Personally I am surprised this happened even if I know it makes sense money-wise: This doesn't hurt pathfinder 2e and in fact might expose D&D 5e players to it.
I have also read comments praising how
Paizo structures their adventures and other things such as offering a player's guide with advice on how to make a character that fits in the adventure. All of this in contrast of the usual bitching about how poorly structured the 5e adventures are.
I strongly disagree.
I think its a good idea/good move for Paizo but a very bad move for PF 2e. Releasing modules for another system is pretty much taking the L, and if I was playing PF 2e I'd take that as a sign the system is heading to being officially abandoned.
This isn't like Goodman Games doing their reworks of Classic D&D modules with supplemental 5e updates* (since anyone using DCC is going convert the original module and there are already guides to do that) this is Paizo converting their own material to 5e. This is Sonic being released on Nintendo levels of company refocus.
But that's good for the company. They made their bones releasing 3.x modules people really liked (never bothered with their stuff so can't say), so if their going woke hasn't completely rotted out their staff they can probably do the same for 5e modules. So when WotC announces 6e, they might be able to spin that into getting people to try PF 3e.
tl;dr: This is terrible news for PF 2e, good news for PF 3e.
*This is a good play. Releasing the OG module means they are not just publishing the module for DCC players, but are targeting the entire OSR market since if an OSR system isn't Out-the-box Classic-compatible, there are conversion guides. Including the 5e conversations means they get the 5e crowd too. Additonally, including the OG means 5e fags can pretend they are "Old School" with the temple of elemental evil sitting unused on their shelf.
What most people don't realize is that PF 2E isn't really a competitor anymore. Paizo is, at its core, a fan thief. They took the 3.5 spergs with their first edition, now they're sucking in the people who liked 4E unironically. They siphon off the fans of old editions that want new books to buy while all the newfags jump on WotC's 5E dick.
That is completely accurate summation of Paizo's game systems.
And wow dude, shots fired. Though if the unironic 4e fan is the target, I was missed. They had some good ideas but flubbed the execution. They also really should learned from what they were aping and used a different name. PF was a sperglord min-maxer's paradise, and PF 2.0... wasn't. They were also about 5 years late to the show to capture 4e fans.
Fudge a lot of stuff. Things like initiative don't matter for minor fights. Fudge die rolls and health totals to make fights go faster once it's clear what direction it's going.
I agree with the general sentiment, but not with the solution. Don't fudge rolls. Not because "let the dice fall where they may", but because fudging rolls breaks trust in a hobby where trusting each other to play by the rules is essential. Just going ooc for a bit and telling the players that they're crushing the enemies and can mop up narratively if they want goes over better in my experience. Rather than fudging rolls, just skip rolling altogether when roll results aren't important.
I don't fudge the dice (Except when I do fudge the rolls because its a game not real life; but the players should never know you fudged them). What I do fudge is the interpretation - maybe that 18 actually means the Orc actually rolled a Crit, but dies next time he's hit.
When its down to mop-up time, I take a look at the board - is there a direction for Enemies to run? They might take it if they think they can make it. I'll look at the odds and what's going on. Is this a one-off battle where the party is going to get a long rest after? I'll just end the battle. If its in a dungeon crawl and, who knows, that 1d8+3 HP might be make-or-break in the future, I'll tell the party
"Alright, odds are these enemies will last X rounds against you. I'm just going to roll X attacks, and then you'll kill them." If the party doesn't feel that's fair, we'll play it out to completion.
I don't like fudging rolls because it removes the only "real" thing from the game, which is the consequences of players actions. Trust is big too, but mainly if you're just going to have the dice show whatever you want, you are playing a narrative game and you should find a system that leans to that.
In the right hands, failure tells a better story than success.
