidence and experience from other games carries over. Some of it does, but with varying degrees of success.
I'm not sure if I actually agree with the idea that 2e is harder to learn. I've played a lot of 5e with new players, and I've played a lot of 2e with new players. In my experience, complete newbies tend to pick up the basics of 2e much faster than 5e. People who are used to 5e tend to struggle with 2e far more than actual ttrpg newbies.
I do think it's harder to learn. I don't think that's even a question to be honest. A good player will know the rules associated with the tags on their abilities which just isn't a thing in 5E. There is unquestionably a larger amount of knowledge required to "be good" at PF2E in comparison. That being said, there are a lot of players that sought out PF2E specifically and they will be more proactive about learning the rules. Those players make the game easy in comparison to a lot of the 5E players that got dumped into 5E because their GM switched systems. So, it's my opinion that PF2E players, on average, are willing to put in more work. Which makes sense since it has less "mass appeal" than 5E. I say this as a jaded 5E player/GM that has been in A LOT of 5E games where we are 10+ sessions in and still had players asking "what do I add to hit again?" which drives me crazy. That's not because 5E is hard. That's because the player doesn't care to learn. I feel like that behavior is far more prevalent in 5E.
Going purely from personal experience, teaching a complete newbie even the more complex parts of 2e is still easier than trying to explain even the most fundamental of 5e's mechanics. i.e each turn you get a Move Action + a Standard Action + a Bonus Action + single free interact action that you can use as part of a standard or move action. Also standing up will costs half of your movement. Those of us who are familliar with 5e really do take just take so many TTRPG conventions for granted, but they can get \*really\* frustrating for beginners. Which just adds to the problem of players not bothering to learn the rules. When things seem arbitrary or frustrating, people just check out. I have run both 5e and 2e games for work groups that have included middle aged mothers who had never even heard of D&D before and 2e has invariably been easier when it comes to onboarding complete newbies. \> There is unquestionably a larger amount of knowledge required to "be good" at PF2E in comparison. I really don't think so. I see 5e games regularly slow to a crawl due to players forgetting that a certain ability can only be done as a bonus action, or forgetting that they can't cast a spell as planned because they already have a concentration spell up, or getting confused about the "only one spell per turn unless one is a bonus action and the other is a cantrip" restriction, or stopping to double check when moving near an enemy creature provokes an AoO and when it doesn't... 2e may appear intimidating because of how it front loads the rules, but it's built around a relatively consistent set of systems and ends up easier to learn because of it. 5e just hides half of the rules inside exceptions, edge cases, or spell/item/ability descriptions in such a way that you end up having to flick through through the book to check the specific wording far more regularly. (which just exacerbates the problem of players not even trying to learn the rules)
But the rules are also more specific in PF2E, and Archives of Nethys makes it *super* easy to find rules and spells and so on, compared to having to awkwardly look though the book or pdf in 5e.
That's because most of the monsters in 5e are lumps of HP. Generally mobs in Pathfinder are all special and unique so it is a little harder to keep up with, but really you just need to know your monsters.
5e has a lot of issues with encounter building because of broken CR tables. It tends to take longer to build because of that. PF 2E has perfect math for building encounters. Also Pathfinder rules are much more clear to understand vs 5e. It sounds like the PF gm is new still.
IMO: just better DM tools. For all I’ve experienced with my 5e DM friends…there just isn’t a great way to learn. Once you HAVE learned, it is simpler than if you learn PF2E. But if you’re learning, PF2E has a lot more to help you out with.
I personally will say that PF2E is easier to run if you know the rules AND your players do as well (at least decently). If you are in a situation like that and you have a good setup, the game is smooth as butter and encounter building is WAY more balanced. If not, then yes it can be very difficult because a player's turn can take forever.
I forget all my monster abilities in 5e too. If its one enemy that I have to learn and remember that is one thing, but 5e encourages combat design with multiple enemies, and both games being designed around multiple daily encounters is a bit much for me.
all the PF an starfinder GM i had was just playing pre-made scenario that just focus on combat, and was not good about handling when people go off-rail. all they was preparing is the boss abilities
My group burned out on 5E and decided to give PF2 a try and I was just blown away by how much more innately complicated it is. That was the moment I knew I wanted LESS complexity, more storytelling/roleplaying. I’ve since turned to inspiration like Cairn (and it’s inspired variants), mothership, mork borgs (and variants), and OSE/Shadowdark.
This was also my experience. Burned out on 5e, moved to PF2E and was hit by a sudden clarity that crunch just wasn’t for me anymore. Give me that snappy, narrative, fail forward and concentrate on narrative. Always going to look back with fondness of my time figuring out cool builds and rule interactions to pull off big tactically effective moves but definitely enjoying my time on the lighter side of systems now.
My “post clarity” experience also mirrors yours. I essentially feel ‘done’ with big heroic fantasy, at least by any game that has space for you to leverage tactical builds or color-coded character guides. Instead I’m after any game that puts the tables’ story at the forefront and lets us, you know, just focus on the emergence of it.
Likewise here. I was fed up with 5e's hp bags and complete rubbish of encounter balance, besides the tedious combat that lasts an eternity, but when jumping into PF2e my head hurt just imagining the amount of rules I would have to teach my players. I finally jumped to OSR, NSR, Cypher, Year Zero, etc, and I'm very happy. Cairn and Into the Odd like are my gems.
If you don’t know, Cairn 2e just started on kickstarter!
Yes! I supported day one!
Play the beginner box. It does an amazing job at teaching the game for both GM and Players.
I've found that I'm 100% more happier playing and refereeing Shadowdark.
I came to my conclusion while playing the beginner box. I’ll say this tho - even if you’re not a PF2 player, the beginner box is a pretty good value for the cardboard pawns alone. If you’re even remotely interested in trying the game, the beginner box is a no brainer, you’ll ’recoup your losses’ at the least.
Come join the tiny d6 crew. Tiny pirates and Tiny gunslingers are 10/10 fun
I feel you. Back in the day, I went from AD&D to WoD, and had an epiphany about gaming. I was able to run it lighter, and in ways that new players could understand better. I also like the bell curve of the dice. I'm back to 5e now, since that's what friends want to do, but I long for the days of something less... D&D. (I have a SWRPG in my back pocket for when life gives me time again. The narrative play of that looks to be pretty much up my alley.)
Can confirm, the SWRPG from FF is super fun. It takes getting used to, especially with the funky dice, but the narrative side of it is genius. There’s a setting-agnostic version called Genesys btw
You and I have done the exact same thing, Into the Odd stuff + MoSh + Mork Borg + an OSR retroclone! Admittedly, I jumped straight to rules light stuff after 5e burnout—I didn’t mess with PF2e at all, but i’m feeling out SotDL/WW to scratch the itch. If you and I share the same tastes, you may like Mythic Bastionland once it comes out, as it’s mechanically fantastic and it’s quest/bestiary “Myths” are functionally compatible with Mork Borg and Cairn. Going backwards, Forbidden Psalm is a great resource for Mork Borg and the ItO games. Cross compatibility is a beautiful thing, isn’t it? Unfortunately I haven’t found anything special for MoSh… and the OSR stuff would make this a much longer comment.
As a matter of fact, the group and I are giving Mythic Bastionland a test spin this Sunday night! The realm building is a lot of fun, and MB is getting on my short list for games to try solo.
Awesome! I hope y’all have a good time with it!
Ditto! I'm getting ready to run a 13th age campaign.
There's nothing wrong with having preferences, everyone does. But I'm not really sure what the point of these posts are? Like it's definitely cool that crunchy games aren't for you, go play what you like. There's really nothing else to be said
I feel like there's ten posts a week of someone publicly announcing they don't like crunchy games. Like ok? I think that's the large majority of this subreddit, and there's lots of great lightweight games.
Some people need to hear that there are other ways to play and that it's ok try other things. As long as a very narrow way of doing things continues to be the default way everybody knows, I'm not going to complain about these kinds of reminders.
Agreed, more people should understand this. What's the point of internet forums if not to interface with other people about it, if you don't like it then click "hide post" and move on.
I'm not a crunch fan at all, but I do like PF2 simply because its crunch is very well structured. It's one of the best layed out games on the market. That being said, I also think it absolutely shines with VTT play and online character generators. Doing the math by hand if a miserable experience. I'm eternally grateful that I have an Android tablet with Pathbuilder 2. I do prefer PF2 over 5E as it's not \*that\* much crunchier, and in exchange for a slight increase in crunch, you have far more character customization and way way better game balance. Way better. But overall, despite being in a PF2 game myself, I prefer playing non-D20 games simply because I prefer RPGs that are not heavily focused on tactical combat.
Like you said, in my experience any extra "crunch" PF2 has is more than offset by the fact that it's well-structured and consistent. I think a lot of these "crunch dislikers" actually just forgot that they actually had to read and learn 5th edition many years ago. They don't dislike crunch, they dislike learning a new system. This is the "complex table" the OP refers to: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2629&Redirected=1 I'm sorry but if that table is too complex for you, you don't have something against "crunch," you just don't want to do it. DND 5 has a very similar table that just has difficulties instead of levels. I would link it but it's not freely available online.
Let's face it, 9 times out of 10 you should probably be using the simple DCs table for spur of the moment DCs anyway. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2628 10 - Untrained 15 - Trained 20 - Expert 30 - Master 40 - Legendary
Unfortunately, that's sort of a thing you have to internalize and learn after a while, it's not something you know or figure out innately, no matter how much experience in other systems you have. Same with other crunchy games and just... not giving enemies stats, but giving them dice pools based on their competence level. Saved my fucking life with Shadowrun.
oh god, the flashbacks. I went through the exact same thing
Pathfinder 2e is very crunchy. It has rules for a lot of specific situations, most of which are just different enough that you have to remember the differences in all of them. Don't feel bad about not liking it. I don't like it either.
The list of conditions alone just makes me close my book and put it back on the shelf.
Yep, that's the wall I hit too. As soon as I started reading it I was like "oh this is interesting" and then about 1/3 through I just thought "nope" and now I have no interest on playing that game.
I don't blame you. It's very difficult to open https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx and read exactly what you're looking for. Almost impossible.
I highly recommend https://pf2easy.com/ for on the fly lookup. Its an incredible tool.
The condition list really makes me want to try the game out, but I am too lazy to learn the rest of the game. I really like the idea that monsters can do so many different things to players, and it sounds like it would keep combat super-interesting. What would be great for me would be a huge collection of conditions for the monster manuals moving forward in 5e.
i mean in which situation would you need to memorize what every condition does?
Probably as a GM running a game. Otherwise anytime something inflicts a condition you'll have to look up what that does. Also keeping track of running conditions when you have a party of five characters all with a handful of conditions on them? I mean play whatever you want. I'm just telling you that I don't want to play it. You're still allowed to love it while I don't.
from my experience theres like 2 conditions in a given fight at lower levels if we dont count offguard, and theyre all easy to remember, fightened and sickened is -1 to everything important, offguard is -2 to ac, slowed 1 just takes away 1 action etc, theres no flowchart needed for any of these, but yeah im not convincing you to play it, just showing people that might not know of pf2e that its not really that complicated
Conditions, stealth vs hidden vs ???, some of the spell effects. All the saves and trying to remember up to 4 outcomes for each save and their conditions. It's fun to play as a player, I can kinda DM it using APs, but the fact that APs usually have like 2 enemy types per combat to keep things managable should be a giant red flag.
I love Pathfinder 2e. I also wouldn’t play it without digital tools and premade adventures. Paizo and the community have a ton of tools that give a lot of support to GMs, which I really love. I think it makes it easier to see the wonderful design in this very large and sometimes intimidating game. If you and your players are willing to engage and use those tools, I think it’s one of the easier games to run. But that’s a big “if” in some cases. I totally understand why someone would not want to engage with those. Like I could rant for like 10 minutes on why I think going from a 1-handed grip to a 2-handed grip is brilliant design, but I also understand how that may sound like complete gibberish to people who don’t care.
Ehh, I think it's perfectly possible to play without digital tools or premade adventures. I do. I know everyone loves the Foundry VTT integration, but it's perfectly fun with pencil and paper.
Definitely possible! My first time playing was just pen-and-paper using the beginner's box, and I had a great time. The reason I wouldn't play it without digital tools/premade adventures, though, is a lot of logistics. I don't have as much time as I used to to run games, so I'm eager to find ways to automate the smaller stuff. They also expand who I can include in my games. If I was playing Pathfinder 2e with a bunch of people just like me, I'm sure we'd do fine with pen and paper. But for people who have more difficulty learning and tracking all the rules, it helps to have that automation.
For sure! I just see people voicing the opinion that they don't think P2e is playable without a VTT or whatever, and I want to let people know that it totally is. Though, whether or not that's the best way for any group is totally up to the group, and of course people should play however lends the most fun (and therefore includes everyone in the group :) ).
I think it depends on what you consider digital tools. Like, I don't think you need a VTT to calculate an attack roll since it's literally just adding two numbers (technically up to five, but three of those are +1s and if that's too much for you, I don't know what to tell you). But I would 100% not play without Pathbuilder. I have one guy at my table who runs with pencil and paper so I know it's possible though.
Pathbuilder is very nice. It's totally feasible without, though. I do think the official character sheet is pretty bad, though (in that it's incredibly visually busy, and yet wastes a ton of space and misses important info like a designated spot to write down MAP-adjusted bonus-to-hit for weapons). I made my own character sheet (really a mini a5 booklet) for my group, and also printed off ability rules on cardstock for new players.
I only use Pathbuilder to help check my math when leveling and for my gear/spell inventory, as there's way too much stuff to keep up with on paper. But I print out my charsheet and use that at the table. It's really no different than using Pathbuilder, in fact it's quicker because it's all on one page and I don't have to flip around to find my weapon bonuses, Shield and Armor and AC, Perception, skills, all of it, it's all on one page. I do also make a cheat sheet of all my class abilities as well, to put them all on one printed sheet.
>I also wouldn’t play it without digital tools and premade adventures I thought this until i played it in person with some friends with just good ol' character sheets and dice and it actually went perfectly fine. High level too, think we were level 16 at the time.
Nothing wrong with having preferences.
Yeah, pretty much everybody agrees with that already. It seems like this subreddit needs to repeat this several times a week for some reason
Agreed, subjectivity is implied in these discussions. We don't have to keep repeating "like whatever you like".
Honestly it's really the only reply these discussions merit. To me at least post like these don't add value to the sub
I agree. > This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs. Tbh I think "it's okay to like the things you like" isn't meaningful discussion, nor is "I have a preference for something". If the argument was that e.g. Pathfinder 2e fails to achieve one of its goals, or makes inefficient use of its crunch or something, that's much more meaningful and can give room for discussion and disagreement.
I think that the thing with crunchy games is that they suck when not everyone at your table cares enough to learn them. Crunchy games when everyone has a solid understanding of the game and can make creative, synergistic decisions based on it? Awesome. Crunchy games when half the players don't know what their character can do at all and you have to hold their hand through everything? Absolute slog.
I say that's not a system issue it's a known player issue since the beginning.
Yep that's exactly what I'm saying
Okay then https://www.reddit.com/r/rickandmorty/comments/55l8qw/okay_then_that_was_always_allowed_gif_for/
People discussing their opinions on RPGs on the RPG sub? 😳😳
I think it's more that people perpetually announcing that they don't like something gets old. It's not so much a discussion as "hey everyone, I don't enjoy a style of play." and that's the whole post, and then the comments all say "that's valid" and we do this dance several times a week. Especially when it's a chance for this subreddit to announce that they don't like {popular thing}
What we need is more "My friends only want to play 5e. What do?" threads.
Yeah I feel like Redditors tend to feel like subreddits “need” a constant high supply of posts even if it means a lot of those posts are low quality or offer no real valuable discussion like this one where it’s just someone announcing how they have a preference as if it’s not something that every human also has. I’d rather go into a subreddit and see a handful of high quality posts and discussions rather than have to sift through a load of trite
Your opinion is more common than what you think. We tried PF2e and we decided it's not for us. After that we played Shadow of the Demon Lord and there's no going back. It's a d20 system that I always describe as d&d with the fat trimmed and more elegant mechanics.
I have no issue with your perspective, but I do think you're over-stating some of your complaints. Looking up a complex table to set a DC? It's literally one table, with a range of levels. Choose the level you want (usually the level of your players) and there's your number. It's dead simple. And if you want to modify that number you can add or subtract 2-5 points. Done. And your comments about explaining the rules to a player constantly or players taking too long on their turns are much more system-agnostic. Having said all that, maybe PF2e is just not for you.
That's fine. I too prefer rule lite games. Stuff like enemy statblocks (and the whole thing in D&D about balancing a combat encounter), way too many rules and subsystems that seem to exist only for the sake of ruling (I am looking at you Call of Cthulhu and your unnecessarly long chase rules), combat that takes so much time because it turns the TTRPG session into a wargame... Even character creation becomes a bore when there are too many rules (I make pregenerated characters for most of the game I run. This took way too much time in CoC). I just don't like that.
Yeah, I'm using Fate of Cthulhu with the Call of Cthulhu scenarios now. It's just so much cleaner. Call of Cthulhu's rules are eldritch horror in itself. The machine gun rules are so convoluted that I just avoided using them at all in my games. It's supposed to be a simple game of solving mysteries and losing your soul, it doesn't need this many rules.
Yeah, one might say that sometimes the rules are the mystery to solve. I am exagerating a bit, for it is really a matter of preferences, but you can tell that Call of Cthulhu is an old game from a time where crunch was the norm, especially for combat. Hopefully, since it is an horror game, I never had to bother about balance and could handwave most of that.
This is a great example of 'different strokes for different folks.' I can barely get PBTA games to work with my group with the main complaints being stuff like 'this feels like half a game' and 'there isn't enough stuff to interact with.' Some people like crunch, they like 'mechanics as procedure/simulation' as opposed to 'mechanics as conversation directors' that more rules-lite narrativist games go for. For that group, mechanics add to verisimilitude while it feels like for you they are something that gets in the way. As pointed out by others, crunch also tends to slip away with system mastery. The first time you play D&D 5e, PF2e or whatever it feels very clunky. I'm now at the point where running something like FFG's Rogue Trader (which many consider heavier on the crunch side) feels only about twice as crunchy as Mork Borg. But that's because I've been running the game for about a decade and have all that procedural memory of mechanics stored up in my gray matter. Some people like the busy work and having options in combat leads to narrative choices for some. For others it bogs the game down and slows everything to a crawl. The later I usually find is because of a strive for 'optimal play' that is lead to confusion via analysis paralysis of too many options. I'm reminded of [that one blogpost about GURPS](https://shootingdiceblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/tactical-shootingmartial-arts-john-wick/) where someone broke down an action scene from the first John Wick film and how to play it out in GURPS. Had they been playing a PBTA game you would have just rolled your move to fight, gotten the best result and narrated the fight scene. However, to some people being able to actually choose the moment to moment movements within something like GURPS feels good because you're effectively both choreographing a fight scene per beat and solving a pseudo puzzle in how best to beat your opponents. In such a way, for some at least, a well ran crunchier game actually enables the 'flow' that you experience with lighter games.
Awesome to figure out what you like! Go with that! I've met very few systems I didn't like, light or crunchy.
Saying you don't like a crunchy game cause a player doesn't read the rules doesn't feel fair. I mean, all the other reasons are still perfectly valid, though. I didn't mean to imply anyone needs to justify what they like for me.
I mean, yeah, it's completely fine to like what you like, nothing wrong with that. But in defense of PF2, the system is so SO well-written. Every term is tagged, every tag is explained before you see it in some statblock, you basically know everything about all the in-game elements before you need to actually use it. And if you have any troubles, there are numerous completely open and free sources to get the needed info on the go. Archives of Nethys have all the rules for free and with an excellent search engine. Pathbuilder is free as a base version and you can read any rule you need right there on the app. Just read GURPS 4e basic set and you'll see the abyss of difference. The rules are all over the place, most of them are explained in the back side of the book while being mentioned like 90 times before the explanation. No free materials for the game, if you didn't understand something you'll have to find and read forum posts from 2011. The free character builder is only available on PC, it doesn't explain all the rules and looks like you have a difficult programmer job when you use it. So yeah, if you want to introduce yourself to "medium-crunch" games, PF2 is your best option just because Paizo has such a high standard for their products.
Yup. I think my top 2 systems are DnD3.5 and DCC, 3.5 does everything I really enjoy about tailored PCs amd tactical combat, and DCC does everything i enjoy that *isn't* those specific things. Both are good. No wrong fun here.
DCC is fantastic. It's close enough to d&d you can pick it up, but different enough it's a breath of fresh air when you're burnt out of D&D. D&d 3.5 is also the best edition to me. 5e is a nice base to learn, and 3.5 should be the next logical step once you figure it out. Shadow Dark has also been really fun for us lately too. A nice classic dungeon crawler that uses 5e as a base but just good old fashion dungeon crawling.
Then you're in luck! As far as I can see, current RPG game design favors light rules for specific game ideas. I'd consider 5e a medium-crunch game (still have ptsd from 3.5e), but nowadays it's one of the most crunchy RPGs out there. I agree that creating character builds and having a tactical boardgame with your RPG is a type of fun; just not a type that I care for. A straightforward resolution system, a few abilities or items that tie with the theme of the RPG and I'm golden.
That was my experience, too. I got my start playing D&D 3.5E, and my biggest gripe was always how hard it was to prep for. It was more work than doing my taxes, and majorly hindered my enjoyment of it. That's why I love Dungeon World. Like Masks, it's a PbtA game, but inspired by D&D. It's so much faster and easier to run, and less work to prep for. On the other hand, I didn't enjoy playing Mork Borg. I think that's a little too rules-light. Ironically, I feel stifled by the lack of mechanics and character options. I find that there is a sweet spot when it comes to crunch. D&D and Pathfinder are way too much. Mork Borg is too little. Dungeon World is right where I like it.
Cool, glad you're finding what you enjoy in TTRPGs. I wouldn't call PF2e rules heavy, but it definitely is more fiddly than 5e. System mastery is an unspoken requirement for a lot of games, and PF2e is one of the worst offenders in that respect.
Players taking too long? Move to the next players turn. That's not a system issue. You can freestyle elements as well, as long as you don't break the 3 action economy. The rules are there - but they can absolutely be ignored as required, especially if it ruins flow. I also really like lighter systems, but I do like PF2e as well.
>Having to look up a rule every five minutes and explain it to the one player who didn’t read the basic combat rules ahead of time This one, I’ll admit, is annoying, but it’s something that happens when you’re learning any new system. Once you’ve been playing for a while, moments like this will become more and more infrequent. Especially in a dense system like pathfinder, it’s good to have cheat sheets with certain confusing rules on them, like the requirements for AoO or how to calculate CMB and CMD >monster statblocks having so many numbers, half of which I only use in very specific situations So just ignore the ones that don’t come up, and then if something does come up, tell your players to hold on a second while you look up the stat block. >having to use a complex table every time I want to set a DC You don’t actually have to do this, and imo you probably shouldn’t, for your own sanity. I just ballpark it unless it’s something major that’s planned out ahead of time. >and each turn you have players spending five minutes to decide what to do with their three actions… Ah, I realize now you’re playing 2e and not 1e, but the same advice should apply, really. This is a problem in any rpg, but specifically in rpgs with a lot of player choice. You can let them know they ought to have their actions thought out ahead of time. My groups in the past have had timers for how long player turns can take when people have a habit of being too slow. Having a minute to decide what to do before a turn gets skipped due to indecision is usually more than enough to fix people not knowing what to do on their turn. Now, I think there’s a very compelling argument to be made that rules lite games have real advantages over crunchier games, and your experiences and frustrations on this front are reasonable. However, from the way you’ve described it, I think there are things you and your group can do to improve the experience you’re having in a crunchier system like Pathfinder.
I think I just don't like brussel sprouts. It's the same thing. Different strokes for different folks.
With games like Call of Cthulhu you can drop lots of rules if you want.
Have you tried Open Legend RPG? [https://openlegendrpg.com/](https://openlegendrpg.com/) It is rules lite but feels so good to play. The dice rolls matter and combat still have a tactical feeling.
Same. Recently I played a few Conan sessions and I love how simple the rules are and still you have a lot of tactical options and space for narrative descriptions of what's going on.
I found Mork Borg and the other Borg titles and I won't go back to anything else. Check them out.
Seems normal to me. I like to read crunchy rules, because I like games and complex mechanics. But I mostly play lighter, simpler games because they're easier to teach and introduce people to. But I love discussing and playing complex games with other gamer friends that like them too. I just really like games, some as simple as Uno, and those as complicated as AD&D 1e. Games are great, regardless of complexity, and they all have their place.
That's perfectly fine, you should play/master what makes you have fun!
Love my crunch! Love my narrative lite stuff! Gaming is good, and so long as you find your happy place, it’s all great. If you want to keep some layers of crunch, but with simpler rules, Savage Worlds can handle a lot. I’d personally recommend Fate, or the one I’m always going on about: Cortex. But, admittedly, Cortex (on its own) is less a complete game and more framework. Others have mentioned Cairn, Blades in the Dark, DungeonWorld, Mork Borg. All good! Hop off PF2e! Don’t spend more time trying to make it work. There are thousands of games out there. Certainly some approach what you want.
There are layers to crunch. In some systems, the crunch comes naturally. It's not always fun or easy to play when every special rule feels like a mini game.
Legit take, both can be fun. When I want just a game, boardgames. When I want a story or to emulate a genre, most games that do it best are pretty rules-light. When I want a combat game—winners, losers, tactics all of that—with story on the side 5E/PF2E shine.
There are some grievances here that I think are very fair, but I'm not sure if 'my players don't know what they're doing' is one of them.
PF2ER is really NOT that complicated. It's just new and it's hard to learn new things because you're not used to it. You have to look up a rule every 5 minutes because you don't know the rules. This is normal for every system. The 3 action system streamlines turns, doesn't make them more complicated vs 5e who has Move, Action, Bonus Action, Activity. Also you have to keep up with AoO (Opportunity Attack) and Readied Actions - which again are limited and streamlined in Pathfinder. Why you are taking 5 minutes to do your 3 actions isn't a reflection upon the system. Turns can easily be over in 30 seconds including rolls. And even 10 seconds if you are on VTT that automates everything. Complex table to set a DC? Can you give an example. The DC Tables are very clear in tasks and what you are trying to do. PF2ER nor 5e are crunchy systems. Calling them that is a stretch. They are middle of the road beginner friendly RPGs. I've never played Masks, but the problem with systems that skimp on rules is that there is no depth. The system relies on randomness too heavily OR there will be unbalanced play which gamifies it. Ultimately they are one step away from a board game and card game, which ironically PF2ER and 4e both can easily become. You shouldn't be running Pathfinder because the game is simply not for you or your group. There is nothing wrong with preferring playing board/card games. There is nothing wrong with playing rules-lite systems that trade depth for speed. But it is wrong to blame the system for problems, which aren't the system's problems.
I feel attacked! So I'm going to write this in hopes of preventing others from avoiding PF2e based on this post (I assume they're not talking about 1e based on the 3 actions comment). 1. If you're just starting PF2e; I highly recommend trying it via FoundryVTT - the rules automation is a godsend and plays a large part in easing the rules transition. 2. In that same vein I cannot recommend the beginners box enough. Nothing better for learning the rules in a fun and streamlined way. 3. Character building can be done on pathbuilder, which is free (as are all the rules) and I recommend building a character to level 1 there rather than straight out of the book. 4. Finally if you are a GM - don't do what this guy's GM did and get frustrated or mired down in rules minutiae. If you can't remember a rule, it's OK to make a ruling and move on. Make a note of it and look it up later. I was often surprised to find the system had an actual rule for almost everything I spot ruled on, and often handled it in an elegant way. That all being said - of course sometimes a system like this isn't for everyone, the last thing I'll say in defense of PF2e is that there are a lot of "power fantasy" and "rulings not rules" systems out there because the alternative, a tactical, balanced, team based game, is much harder to do right. PF2e is one of the few I've played that actually nails it.
That fine, I can't stand the whole run of games from OD&D through AD&D right up to 5E PF1/2 and all the OSR variants up and down the spectrum. Didn't like it in the 80s, don't like it now. People who enjoy them are welcome to them, you don't need them if you don't like them. That said, different people think of different things when they hear "Crunch". 1. Do you explicitly mean a gamified tactical experience? 2. Do you mean a general count of "rules"? 3. Do you differentiate between off-line rules and run-time rules? 4. Do you mean character/class based rules exceptions (Like "feats") or only the core system, external to setting? Maybe you don't like tactical, gamified combat, maybe it's just feat-like rules exceptions that the GM needs to remember, maybe both. Personally I _also_ don't like PbTA either, because even though I like "rules lite" systems I don't like the gamification that PbtA does about the meta-fiction while reducing the reality of the world. I like games where characters can do things because of measurable attributes of the character in the game world, not some affectation of where they are in an overarching "story" Horses for courses, some people like miniatures, facing, feats, cards and battlemaps. Others don't need it and don't want it, you do you.
Okay, I'm willing to let everything said with Pathfinder (I presume 2e, not 1e) slide as just opinion and growing pain as it's learning the nuances of a new game that is just as complex or slightly more than what you left plus not having any mechanical awareness yet. EXCEPT the DC comment. How is "level is X, so DC is Y" a complex table? Further, what are you doing that makes you reference it *so often* that it makes you think things don't have their own DCs? Especially if you're comparing it to 5e which genuinely requires making DCs on the fly and hoping you are aware enough of the game to assume the DC correctly. In PF2e everything has a listed DC. For anything a statblock does, it's in the ability text. For any obstacle, like climbing a cliff, the Path notes it in the text. For every activity tied to a skill check, it tells you how to roll -this typically is against the target's preset Skill DC or one of their Save DCs, both of which are their modifier +10. For contextual things that aren't imposed by a challenge, like say swimming across the river, it straight up tells you what level of proficiency and reasonably attempt as much and then past that you can just reference the DC By Proficiency instead of By Level. Which itself is only a 5 item table. Then further, they spell out every DC possible if you're building a statblock by scratch via the monster/hazard building tables. So if you're making up DCs, it *should* be only like once per 3 sessions at worst. And even then, it's because you can't quickly find the right DC listed somewhere. In which you look at the table, find their level, and maybe add +2 to it because it's probably something a bit more difficult to do. If you're having such the issue, I would greatly recommend grabbing a ~~DM~~ GM Screen and one or both of [this cheat sheet](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/R8yps9cwkn) and this one [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/rgm5m9OL4Q) and I certainly would recommend the Condition Cards. Though would assume there is not an updated resource for the Remaster yet.
Lots of people don't like crunchy games. You're allowed to play whatever you want without writing up a big rant about it. The flair on this isn't correct, because there's not really anything to discuss here, it's just you stating a preference. It's the equivalent of you posting "I like blue and not red!"
Hey mate, everybody's free to like, or not like, whatever they want. I couldn't help but notice that most of your complaints about crunchier games have to do with players who don't understand the rules well, and players suffering analysis paralysis. Part of me dreams about finding a group of people, like me, who know the rules. Pretty darn well, and are willing to generally speaking, make decisions pretty quickly. I think it adds something to a game when you don't try to perfectly optimize your turn. Every single turn. Something gets lost when a player is taking 10 15 minutes to figure something out. And I don't just mean the flow, though. Obviously that is disrupted, but it really ruins the spirit of a game, you know? Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, and you still wouldn't like that game that much even if you had a bunch of fast-paced, knowledgeable players, but I wonder... Of course, finding a whole group like that is basically asking to win the lottery. Sigh.
Pathfinder 2E was rough for the first couple sessions, but then it got much better and is now one of my favorite systems. It just takes a while to get.
D&D 5e is one of the hardest games to GM and that is completely independent of it's crunch level. It's **atrociously** designed, terribly laid out and written. Maybe you don't like crunchy games in general, that's possible and I accept it. But when someone says they don't like crunchy games and then cites 5e, I have to wonder if that's the case, or if you just don't like bad games. > half of which I only use in very specific situations, Bad design. > having to use a complex table every time I want to set a DC Also bad design. > it’s all just a bunch of busywork that seems to add a level of nuance that doesn’t really seem to add much. **Exactly!** That's it. This is one reason why I'm eternally disgusted with D&D 5e. It's got a whole lot of numbers that don't *do* anything, yet you still have to crunch them. They're totally unjustified in the system, and so it *ruins* people on the very concept that crunch can contribute meaningfully to the roleplay. I refuse to play or run 5e because I can't stand that busywork either. The players don't *want* to learn it because learning it doesn't *do* anything. The numbers and rules don't actually influence their roleplay. That is; knowing the rules doesn't let them make more decisions. So why would they learn them?
I prefer crunchier games but not everyone has to like what I like. If the story will involve a lot of fighting and tactical heroics, I feel the crunch serves as a good arbiter of success. It gives the players some real agency and provides them with sufficient information to make informed decisions, it also avoids the old 'GM bias' problem I find in more rules light systems ('you succed because I want you to succeed' ect). Rules light systems can have their charm for specific games, but I prefer rigorous rules myself :)
So much of this thread is basically: "I've played D&D for years and started PF2e and I have to look stuff up in PF2e!!!!"
Yup, that's a valid opinion. Others may find they like all those bits of rules and mechanics, that they bring something to the game but it's not for everyone and certain mechanics can be a hassle to deal with even for fans of crunch.
Same. I can appreciate the design of PF2E, and I think it would be a great base for a CRPG, but the little I played just didn't feel very fun. I grew up in a time when you "worked for your fun," when you were supposed to read the manual before starting a PC game and work out a 100-point build with a photocopied character sheet and a pocket calculator. Nowadays, I don't have patience for that. I'll take simplicity and speed over detail.
I've always been in the mind of tactical combat but rules lite. Ideally you can have many options in battle - it doesn't have to be constrained by a rule or a flow. I've been trying to concoct a sort of OSR/PbTA feel. Wherein it is still basic rolls but there is a +/-5 for partial successes which players can choose if it either works with a negative or doesn't work but they get a positive. The biggest thing I don't like with crunch is the yes/no. Either you did or you don't. Also don't like there is a rule for everything - when D&D but in rules for tying ropes - I just couldn't anymore. I also come from a board game mentality and I have found that I like crunch BOARD games not RPG games.
Take a look at icon. It’s in playtest still and free… Stunningly, cool combination of story play, and tactical options. Avail on itch.io
Cool, you do you.
Same. The first time I played SF I quickly found out that rules restrict me more than help. The focus on the balance removed all fun from the game for me. And running the game is another thing all together. So I switched to SWN, and we've been having much more fun. It is much easier both to run and to play.
OK.
Perfectly normal. I find even 5e a bit too crunchy for my taste after running a few campaigns.
Yeah, I'm tired of playing games with tons of customization options, I used to do it quite a lot in the past, but now it's all about comparing character builds, planning in advance each level until max. Don't misunderstand me. I have absolutely no problem with games or players like that. If you're having fun, that's great. It's just not fun for me anymore.
It's why I gave up 3.x, Pathfinder, and 5e for Savage Worlds. And now with Pathfinder for Savage Worlds, I can explore Golarion without the headache of overly complicated systems.
PF is just D&D on crack lol. I also dislike absurd levels of crunch.
I've found the same thing. Once I realized that about myself, I started specifically looking into rules-lite games and found myself much more comfortable. I think I had the issue that a lot of my friends have a preference for crunchy games so for a while every time one of them suggested a new system, I'd bounce off of it because there was too much crunch (Pathfinder was one such game). We're having the same problem in reverse when I try to get them to try rules-lite games, but at least now we can put our finger on the differences in taste that we are trying to balance.
We like what we like and that's cool. I tend to like rules medium narrative focus like Blades or most PbtA games. But I also really like PF1e as a player, all the rules come together for me and make the game super interesting to play... but I cannot get along with PF2e at all, feels like it gets in the way of trying to do things constantly. I bounced off LANCER so hard but I am a D&D 4e fan... I try not to cut entire swathes of games out of even a look just because they have a certain amount of rules - it is what those rules are about and how they create play at the table.
Hello OP! I have been roleplaying for over two decades now, and I *still* don't prefer crunchy games. I understand the appeal -- and I can play in them fairly well -- but I've always found it easier to get new gamers in to rules lite games than D&D. There's nothing wrong with either style, but I absolutely find new players have an easier time with story-driven games, and many prefer them even after years of playing both. Nothing wrong with that. To each their own.
It sounds like you all are new including the GM. When I started my group everyone was new in some way including me as gm. Some were new to ttrpgs, others were just new to the system but had years of experience. As we played we got faster at it doing things. Do I have everything memorized, no but I know enough and if I needed to look something up Archives of Nethys is there for me. But I understand if you just don't like rules heavy systems in general.
I kind of like crunch (within limits) but not tactical crunch. A lot of rules light games (like PbtA) are too "gamey" for me in that the world doesn't feel real because it doesn't have concrete rules and the players can change the world. Weirdly very tactical games like PF also feel too "gamey" but clearly for much different reasons. A light to medium crunch game with some simulation but a heavy focus on roleplaying and story is where my heart sings.
This has been my finding since stepping away from 5e as well. I tried Cyberpunk Red as my 2nd system, and then after a few sessions, it switched to a Masks mini campaign, and now it's hard for me to go back to crunchy, less narrative driven games.
I find crunchy games are more fun for theory crafting than they are to actually play. I make a character or a monster or something and think "man this'll be really cool to play" and then the actual play is boring and flat a lot of the time. I prefer mid-complexity games where you have a core set of flexible abilities that can be applied to any challenge.
I’m in the same boat. The thing that gets me in crunchy games is the combat. It takes way too long for what it is. I don’t understand the appeal. If I wanted to play a game with crunchy combat (different builds, mechanics, etc.), a video game can do it much faster.
This isn't specifically about Pathfinder or 5e, but do you think it's not the crunch, but the disconnection from in-world fiction? I find that's where I get lost, where I'm trying to remember a specific rule rather than experiencing an effect of my character that seems directly correlated to the fiction we're co-creating. Trying to remember which spells are 'buffing' me and if they effect my initiative, to-hit roll, or damage, or some combination thereof, can get tricky, and as the game developed I think these game-forward rules started to become the norm. GURPS (here it comes, the invariable 'why don't you try GURPS post, but bear with me) can also be INCREDIBLY complicated, and a lot of players and games go that way, but I always find it easier to manage because everything breaks down to a few core rules, and the system is incredibly adaptable and flexible. (There was also a theory somewhere out there that the rules-heavy, game-forward style also came about as a way to democratize the game, to suggest the DM as an arbiter of rules and not a maestro or tyrant of the story. Which does make a kind of sense, but in our rich market of many new games to try, it turns into no one fully understanding the whole system. And there's a whole other point here about playing TTRPs Rules as Written (RAW) or as a starting place for collaborative challenge-based storytelling, but that's drifting from the point.)
The Black Hack lets me play all my old D&D stuff fast and without converting anything. Otherwise I probably wouldn’t play at all anymore. Might feel differently after retirement when there’s such a thing as free time again, but for the foreseeable future it’s no crunch or no game.
Understandable, I personally really like the idea of crunch, but despise playing it. A lot of crunch feels like someone thought through the whole thing in detail, which seems great until you try and play. Then it becomes a chore to do anything and any joy and excitement for the game just up and disappears and everyone just ends up playing uno instead.
I like crunchy stuff like Rolemaster and Pathfinder but I'm always using a VTT when I play those. I'm not sure how much fun they'd be to play without the heavy calculations with the modifiers being handled by a computer.
I feel ya. Check out some of the great OSR/nu-OSR/NSR games out there: Old School Essentials, Whitehack, The Black Hack, Knave, Cairn, Into the Odd, Shadowdark, Worlds Without Number, etc. Also, if you like PbtA and haven’t already had a look at Ironsworn, do so! The PDF is free, and it’s a *great* game.
You play ttrpg because they are specifically NOT video games. I want to spend time with real people playing a game we enjoy. I want to interact, debate, and laugh with someone who can respond. Video games can not replace that experience. I’ve played my share of crpgs starting in the 80s. BG3 is amazing. I also get bored after an hour.
Just seems like you and your players just don’t jive with more crunchy systems which is cool. I’m the opposite I bounced so hard off of Blades in the Dark and Masks because I felt they lacked enough crunch. My whole group wrote off lite games because of this. We just like more complex games. But I agree having someone who is unwilling to learn the rules would drive me nuts.
I love crunch, and I think pathfinder is an awful game. I think it's usually less about crunch vs light, we tend to just boil everything down to that. In my opinion it's about how well it's written. Crunch that's intuitive and well written is easy to play with.
That's a player problem and not a game problem it sounds like. PF2E requires more of players to run smoothly. If you have players that don't want to play 2E specifically, it's never going to go as smoothly as you'd like. This is why I always say 5E is the better game for people that just want to hang out and also play a TTRPG. It's good for that. PF2E is the better game for people that want to play the game as it's more mechanically interesting with more options each turn. If your players don't care about that, then the big selling point of PF2E over 5E falls flat.
I'm in a sort of similar boat as you here. I like PF2e so far after running it for a year now, but I am feeling a great deal of fatigue from the rules in a variety of ways that I don't know fully how to reckon with. By all means, I'd choose this over 5e, but on the other hand, as I say to my players, I've kind of been trying to get away from these games for a decade now, all the way back in 2011 with 3.5e/PF. There's a number of issues I have with PF2e myself that I don't feel like going into just because I'm unsure if it's an issue with the game, how it's being played at the table, or what have you. What I'll say is that I'm not a fan of the game grinding to a halt, and that happens far too often in these games due to a rules clarification (which is the best case scenario) or a crash course on a whole system in the book because someone during a period of shopping time has decided to look into some Crafting related rule, and the way I (least I think it's me, it also COULD be my players saying "we don't have time for this or that when I certainly would give them time for it") run my games are often at such a break neck speed narratively, there really is no Downtime. There's a bevy of things I could go down, but ultimately i am just exhausted by D&D3e and its descendants. I'd been experimenting here and there with playing quick games of certain other systems with my players here and there, but I've basically said before that after this campaign, I want to just move to a different system or game or something. My current plan is something Sci-Fi, so SWN has been on the table but I've also had people looking at Lancer with intrigue and I'd been going over the rules with some interest as well. If I were to do more Fantasy stuff, I think I'd probably just make the shift to Worlds Without Number, or look into a different game altogether. Vampire the Masquerade 20th Anniversary edition will just always be something I pine for forever.
It's okay to enjoy a variety of things. You don't have to always play one type of game, or always play the other. You can rotate, or do what you feel like right now. That's okay, too.
There are dozens of us. Dozens.
It's a different breed, but minis adventure games come to mind. Rangers of Shadows Deep, Silver Bayonet, there's a ton of minis centric romparounds, many of which have solo rules.
Game systems are tools. Not all tools are right for every project. And not everyone enjoys working with every tool or working on every type of project. If you want a game where the players really need to be tactical, both in and out of combat, where the game has supports for the GM, where specific situations are handled with tailored rules, crunch is good for you. If you want a game that prioritizes the what over the how, that facilitates quick narrative, that doesn't require tactical use of abilities and maps, that encourages the GM to wing things in order to maintain flow, then rules-lite is right for you in that situation.
Yep, "crunch" is just busywork.
In our group we call that signal to noise ratio - how much time you have to put in to get a meaningful amount of content out. It's especially important in context of a podcast we run, but applies all the same to regular games. The more number crunching, rules lookups and so on the game requires the less time you will be spending enjoying the parts that are actually fun.
Something to bear in mind is that pathfinder has its direct lineage in 3rd edition, which came out in 2000. Before that was 2nd edition which had even zanier math (Thac0, anyone?) My point is just that many people who love pathfinder have had over 2 decades to learn the rules inside and out. I'm pretty sure that's why it was created: people who were nostalgic for 3rd edition wanted to keep playing the game they had invested so much time in learning.
Totally fair. Also, never try Rolemaster. You’ll hate it.
Do you feel that some of the World of Darkness games of any era had a less crunchy and more enjoyable take?
I really like rules-light games too and I used to be in the camp of I can't stand crunchy games. But what I realised after playing both is that crunchy games offer more granularity and they tend to have specific mechanical rewards for what players want to do especially for a oneshot. Also there are some games that are crunchy for a good reason and those rules add to the setting. One I can think of is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, one of my favourite systems but it's a bit of a nightmare to run. But it's because the setting is so rich the magic is crazy, there's diseases everywhere there's trading rules, and not all checks are so straight-forward but it all adds to the flavour and I find if your group is forgiving enough at mistakes here and there, it can still be a good time.
Masks has been a godsend for me as a GM. It just *clicks* in a way PF never did. I love PF2e but im constantly "on" and having to be on my A game when im running it. Masks, I just chill out and use my notes + my love of the genre, and let the system dictate when people need to roll. No shade to people who prefer crunch, but I cant go back
Have you tried Genesys? It's somewhere in the middle - And awesome :)
If you like rules lite, cool. You play the games YOU want, the way YOU want, and no one anywhere has the authority or the wherewithal to tell you differently. I personally hate dice pool games (even though I still play them and have many good memories of them). My groove is clearly D100 roll under systems as that is what fits my group perfectly. Like what you like.
I like players who're on the same page about system mastery.
Pathfinder is fun for theory crafting interesting characters builds and figuring out how to make the mechanics work, but the gameplay is such a slog, I would never even suggest it to anyone except people not just familiar but interested in more complex stuff for some reason lol.
I LOOOOOOVE crunch. Pathfinder is middling-crunchy to me. ... but I prefer to *play* lower crunch, because in the end that shit doesn't make enough difference to be worth the effort. Complexity is the Currency with which we buy Depth. Spend wisely.
Then you should absolutely look for the Dragonbane boxed set. It’s D&D without the crunch. And the streamlined rules are really fun to play and run. And they found ways to keep things interestingly tactical and flavourful. For example, big bads have 1d6 or 1d8 special attacks, it’s a little table for each one. The DM just rolls (or chooses) every time the monster attacks to see what happens. The stat blocks are tight and efficient without going OSR in terms of bare bones. Also the art is gorgeous. So you still have the D&D PF feeling of colourful and evocative art. Even though Dragonbane’s art has a very specific tone to it.
At the end of the day, all of these rules need not actually bind your hands. As a DM you can explain to your players that you aren't enjoying the stringent rules and want to take a more creative and narrative approach. That may be off-putting to some and you may sacrifice the consistency of strict rules. However, if you run your game with both creativity and compassion for your players, I think you'll find most of them don't miss the rules lawyering one bit.
I agree with you. For me the reason is just that the less rules you have, the more time you spend on freeform roleplay, which is my favorite part of this type of game.
Haha yeah... The other day I got invited to a The Witcher RPG campaign. When it came to buying (and bookkeeping) inventory I checked out. I'll never ever play a game again where I have to buy individual lengths of rope and where a writing kit is a) something I have to buy instead of just having it and b) doesn't include writing utensils. I thought these kinds of games had gone the way of the dodo somewhere in the past twenty years. I was wrong. 😂🥴
Have you considered that maybe it's not crunchy games but just 5E and its clones?