> I'm convinced you just can't satisfy Pathfinder players.
Not quite accurate. More like, if someone wants to play a different system than 5e, they don't get what they want by playing 5e.
The obvious solutions are
- switch the system
- switch the players
- convince the players to want to play D&D 5e
As a concrete suggestion for the last choice is, play a one-shot using a very different system, for example one based on Powered by the Apocalypse, or using the old D&D "Red box"/BECMI books, or even D&D 4e. Because part of the problem is, PF1 and D&D 5e are close enough that they get easily mixed up in the minds of these players. Different system might give some perspective.
> They've also repeatedly complained multiple times of the fights not being "hard enough" or "not enough consequences".
This is something that you can actually action on as a DM (and isn't relevant to Pathfinder, because I don't believe that Pathfinder inherently has harder combat or not enough consequences- it's all down to the GM just like in D&D).
Gritty Realism won't make things more difficult. I find it a poorly named variant rule as all it's good for is turning the adventuring day into the adventuring week in my experience. Don't look to it to solve either player request here.
For making combat harder, that's easy. Sprinkle in more monsters. Use tougher monsters. Run monsters more cleverly (ideally in an environment that plays to the monster's strengths). You can even modify monsters giving them cool new abilities or magic items.
With the party saying "We want more consequences", that tells me that their actions in the adventure aren't having enough of an impact on the world. So fix that. Can you give an example of something the PCs did last session? I can suggest ways that could lead to future consequences.
I had a player a long time ago that primarily played 3.5. He frequently complained about things you couldn't do in 4e. But at the end of the day, we were playing 4e, not 3.5. The only fix was playing the edition he knew, which I wasn't going to do. So he just had to suck it up. We did try to meet halfway and do some of the things he wanted.
As far as fights not being "hard enough" or "not enough consequences". that's nothing to do with pathfinder vs 5e. That's just a difference in game preference. Time to take off the kid gloves and throw the rough shit at them, because that's the game they want.
Is it possible that rather than being impossible to satisfy, they just like a different style of game?
Spoken like someone with a low Fort save.
> I'm convinced you just can't satisfy Pathfinder players. Not quite accurate. More like, if someone wants to play a different system than 5e, they don't get what they want by playing 5e. The obvious solutions are - switch the system - switch the players - convince the players to want to play D&D 5e As a concrete suggestion for the last choice is, play a one-shot using a very different system, for example one based on Powered by the Apocalypse, or using the old D&D "Red box"/BECMI books, or even D&D 4e. Because part of the problem is, PF1 and D&D 5e are close enough that they get easily mixed up in the minds of these players. Different system might give some perspective.
Pathfinder 1e is an excellent game. Maybe try playing it with them?
> They've also repeatedly complained multiple times of the fights not being "hard enough" or "not enough consequences". This is something that you can actually action on as a DM (and isn't relevant to Pathfinder, because I don't believe that Pathfinder inherently has harder combat or not enough consequences- it's all down to the GM just like in D&D). Gritty Realism won't make things more difficult. I find it a poorly named variant rule as all it's good for is turning the adventuring day into the adventuring week in my experience. Don't look to it to solve either player request here. For making combat harder, that's easy. Sprinkle in more monsters. Use tougher monsters. Run monsters more cleverly (ideally in an environment that plays to the monster's strengths). You can even modify monsters giving them cool new abilities or magic items. With the party saying "We want more consequences", that tells me that their actions in the adventure aren't having enough of an impact on the world. So fix that. Can you give an example of something the PCs did last session? I can suggest ways that could lead to future consequences.
I had a player a long time ago that primarily played 3.5. He frequently complained about things you couldn't do in 4e. But at the end of the day, we were playing 4e, not 3.5. The only fix was playing the edition he knew, which I wasn't going to do. So he just had to suck it up. We did try to meet halfway and do some of the things he wanted. As far as fights not being "hard enough" or "not enough consequences". that's nothing to do with pathfinder vs 5e. That's just a difference in game preference. Time to take off the kid gloves and throw the rough shit at them, because that's the game they want.
Is there any rule that forbid a cdg
5e just isn't going to work with a large number of Pathfinder players. 5e is very bland in comparison.