I am specificly referring to things like the battledome and retained retraining rules. The creators don't seem to understand what an RPG is and are treating it like video game mini-games are an ideal play pattern. Like are you going to want to reference some poorly designed minigame rule for Negg management?

Neopets seems like an ideal IP for something rules light, not something that is trying to be GTA on paper. I also sense that some of these designs might make the game feel unfaithful to Neopets.

Note that it's making a lot of promises for more rules, but not describing what those rules are. Which is likely a sign of the rules being very rough and needing a lot of work. Which is why I say it looks like a mess.

This looks like a trainwreck of video game mechanics that don't translate into RPG mechanics.

I'd double down actually. The lack of to hit rolls and the way that resolution system works in RP and Exploration actions highlights a failure in play dynamics. Essentially they are streamlining the fun and uncertainty out of the game.

I don't think they are actually making an RPG at this point. But that is because I have a very specific viewpoint en what an RPG is.

Did you note that I included encumbrance. Magic bags are a huge problem for trivializing the concerns of your character.

There are systems that make it not purely accounting, like resource dice.

What you described is barely a timer system, reset on combat end doesn't really ever matter to a game. I'm addressing longer time frame resource drain benefiting the game by creating risk and promoting choice. There isn't really a point if arrows aren't lost and broken.

Timer systems like arrow counting, rations and encumbrance are good for game flow. Removing them tends to diminish the level of emotional investment and roleplaying in the game.

In video game design there is the MDA framework. Where mechanics (rules) create dynamics (gameplay flow) that express aesthetics (genre and emotional expression). Thus in d&d the rules change the actions players take and these actions determine the tone and feel of the game. This is why Silvery Barbs is miserable, the dynamic it creates diminishes the roleplaying aesthetic by breaking suspension of disbelief.

When looking at 5e the fact most players don't just homebrew a few rules, but gut large mechanics (light, encumbrance, gold, travel) of the game. This has completed removed WotC's control of D&D's dynamics. This breaks the aesthetics of the system. 5e in it's current state is not a heroic fantasy game, but everyone thinks it is. Which is why so many tables fail and new DMs burn out.

Scarlet Heroes has some nice solo tables. The Tome of Adventure Design is also pretty nice for random tables.

"Finally, this rule absolutely eliminates the need for anyone, be he player or, so help me gods, GameMaster, to fudge a roll. Fudging, also known as CHEATING has no place in a game that already has a mechanic designed to eliminate freak occurrences."

I guess you are right, DMs can fudge all they want. GMs keep their honor and don't roll dice with Satan.

You mean like Jesus? That seems a little heretical, this isn't Warhammer Fantasy RP.

Funny, my Hackmaster book p. 113 says fudging dice is cheating. But you are free to roll dice with the devil.

There is a wide range in how RPGs can be played. For TSR era D&D there it has a lot of in built mechanical flexibility. White Wolf games like WoD or Exalted adds a layer of dramatic flexibility at the expense of in-built heroics, which works well for a dark modern setting.

I really like a lot of games for different reasons. WW games, particularly Wraith, are some of the more interesting to run. Due to the higher reliance on player creativity and inter-character interactions. I really enjoy Wraith's shadow system for creating interactions between players for character flaws.

Paranoia is perhaps one of the most interesting GM experiences because it encourages so many deviations from standard gamemastering; railroading, PvP, splitting the party, killing PCs, ... . Still it works so well.

Yep, that one gets around whenever people discuss the satanic panic.

I didn't make this one. But there have been a few adventures in things like Radiant Citadel come close.

It's a jab at players for being overly attached to the system. Basically that pf2 players are wearing rose colored glasses.

Understanding the market is not understanding the medium. Why is everyone putting words in my mouth. I am not advocating for some crazy free form improv without rolls or some other ruleless non-sense.

I'm saying that 5e and PF2 are not well-defined systems. You can have a different opinion, of course you will. And specifically that GMs burn out in these systems because they are not fun for GMs longterm.

Yes, I want my players to roleplay. The issue I have with pf2 and 5e is that they require way more work to get into a decent balance between combat, roleplaying and exploration. Often ending up very combat heavy and characters that "excel" at non-combat encounters end up trivializing them instead.

These dice rolls end up replacing roleplaying instead of enhancing it. In addition because of the rules interactions, poor wording and power creep in these systems the ability for GMs to avoid burn out is low. I don't like them because they are toxic to new gamemasters, I have no technical issue running them. I ran several long campaigns in 5e, 3.5 and pf1. I don't have burn out issues with Hackmaster, WFRP, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, WoD, Ryuutama, ... . It's purely a problem with recent d20 player option focused systems and it will only get worse with more WotC and Paizo releases.

My GMing is fine. I make mistakes at times and don't always follow my own best practices. But I run fun games in many systems easily. I don't get why you are trying to gatekeep me out of the hobby. I don't like two games because they suffer from fundamental flaws born out of ivory tower game design. If you can't see those flaws, that's you.

Maybe I should make my point clear. Players love 5e and PF2, GMs learn to hate them or quit. Because they are only noob friendly to players, not GMs. It's why homebrew games are less common in them and typically only run by veteran GMs. I literally do not care how hard players have it to learn a system. Players always have a GM to support them, it's trivial to teach a player. Teaching a new GM is frustrating when 5e and pf2 teach bad habits like everything is combat or a pass/fail roll.

Why is everyone here so bad at reading? I specifically am calling out PF2 for being designed as if it was a video game. I am saying Paizo doesn't understand the medium of RPGs, because they don't.

Where did I say I don't like dice or crunch? I literally run Hackmaster. You don't even know Hackmaster do you? Sure I don't like bloated player options that cause power creep and slow the game down. But that doesn't mean I do sloppy improv or storytell railroads like Critical Role or Dimension 20.

I've only been running rpgs 20 years. Has it occurred to you that you don't like rpgs if you just play 5e or PF2. Are you even a gamemaster?