First Look at the Pathfinder Playtest

TheAlicornSage wrote:

thejeff wrote:

When you say "designers of d20" are you talking the designers of 3.0, which was the first system I know of billed as "D20" or Gygax and the other designers of OD&D/AD&D/Basic?

There is key overlap there. Most of the ideals in design were present in both groups and they knew each other and that "old school" playstyle.

Key overlap in that both were gamers, I suppose.

The idea that they shared some key design aesthetic that's somehow missing from later work on what's essentially the same system (3.0/3.5/PF) is kind of boggling.

That isn't what I'm saying.

Gygax complained about people who played his rules without playing his game. He couldn't really describe that distinction. I can't really describe that distinction either, but that distinction between playing the game vs playing the rules without playing the game is the key point.

If you understand that distinction, then you can see how certain design choices were made with that distinction in mind.

That distinction is also the difference between what I was calling "modern" players and "old school" players.

If you can't understand that distinction, then you can't understand how I play, or why I prefer one mechanic over another.

I'm still trying to do what Gygax never did (so far as I know), which is to describe that distinction so everyone can understand it.

I feel like the big difference I've found between oldbies and newbies for lack of a better term is that new-school players seem to loathe talking to the GM, getting permission, asking for an exception, or a ruling, etc. Rules exist to protect you from the GM whose role should be little more than as a referee. Rules on the page must be followed to a degree of legalistic precision.

Since for me, "working stuff out with or as the GM" is the way I conceive of the game working. GM exists to be a storyteller or a facilitator, someone who can make the things everybody wants to have happen happen. Since in the end, all the rules are optional and things only need to work the way the people in the game want it to work.

I guess it's a matter of how loose you see the system as?

If we went by this, I'd be one of the newbies and I've played the game since it was a chainmail supplement.

loathe talking to the GM: Not loathe but understands that everyone involved has busy lives and doesn't want to have to pass EVERYTHING past the DM.

Rules exist to protect you from the GM: Rules protect everyone.

Rules on the page must be followed to a degree of legalistic precision: Rules MUST be consistent and everyone involved should know the rules before they start. The words in the rules actually mean something and shouldn't be altered at a whim: hence you sometimes have to read them with a degree of precision especially in a system where the wording wildly vacillate between 'conversational' and 'hyper exacting legalistic' on the whim of the writer or more often the retroactive ruling of the Devs...

I'd appreciate it if you held off on broad generalizations about how modern players play. I do lean more towards playing the mechanics of the game, but I'm very proud of how good my players (quite modern) are at getting invested in the story and freeform roleplay of the games I run, even though I'm no outstanding GM.

Elfteiroh wrote:

Yep, I'm similar here. In fact, the ones the more likely to do things outside of the rules were usually the noob ones. I remember in RotR, during that attack of the gobs at the start, the Dwarven Barbarian player, at total noob (it was her first ever TTRPG experience), asked me, the DM, if she could take the table a pair of gobs were standing on and flip it during her round. I was overjoyed by that, as the other 3 players where old-school players and their first reflex was to say "nope, just attack...". That ended up throwing the gobs and one did a fumble and died, his head safely impaled on a tent piton nearby. She did many more during the adventures, and she was the only one to do so.

New school GM: "Sure, do you have the Table Flipping feat? No? Okay, roll at -3 and they get an attack of opportunity."

Old School GM: "Yeah, you can do that. That got added to the house rules back in '92 or so when Bruno the Barbarian tried to flip the king's table. Hmm, let's see if I can find those notes."

Rule of Cool DM: ....That actually sounds awesome. Pretty sure there's rules for it but give me an attack or maybe CMB roll and we'll see what happens.

I'd appreciate it if you held off on broad generalizations about how modern players play. I do lean more towards playing the mechanics of the game, but I'm very proud of how good my players (quite modern) are at getting invested in the story and freeform roleplay of the games I run, even though I'm no outstanding GM.

There is a difference between investment in story and thinking in-character. Heck, I get heavily invested in the story of Halo games, and that is most certainly [i[not[/i] rp in the slightest.

Second, "freeform" as in not mechanical. This can be taken in two ways, but it in particular implies that you ignore the mechanics completely for "periods of time" for rp instead of a mesh of rp supported by mechanics. And truthfully, this separation between playing mechanics and freeform rp is basically just that, switching between no-rules rp and no-rp mechanical play, and is the most common form of play I encounter. Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

...

Yep, I'm similar here. In fact, the ones the more likely to do things outside of the rules were usually the noob ones.

...

New players have no sense of how the game is supposed to play out, so their closest analog is one of two things, either freeform imaginative kid games like playing house, basically playing pretend, or if they are big boardgamers they'll think like that.

The biggest thing that sets them up for how they play is their first gm. If their first gm is like those vet players you described that just goes "no, just attack" then that sets their thinking for the rest of their life unless something truly exceptional happens. Example, your vet players who never joined in on how your noob handled things. They didn't do so because it was too far outside the way they think about the game.

Elfteiroh wrote:

...

Yep, I'm similar here. In fact, the ones the more likely to do things outside of the rules were usually the noob ones.

...

New players have no sense of how the game is supposed to play out, so their closest analog is one of two things, either freeform imaginative kid games like playing house, basically playing pretend, or if they are big boardgamers they'll think like that.

The biggest thing that sets them up for how they play is their first gm. If their first gm is like those vet players you described that just goes "no, just attack" then that sets their thinking for the rest of their life unless something truly exceptional happens. Example, your vet players who never joined in on how your noob handled things. They didn't do so because it was too far outside the way they think about the game.

You now now that I think about it 2 of my friends definetly where expecting the free form imaginative and some of my recent players were expecting something boardgamy so I think you might be on to something their.

Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

Perhaps (given it seems that pretty much nobody shares your views on this) you should entertain the possibility you may be mistaken?

Gary Gygax didn’t write his game from a twenty first century perspective. People back then just gave it a go. They wrote rules some of which made sense, some of which were contradictory and some of which were just unnecessary complications.

Nobody made games trying to emulate some kind of idealised, pre-conceived platonic ideal. Clearly articulated theory about RPGs just didn’t exist in the seventies. They were extending wargames in a new direction and seeing where it led them.

3.5 was written with the benefit of decades of learning and was designed methodically rather than being developed organically. The two really don’t have much in common beyond flavour.

thejeff wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Yep, I'm similar here. In fact, the ones the more likely to do things outside of the rules were usually the noob ones. I remember in RotR, during that attack of the gobs at the start, the Dwarven Barbarian player, at total noob (it was her first ever TTRPG experience), asked me, the DM, if she could take the table a pair of gobs were standing on and flip it during her round. I was overjoyed by that, as the other 3 players where old-school players and their first reflex was to say "nope, just attack...". That ended up throwing the gobs and one did a fumble and died, his head safely impaled on a tent piton nearby. She did many more during the adventures, and she was the only one to do so.

New school GM: "Sure, do you have the Table Flipping feat? No? Okay, roll at -3 and they get an attack of opportunity."

Old School GM: "Yeah, you can do that. That got added to the house rules back in '92 or so when Bruno the Barbarian tried to flip the king's table. Hmm, let's see if I can find those notes."

Rule of Cool DM: ....That actually sounds awesome. Pretty sure there's rules for it but give me an attack or maybe CMB roll and we'll see what happens.

Which is pretty much how I do it. Or like to think I do anyway.

But that's neither an old school nor a new school approach.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

Perhaps (given it seems that pretty much nobody shares your views on this) you should entertain the possibility you may be mistaken?

Gary Gygax didn’t write his game from a twenty first century perspective. People back then just gave it a go. They wrote rules some of which made sense, some of which were contradictory and some of which were just unnecessary complications.

Nobody made games trying to emulate some kind of idealised, pre-conceived platonic ideal. Clearly articulated theory about RPGs just didn’t exist in the seventies. They were extending wargames in a new direction and seeing where it led them.

Gary Gygax used to DM from behind a filing cabinet so that he could act as a disembodied voice. I'm not really interested in what he intended for the game.

In any case, if the issue for TheAlicornSage is that players make skill checks for their characters so that they can resolve situations then anything post 3rd edition D&D is probably not for them. Perhaps not even 2nd edition.

I am not a fan of players needing to have personal mastery of dungeoncrawling, because mostly the game devolves into DM-may-I, or ignoring mental stat penalties entirely because the player is more intelligent, wise or charming than their character.

However I am a fan of fiction first games, where players decide their action, then a roll is made that best suits the fiction of the action taken, and the result determines what happens next. It's not perfectly suited to the tactical RPG wargame style of play that the D&D and Pathfinder iterations prefer.

Honestly folks, try different RPGs that put fiction first, particularly if those RPGs are Powered by the Apocalypse, or Blades in the Dark inspired. We are living in a revolution of indie RPGs that really know how to make fictional positioning the star of the show rather than endless mechanics.

thejeff wrote:

TheAlicornSage wrote:

thejeff wrote:

When you say "designers of d20" are you talking the designers of 3.0, which was the first system I know of billed as "D20" or Gygax and the other designers of OD&D/AD&D/Basic?

There is key overlap there. Most of the ideals in design were present in both groups and they knew each other and that "old school" playstyle.

Key overlap in that both were gamers, I suppose.

The idea that they shared some key design aesthetic that's somehow missing from later work on what's essentially the same system (3.0/3.5/PF) is kind of boggling.

That isn't what I'm saying.

Gygax complained about people who played his rules without playing his game. He couldn't really describe that distinction. I can't really describe that distinction either, but that distinction between playing the game vs playing the rules without playing the game is the key point.

If you understand that distinction, then you can see how certain design choices were made with that distinction in mind.

That distinction is also the difference between what I was calling "modern" players and "old school" players.

If you can't understand that distinction, then you can't understand how I play, or why I prefer one mechanic over another.

I'm still trying to do what Gygax never did (so far as I know), which is to describe that distinction so everyone can understand it.

I'd have to see the context of Gygax's complaint. I'm actually drawing a lot here on Gygax, some from stuff in his book Role Playing Mastery and from memories of old Dragon articles.

You can understand, I hope, how "Neither Gygax nor I can really describe it, but I know I'm doing it right" isn't incredibly persuasive.
And if that distinction is something Gygax complained about back in the day, then it's really not a modern vs old school distinction. Which was all my original point was anyway.

*sips vodka*

I keep telling you folks, the best bait posts are the ones that aren't bait posts at all.

*spis vodka again*

It's 2 PM and I'm drinking, must be Saturday.

Anyway, as to my "modern gamer" street cred, well, I've started in 1993, played some 50 systems/settings across the years. My first game was, ironically, BECMI, I've done it all from D&D to Dogs in the Vineyard and from Tails of Equestria to Tales from the Loop. Last month I've played both Swords & Wizardy and Skeletons. My brain didn't melt down despite that.

You can talk to me about what was Gygax's True Vision or what is the Actual Spirit of D&D all day. I frankly and honestly don't care, because the only thing I care about is whether people at my table are having fun. And I know that in Swords & Wizardry, they'll have fun by rolling 3d6 in order and having to do that again shortly after their 1hp Wizard gets a dart between the eyes, but in Pathfinder, they'll have fun by point buy so that they can build PCs which are expected to survive at much higher rate than they did in early editions.

*sips vodka*

I keep telling you folks, the best bait posts are the ones that aren't bait posts at all.

*spis vodka again*

It's 2 PM and I'm drinking, must be Saturday.

Anyway, as to my "modern gamer" street cred, well, I've started in 1993, played some 50 systems/settings across the years. My first game was, ironically, BECMI, I've done it all from D&D to Dogs in the Vineyard and from Tails of Equestria to Tales from the Loop. Last month I've played both Swords & Wizardy and Skeletons.

You can talk to me about what was Gygax's True Vision or what is the Actual Spirit of D&D all day. I frankly and honestly don't care, because the only thing I care about is whether people at my table are having fun. And I know that in Swords & Wizardry, they'll have fun by rolling 3d6 in order, but in Pathfinder, they'll have fun by point buy.

Agreed with most of that but it is a bit early to be drinking... Some bags I swear...

Gorbacz wrote:

*sips vodka*

I keep telling you folks, the best bait posts are the ones that aren't bait posts at all.

*spis vodka again*

It's 2 PM and I'm drinking, must be Saturday.

Anyway, as to my "modern gamer" street cred, well, I've started in 1993, played some 50 systems/settings across the years. My first game was, ironically, BECMI, I've done it all from D&D to Dogs in the Vineyard and from Tails of Equestria to Tales from the Loop. Last month I've played both Swords & Wizardy and Skeletons.

You can talk to me about what was Gygax's True Vision or what is the Actual Spirit of D&D all day. I frankly and honestly don't care, because the only thing I care about is whether people at my table are having fun. And I know that in Swords & Wizardry, they'll have fun by rolling 3d6 in order, but in Pathfinder, they'll have fun by point buy.

Agreed with most of that but it is a bit early to be drinking... Some bags I swear...

I have an opinion to write, wife's out of town playing a L5R LARP and I have a horrible hangover from my friends' bday party yesterday. Alcohol isn't the answer, alcohol is the question, the answer is yes.

I feel like the big difference I've found between oldbies and newbies for lack of a better term is that new-school players seem to loathe talking to the GM, getting permission, asking for an exception, or a ruling, etc. Rules exist to protect you from the GM whose role should be little more than as a referee. Rules on the page must be followed to a degree of legalistic precision.

Since for me, "working stuff out with or as the GM" is the way I conceive of the game working. GM exists to be a storyteller or a facilitator, someone who can make the things everybody wants to have happen happen. Since in the end, all the rules are optional and things only need to work the way the people in the game want it to work.

I guess it's a matter of how loose you see the system as?

Speaking purely for my view here.

I want my characters to function without GM permission/exceptions/favours not because I think you won't give them, but because I want them to be mine and not dependant on your kindness. I often turn down bennies and bonuses that veer into mechanical influence for my RP ability because I want to earn the outcome fair and square, and not bypass the strengths and weaknesses I gave my character in trying to mechanically express them in the rules system being used. If you like my RP tell me and I'll be glad, or give me RP-based boons, but don't slap a +x in because I pleased you.

Not everyone plays the way I play, and I don't always play like this, I just favour it when I'm invested in the game. A canonical rule-set that was created outside the group may be subjectively flawed, but it has an impartial detachment that wasn't skewed by anyone in the group, and can be looked over by all of us in deciding what to play and how. If we add some houserules they should be universal and even-handed, not "This guy gets a bonus feat to make his concept work at beginning level because I think we all really dig his concept". I personally dislike learning the landscape and architecture of a complex system, only to handwave a part of it the moment it impacts our pre-existing creative notions and would force us to be resourceful, or evolve and adapt our ideas. What a waste of time IMHO. I love and engage in fictional writing and RP without any codified rules, I don't need to buy and learn books for an adjudication system that gets vetoed whenever it might actually make a difference. I would rather just RP with you without false loyalty to a time-consuming set of rules. Shortcomings, limitations and relative weaknesses are all narrative elements employed widely through the ages and cultures of the world. They are supposed to be interesting, engaging and inspiring, not just obstacles to a superior tale. I LIKE that when we set an ambush my sorcerer can do well but the rogue will probably do better, I LIKE that when we need brute force my rogue isn't useless but the barbarian's the star, I LIKE that when we're aiding the wounded my barbarian may have a healer's kit but the oracle will help much more, and I LIKE that when I want to blow something up my oracle contributes but the sorcerer excels.

This is, in my opinion, the principle of a class-based system, to have characters of differing strengths. I DON'T LIKE that in practice some classes are disproportionally over- or under-tuned in how potently and frequently their strengths are effective, I WOULD LIKE a system where classes are circumstantially different but generally equal. This is, I hope, what P2e will be, but that's besides my point. My point is that there are probably few people alive that could create or significantly adjust a game system of this complexity on short notice and produce a decent result more than a lucky fraction of the time. This is exampled by Paizo, who're employing a collaborative team of experienced people and long development cycle because they think that's necessary, not to just eat through company funds. People have differing views on "what" Pathfinder "is", but one fact I can objectively state is Pathfinder is an RPG system published in books with hundreds of pages of rules, and Paizo wants - in a sense needs - some people to pay to own said books.

If I'm going to play Pathfinder with you, that is the "Pathfinder" half of the equation to me. If we're going to change that half, I want it to be a considered alteration, because I don't invest in reading all those books and learning all those rules, designed and published specifically to provide an intricate gaming system, only to have the nuances and the opportunity to e.g. see a character have to try to do something they're not very good at, get filed away by a casual decision thrown out like a free toy with a Happy Meal. I don't want your permission, your rulings, or your exceptions. What I want from the "with you" half as a GM is you to create exceptional places, exceptional NPCs, and exceptional stories that we can interact with, and together, create exceptional experiences for everyone at the table. That's what "playing Pathfinder with you" is to me, what I want to spend my time on discussing with you in your role as GM. If we're not going to properly employ the Pathfinder half, or at least a thoughtfully and evenly-attuned version of it, I'd rather ditch that and just play with you, setup a game of Dungeon World or something.

QuidEst wrote:

I'd appreciate it if you held off on broad generalizations about how modern players play. I do lean more towards playing the mechanics of the game, but I'm very proud of how good my players (quite modern) are at getting invested in the story and freeform roleplay of the games I run, even though I'm no outstanding GM.

There is a difference between investment in story and thinking in-character. Heck, I get heavily invested in the story of Halo games, and that is most certainly [i[not[/i] rp in the slightest.

Second, "freeform" as in not mechanical. This can be taken in two ways, but it in particular implies that you ignore the mechanics completely for "periods of time" for rp instead of a mesh of rp supported by mechanics. And truthfully, this separation between playing mechanics and freeform rp is basically just that, switching between no-rules rp and no-rp mechanical play, and is the most common form of play I encounter. Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

Yeah, I mean making choices from the perspective of their characters.

What Gygax wanted isn’t very important now. And “freeform” as in not in a combat encounter tracking rounds. The sort of about-the-town stuff that will fall under exploration mode now.

I’m proud of my players, and it bugs me to have them talked down about by category (especially for something as unfitting as them only playing the rules and not the game).

We still trying to figure out how to achieve unicorn level of play in TTRPGs here?

We still trying to figure out how to achieve unicorn level of play in TTRPGs here?

To be fair the way we all play is absolutely wrong and we are so ignorant that even bothering to try and word why would be a waste of time. If only Gygax was here to tell us how to properly roleplay.

...

You can understand, I hope, how "Neither Gygax nor I can really describe it, but I know I'm doing it right" isn't incredibly persuasive.

I'm not saying some particular way is right. I'm saying there is a way that exists that most are so blind to, that most can't accept that this other way exists much less understand what that way is like.

I'm trying to make that other way visible.

And if that distinction is something Gygax complained about back in the day, then it's really not a modern vs old school distinction. Which was all my original point was anyway.

I'd agree that new school is hardly new, but usually, new school vs old school are the best landmarks I have for the discussion.

I think the Old School vs. New School discussion here is pretty insulting so maybe people should just stop.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

Perhaps (given it seems that pretty much nobody shares your views on this) you should entertain the possibility you may be mistaken?

Gary Gygax didn’t write his game from a twenty first century perspective. People back then just gave it a go. They wrote rules some of which made sense, some of which were contradictory and some of which were just unnecessary complications.

Nobody made games trying to emulate some kind of idealised, pre-conceived platonic ideal. Clearly articulated theory about RPGs just didn’t exist in the seventies. They were extending wargames in a new direction and seeing where it led them.

3.5 was written with the benefit of decades of learning and was designed methodically rather than being developed organically. The two really don’t have much in common beyond flavour.

Firstly, my way exists, since I've played it, done it, been in grouos all about it. It exists.

Maybe I'm mistaken about Gygax. I doubt it, and since he saw those "playing the rules" as being more common that those "playing the game" I'd say it is no surprise that most see "playing the rules" as right since they were more numerous from the beginning. Doesn't make those players correct.

In any case, your analysis is based on a couple wrong assumptions.

First, wargaming rules were used because they were the best tool for the job and most familiar a d therefore easiest to adjust. They were not the core of gameplay that was simply expanded, but rather something entirely new was made for which a tool was needed, and wargaming rules with modifications was the best tool available.

Understanding that relues on understanding the other wrong assumption. What place do the rules have in the game.

In chess, the rules are the game. Without the rules, chess is not chess and in fact there is no longer a game without those rules, just a board and pieces with no purpose.

A RPG is the reverse, there is a game there, separate from the rules, for which the rules can add support and be useful, but the rules are not integral to the game and can be entirely removed while still having a game remaining to play.

3.x being designed to support a game external to the rules is why you have issues with balance and other so-called design problems. Those problems exist for players who are not playing that other game, and therefore do not see the purpose behind the choice of mechanics.

What 3.0 did was make a tool to serve the same purpose, support an external game, but do so much easier and simpler. That purpose is the same.

Steve Geddes wrote:

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

Perhaps (given it seems that pretty much nobody shares your views on this) you should entertain the possibility you may be mistaken?

Gary Gygax didn’t write his game from a twenty first century perspective. People back then just gave it a go. They wrote rules some of which made sense, some of which were contradictory and some of which were just unnecessary complications.

Nobody made games trying to emulate some kind of idealised, pre-conceived platonic ideal. Clearly articulated theory about RPGs just didn’t exist in the seventies. They were extending wargames in a new direction and seeing where it led them.

Gary Gygax used to DM from behind a filing cabinet so that he could act as a disembodied voice. I'm not really interested in what he intended for the game.

In any case, if the issue for TheAlicornSage is that players make skill checks for their characters so that they can resolve situations then anything post 3rd edition D&D is probably not for them. Perhaps not even 2nd edition.

I am not a fan of players needing to have personal mastery of dungeoncrawling, because mostly the game devolves into DM-may-I, or ignoring mental stat penalties entirely because the player is more intelligent, wise or charming than their character.

However I am a fan of fiction first games, where players decide their action, then a roll is made that best suits the fiction of the action taken, and the result determines what happens next. It's not perfectly suited to the tactical RPG wargame style of play that the D&D and Pathfinder iterations prefer.

Honestly folks, try different RPGs that put fiction first, particularly if those RPGs are Powered by the Apocalypse, or Blades in the Dark inspired. We are living in a revolution of indie RPGs that really know how to make fictional positioning the star of the show rather than endless mechanics.

** spoiler omitted **...

I really like this post, and it is certainly very close to what I'm saying.

Though, d20 can be very useful for "fiction-first games" as dudmeister puts it, if only you can see rules as bendable guides and not steel straightjackets.

But there is so much more out there, and sometimes I feel the community's understanding of what RPGs are capable of is so myopic ...

This does not deserve to be behind a spoiler. This is something I find very important. Probably the single best part of dudemeister's post.

I think the Old School vs. New School discussion here is pretty insulting so maybe people should just stop.

New landmarks would be very nice, especially if they don't imply one side is better than another.

Truthfully, better terms sk this kjnd of stuff can be discussed and understood in greater depth with logic and rationality, without people getting emotionally bent ouf of shape because the best term availabld has stigma attached.

Steve Geddes wrote:

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Still isn't playing the game the way Gygax saw it.

Perhaps (given it seems that pretty much nobody shares your views on this) you should entertain the possibility you may be mistaken?

Maybe I'm mistaken about Gygax. I doubt it, and since he saw those "playing the rules" as being more common that those "playing the game" I'd say it is no surprise that most see "playing the rules" as right since they were more numerous from the beginning. Doesn't make those players correct.

How would the world appear to you in the hypothetical situation that you were wrong about Gygax and the designers of 3.0 having a similar design aesthetic for their RPGs?

I don't see how it would impact my world view. I just so happen to agree with Gygax about there being a distinction between playing the rules and some other form of play, so if he was refering to something other than what I think he meant that wouldn't really change anything.

As for the design aesthetic (which I'm not sure is really the issue. More like design focus or design goal), there are three of them for any system design.

First is what the designers had in mind.

Second is what the system actually does.

Third is what the user implements.

I could theoretically be wrong about the designer's intent, but the evidence of what the systems actually support and do would indicate otherwise.

I'm not wrong about what the systems actually support (just don't make the mistake of forgetting about emergent behavior nor limit your analysis to what you think rules are for, you have to look at what is accomplished and not how well it accomplishes what you think it should be doing. The latter is the biggest trip up for most). It is also known by more than just myself that most do not understand the systems, which is a different thing from understanding how to use the systems. Hence the existence of articles about issues of player's lack of understanding certain issues, such as dissociated mechanics and how Conan is not level 20.

As for implementation, well there's a variety of those, mostly inside this tiny little figurative circle called rules-focused gameplay. Not a thing to be right or wrong about in of itself, though claiming that outside the circle doesn't exist is wrong.

I much prefer outside that circle, and nearly all players I know that actually see outside that circle prefer the outside of the circle.

Imagine you’ve made a mistake about Gygax’s game and 3.5 having similar design goals. How would people respond to your posts about them being the same?

Another way of making the same point: how are you checking your hypothesis, to see if you’re correct?

Examination of the systems primarily. It isn't some idea I just came up with one day. It is what I see in the mechanics. My "hypothesis" is the result of analysis, not a preposition guessed at and waiting to be analyzed.

The systems do one thing, but how they do it serves a particular purpose.

Think of it like this.

Imagine you are playing a freeform rp game, aka playing pretend. One player is telling you a story but letting you act as the protagonist*. Well, certain problems start to crop up.

Firstly, the different players have different expectations/interpretations of things stated. For example, one player claims to be "very strong." Well, one player thinks The Hulk, another thinks body builder, another thinks Hercules.

So, to solve this problem, you need some way to get all the players to have similar ideas of how strong a character is. The solution is stats. Ability scores and skills don't define, rather they describe in a way that can be easily communicated so everyone has the same idea.

Another problem. GM bias. Even when the gm isn't being biased, it can still feel like it. Exporting success/failure to a system really helps avoid the negative feelings, anger, arguments, and ruined friendships that come from perceived gm bias. However, such a system is only satisfying if it accounts for the capabilities of the character and how difficult the task is, otherwise it feels arbitrary.

Well, the solution to these issues is rather easy if you are experienced with wargames. Wargames have descriptions of units that are clearly defined and have resolution systems that account for unit capabilities and other circumstances. Using wargame rules as a base to build tools for your freeform roleplay solves your biggest problems in a way that your are already familiar with and actually has the added benefit of creating tension and the emotional highs and lows of chance, which really adds to the fun.

Notice however, that this chain of concepts results in a system of mechanics that supports a game, but for which the mechanics themselves are separate, they are not the game itself.

If you examine dnd, the rules do additional things yes, but they primarily do each of these things. They describe things that are otherwise hard to be specific about (what are the capabilities of your character). They determine success and failure while accounting for character and circumstances. Yet one thing is also missing from the mechanics, video/board game style balance. Everything about the rules are focused on describing and utilizing the descriptions of the narrative milieu.

There are basically only three types of mechanics that don't deal directly with the narrative milieu, mechanics that make the system work (like rolling dice of certain sizes and in certain numbers), things that make estimations of relationships easier (such as the CR system), and things that aid fun and avoid arguments/bad feelings (such as spotlight protection).

But even more telling than all that, is the examples and advice.

For example, the dmg literally tells a gm to alter a class to better suit a player's character concept. That is something that simply is incompatible with the idea of a rules based game. It doesn't work. You can't have individualized classes for everybody without throwing everything about rules that makes chess work completely out the window. But such advice works perfectly fine and is pretty much obvious for anyone who is looking at the rules as a descriptive tool to aid communication and add a bit of tension and excitement.

===
Then comes Gygax talking about those who play the rules without playing the game. Consider for a moment. If they can play the rules without playing the game, then that logically means that the game is something beyond the rules. The game is something not defined in the rules.

The game he is referring to actually can't be defined in the rules without making his comment self-defeating, like saying true is equal to false.

*interestingly, even before adding a system to the game, you get a three point spectrum of players based on what they seek from the game.

The first point is the storytellers. Those who are all about crafting something that would be enjoyable to read, watch, or hear about. They are apart from the character, and want to help determine things beyond the character to make the character's life and situation a better story. They like including things like character growth, drama, internal struggles, etc. They want to help write the story and to make it a good story. They are narratively focused from a meta perspective.

The second, and perhaps rarest type in formal gaming, though is the first type everyone plays as little kids, is the pure roleplayer. This player isn't worried about creating a nice story, but rather they want to experience the story as though they were there. They want to feel like they are the protagonist. they want to see if they are capable of succeeding, of overcoming the obstacles in their way. They are narratively focused from the character's perspective.

The third point of the spectrum is the Seeker, these seek the excitement of doing cool, awesome, powerful, or cinematic things, of feeling awesome and powerful. They like that feeling they get from taking particular actions, such as swinging from chandeliers, beating Michael Jordon at basketball, besting Hercules at arm wrestling, etc. They are results focused from the character perspective.

The last type is very likely to enjoy mechanics with lots of growing numbers, as that is a great to feel powerful. In fact, these are often the optimizer players. They optimize precisely because that is what makes them feel powerful, and that feeling is what they are seeking.

However, a fourth point exists that is really only possible with a system, and that point is the Master. These players like the tactics, strategy, and resource management, but really those things are a means to an end for these players, because these players are like the Seekers, but instead of getting some feeling from the character's perspective, they are looking for a feeling from a meta perspective. They look at the game from the outside and like to feel like they have mastered the game by being able to make certain outcomes a certainty. These players want the "bird's eye view" of the situation. All the info they can get, including meta-knowledge. But more importantly, these players want system mastery, as that is what gives them the feeling they desire. They feel powerful from gaining system mastery and utilizing that mastery. The system is, for them, the end-all-and-be-all of what happens because that makes it all predictable, "clean," balanced, and most importantly, able to be mastered. They like to test their skill and explore a story, but in such a way that they feel in control and when it is time to test their ability, they like to test their system mastery.

In addition to that spectrum, you have two types of players, Drama and Details. Drama is what makes us feel emotion for the events in the game. Details is what makes things make sense. Details alone makes for an uninteresting game that no one really wants to play. But the reverse is the stumbling block. Some players can play the game, or read a story, watch a movie, or anything similar, and enjoy it regardless of how nonsensical and inconsistent it becomes. Others however, have a major problem with inconsistency because it ruins their immersion and their enjoyment of the drama.

This is where a player focused on the narrative will find a system like d20 more suitable than a rules lite system like fate, because d20 is really good at maintaining consistency. A system like fate can do drama real well, but it has no tools for maintaining consistency, thus the players must do extra work to maintain consistency, assuming they care.

So, in conclusion. A system like d20, is really good at consistency, description, and tension/excitement. Not very good at balance or aspects that make for a good strategy game. Even the d20 itself is an example. The d20 die gives rather swingy results which can be frustratingly inconsistent, but that was a trade-off that improves how often you get that emotional high from a critical hit or miss.

In the end, you can see that the rules of dnd support best the things the Seekers, Storytellers, and Pure roleplayers need most from a system, namely, descriptive ability, a resolution system that accounts for character and circumstances, tension and emotion, and even handles the details which is important to details oriented audiences and doesn't bother the drama-only crowd. But it fails at the things most important to the Mastery type players. Not completely perhaps, but certainly more than is likely for serious wargamers. Any serious wargamer would be able to do a better job of balancing the game, and all the aspects of game balance that would be needed to make a squad based tactical wargame were very well known and developed. RPGs may have been new, but the knowledge of how to make a balanced combat game were not new.

I'm gonna be honest with you here. That was the definition of TL/DR. No offense intended.

Umm, none taken (I'm rarely offended by anything other than intent to offend).

But I couldn't figure out a shorter explanation that answered his question. Still not sure if it's adequate.

If you can't write your idea on the back of my calling card, you don't have a clear idea. ~David Belasco

Examination of the systems primarily. It isn't some idea I just came up with one day. It is what I see in the mechanics. My "hypothesis" is the result of analysis, not a preposition guessed at and waiting to be analyzed.

You can tell that OD&D and 3.5 had similar design goals by looking at the mechanics?

If that’s your standard of evidence, it would be no wonder your conclusion is so far from mine. I’d want to hear something from the designers about what their goals were. However, I suspect you thought I was questioning your position on game mechanics.

I did read your post thoroughly, but it didn’t really address my point. I’m not challenging your analysis of the rules (I disagree with your way of breaking things up and many of your conclusions, but there’s not much to be gained by arguing that, in my view. I think of RPG rules differently from most, so I expect to disagree with pretty much anyone’s take on the rules).

The claim you keep making that I think is surprising (and unfounded) is that OD&D and 3.5 were designed with similar goals in mind. That’s an unusual claim that needs evidence, in my view (or retraction - personally I don’t think it adds anything to your point to claim that 3.5 has the long term pedigree you describe). I don’t know why you’d stick with it given the public statements from Gygax on what he thought of 3.5 and the statements of the 3.5 designers on the creation of their game. It certainly needs more evidence to overcome that than you thinking the mechanics are similar.

My reason for challenging you may have come across as confrontational, but it was intended to be helpful. I think you’ve made a claim without sufficient evidence and, when challenged, have doubled down rather than reconsidering your position. Remember you’re discussing this with people with as much or more experience as you and with the same desire to critically analyse the games. If you make a claim that everyone (pretty much?) as qualified as you rejects then you should go back to your evidence.

It doesn’t really add to the post you made above if Gygax and WoTC were on the same page or not.

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle. The game is flexible enough to accommodate multiple play-styles.

Also disliking the 'new school vs 'old school' assumptions - first, it's inherently confrontational, second it is unhelpful as no-one can agree on what exactly those terms mean, so most of the time mean nothing and third you presume to be speaking for a group of people who may actually disagree with you.

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle. The game is flexible enough to accommodate multiple play-styles.

To be honest, it’s self defeating. Being open to playing the game the way other people like has been good for me and ultimately changed my view on what I like.

Although Dungeon Crawl Classics is really not my thing, a member of our group wanted to play it a few years back and we ran through three campaigns. It still isn’t my thing, but I gained some insights about RPGs I never would have had I refused to play (or played grudgingly, without embracing the random silliness).

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle.

...

Will people please stop assuming this. I am not saying, in any way, shape, or form, that any particular way of playing is right or better.

Quite simply, the way I like to play is dying, but not from a lack of popularity, but rather because so many seem to be introduced to rpgs in such a way that they are almost incapable of understanding the way I like to play.

I try to fix that issue. To make this radically different way of playing more understood and known. The difference is a radical one. All those commonly seen playstyles are metaphorically 2 dimensional, and I'm trying to show people the 3rd dimension. It's not a circle, it's a sphere.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Examination of the systems primarily. It isn't some idea I just came up with one day. It is what I see in the mechanics. My "hypothesis" is the result of analysis, not a preposition guessed at and waiting to be analyzed.

You can tell that OD&D and 3.5 had similar design goals by looking at the mechanics?

If that’s your standard of evidence, it would be no wonder your conclusion is so far from mine. I’d want to hear something from the designers about what their goals were. However, I suspect you thought I was questioning your position on game mechanics.

I did read your post thoroughly, but it didn’t really address my point. I’m not challenging your analysis of the rules (I disagree with your way of breaking things up and many of your conclusions, but there’s not much to be gained by arguing that, in my view. I think of RPG rules differently from most, so I expect to disagree with pretty much anyone’s take on the rules).

The claim you keep making that I think is surprising (and unfounded) is that OD&D and 3.5 were designed with similar goals in mind. That’s an unusual claim that needs evidence, in my view (or retraction - personally I don’t think it adds anything to your point to claim that 3.5 has the long term pedigree you describe). I don’t know why you’d stick with it given the public statements from Gygax on what he thought of 3.5 and the statements of the 3.5 designers on the creation of their game. It certainly needs more evidence to overcome that than you thinking the mechanics are similar.

My reason for challenging you may have come across as confrontational, but it was intended to be helpful. I think you’ve made a claim without sufficient evidence and, when challenged, have doubled down rather than reconsidering your position. Remember you’re discussing this with people with as much or more experience as you and with the same desire to critically analyse the games. If you make a claim that everyone (pretty much?) as qualified as you rejects...

I don't think the mechanics are similar. That doesn't change the goal though.

Compare with cars. A car is made with the goal of getting from A to B. Some will be fast, others have more cargo, or are more comfortable.

This seems to be the limit of most discussions on the design, the differences among cars. I'm trying to point out how a couple of these cars are actually planes intended to get from A to B by flying through the air instead of a road. One might be a ww2 biplane and the other a 747, but they share flying, yet most folks insist on driving them on land.

Look at what I wrote. The idea of a system intended as a tool but not itself a game. That is the full extent of what I'm saying is the same between 3.x and earlier editions.

Yet few recognize even the possibility of a system being anything other than the entirety of a game. Few understand the thing that is the same. They can't understand the similarity because they can't understand the trait itself that is shared.

A bit like trying to tell a lifelong blind man that a bottle and a box are both blue. The blind man can't understand blue itself, therefore can't understand that the bottle and the box have something in common. Only with the games, that trait of being blue is the thing I want people to understand.

To try another explanation,

In chess, the rules are everything. You can change the names, call the pawns soldiers if you want. That is just flavor and changing it has no impact on how you choose your actions. This is playing the rules.

There is a way of playing ttrpgs that is the reverse. A way of playing in which the flavor must stay the same, but that changing mechanics can be done without altering how you choose your actions. The rules serve a purpose, but that purpose is not about defining your choices. This is playing the story.

The similarity of 3.x and earlier dnd is that they are both support systems for that style of game where the mechanics are mutable because the mechanics are not the game. They are support for playing the story.

What most people have trouble with, is how can you possibly have a game where the specific mechanics used are not important. Most don't seem able to wrap their head around this concept. But this concept is fundemental to the style of play supported by 3.x and earlier editions despite the variance in rules.

At this point, most give up and tell me to go play freeform or some rules-light system. The reason they do this, is because they can't comprehend that more detailed system, like dnd, can serve a purpose in a game without being rules. They can't comprehend that the systems are more like a language to communicate the world, that the rules are a toolbox, the use of which is determined by the game and do not determine the game.

dragonhunterq wrote:

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle.

...

Will people please stop assuming this. I am not saying, in any way, shape, or form, that any particular way of playing is right or better.

Quite simply, the way I like to play is dying, but not from a lack of popularity, but rather because so many seem to be introduced to rpgs in such a way that they are almost incapable of understanding the way I like to play.

I try to fix that issue. To make this radically different way of playing more understood and known. The difference is a radical one. All those commonly seen playstyles are metaphorically 2 dimensional, and I'm trying to show people the 3rd dimension. It's not a circle, it's a sphere.

If many people are assuming this, then maybe you need to look at your presentation, It doesn't take much to see wording littered throughout your posts that shouts out "you are doing it wrong". Things like "New players have no sense of how the game is supposed to play out" doesn't strike you as sounding very much like 'new players aren't doing it right'. I mean even in this very reply you are saying everyone else is playing a flat 2D game and only your way of playing is 3 dimensional.

Surely you can see how that is not saying "here's a different way to play", but "this is a better way to play"?

snip for formatting sanity

Everyone I have ever played with has approached roleplaying in that way. Maybe I'm apparently one of the old guard (doubtful I am only 28) but none of your examples sound revolutionary to me. Although you seem to always be skirting around what you actually mean, telling us through analogy that we just don't have the framework to understand (frankly that is insulting) but as far as I can tell your vision of what roleplaying could be/is doesn't seem to be any different than the way any of those I choose to play with understand it, some of which are very new to the hobby and originally introduced to it via a shared love of board/war/video games.

Maybe you should make a blog or something that really expands on what it is you seem to be talking about and then link it here. Really give yourself the space to make yourself understood.

@TheAlicornSage

Okay, so… accepting as a given that there are different ways to play, and house-ruling is not just allowed but expected, in what way do the Playtest rules presented thus far jeopardize your ability to play the way you want?

I've played in 4 distinct RPG rule systems (not counting editions or variations), and read the rules for many more, and while the "feel" changes from one to the next, the core of the game stays the same throughout. Some are more crunchy while others are more free-form, but the core experience is available in all of them.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say about the difference between playing the rules and playing the game, but what I don't understand is how it relates to the Playtest.

I think stepping back and refocusing might be helpful here. =]

don't think the mechanics are similar. That doesn't change the goal though.

I don’t think there’s much point continuing. I realised you were speaking about goal, not mechanics.

At this stage you are misunderstanding pretty much every post I’ve made and replied with longer and longer replies which repeat the part of your theory I’m not challenging. I’m afraid I can’t think of any other way to say it.

A bit like trying to tell a lifelong blind man that a bottle and a box are both blue. The blind man can't understand blue itself, therefore can't understand that the bottle and the box have something in common. Only with the games, that trait of being blue is the thing I want people to understand.

Now imagine that the guy trying to explain blue is not speaking to a blind person but to other sighted people who think that it’s purple. They want to discuss the difference between blue/purple and the first guy keeps talking about boxes and bottles.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle.

...

Will people please stop assuming this. I am not saying, in any way, shape, or form, that any particular way of playing is right or better.

Quite simply, the way I like to play is dying, but not from a lack of popularity, but rather because so many seem to be introduced to rpgs in such a way that they are almost incapable of understanding the way I like to play.

I try to fix that issue. To make this radically different way of playing more understood and known. The difference is a radical one. All those commonly seen playstyles are metaphorically 2 dimensional, and I'm trying to show people the 3rd dimension. It's not a circle, it's a sphere.

If many people are assuming this, then maybe you need to look at your presentation, It doesn't take much to see wording littered throughout your posts that shouts out "you are doing it wrong". Things like "New players have no sense of how the game is supposed to play out" doesn't strike you as sounding very much like 'new players aren't doing it right'. I mean even in this very reply you are saying everyone else is playing a flat 2D game and only your way of playing is 3 dimensional.

Surely you can see how that is not saying "here's a different way to play", but "this is a better way to play"?

Everyone drives cars, and iI want to introduce airplanes. One is not really better than the other, but it is an entirely new dimension. Requires a shift in thinking.

No, I don't see how I'm being insulting or making things sound like a one-true-wayism.

I'm terrible at communication and text in particular is the worst way for me to communicate. Unfortunately, text is all I have right now. (Hence why I really want a discord group for the testplay).

I find it quite hard to judge what others think of particular phrasing. People tend to take a sentence as more than the literal meaning. This extra or shift in meaning makes no sense to me most of the time.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

snip for formatting sanity

Everyone I have ever played with has approached roleplaying in that way. Maybe I'm apparently one of the old guard (doubtful I am only 28) but none of your examples sound revolutionary to me. Although you seem to always be skirting around what you actually mean, telling us through analogy that we just don't have the framework to understand (frankly that is insulting) but as far as I can tell your vision of what roleplaying could be/is doesn't seem to be any different than the way any of those I choose to play with understand it, some of which are very new to the hobby and originally introduced to it via a shared love of board/war/video games.

Maybe you should make a blog or something that really expands on what it is you seem to be talking about and then link it here. Really give yourself the space to make yourself understood.

I've had several people say that, only to play with them and it be not even close to true.

As for the blog, if I can't be clear here, how am I supposed to be clear in a blog?

TheAlicornSage wrote:

don't think the mechanics are similar. That doesn't change the goal though.

I don’t think there’s much point continuing. I realised you were speaking about goal, not mechanics.

At this stage you are misunderstanding pretty much every post I’ve made and replied with longer and longer replies which repeat the part of your theory I’m not challenging. I’m afraid I can’t think of any other way to say it.

You asked why I thought something was similar between editions, so I described what was similar and how it related to both. That relation being why I think there is a similarity. I'm not sure why that doesn't answer your question.

Quote:

A bit like trying to tell a lifelong blind man that a bottle and a box are both blue. The blind man can't understand blue itself, therefore can't understand that the bottle and the box have something in common. Only with the games, that trait of being blue is the thing I want people to understand.

Now imagine that the guy trying to explain blue is not speaking to a blind person but to other sighted people who think that it’s purple. They want to discuss the difference between blue/purple and the first guy keeps talking about boxes and bottles.

Only, I haven't had anybody mention color yet. I've had questions, and sometimes people mention soft vs hard, but no one has mentioned color.

I've played with people who claim to understand, then demonstrate that they don't understand at all.

There have been exceptions (just about every one of which understood from the day they started gaming), but those are so rare it's ridiculous.

Everyone drives cars, and iI want to introduce airplanes. One is not really better than the other, but it is an entirely new dimension. Requires a shift in thinking.

No, I don't see how I'm being insulting or making things sound like a one-true-wayism.

I'm terrible at communication and text in particular is the worst way for me to communicate. Unfortunately, text is all I have right now. (Hence why I really want a discord group for the testplay).

I find it quite hard to judge what others think of particular phrasing. People tend to take a sentence as more than the literal meaning. This extra or shift in meaning makes no sense to me most of the time.

You're using metaphors and are confused when people take sentences as more than the literal meaning?

Seriously though, you started off with statements like "That is very backwards. You're suppossed to ..." and you don't see how people see that as "you're doing it wrong"?

@TheAlicornSage

Okay, so… accepting as a given that there are different ways to play, and house-ruling is not just allowed but expected, in what way do the Playtest rules presented thus far jeopardize your ability to play the way you want?

I've played in 4 distinct RPG rule systems (not counting editions or variations), and read the rules for many more, and while the "feel" changes from one to the next, the core of the game stays the same throughout. Some are more crunchy while others are more free-form, but the core experience is available in all of them.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say about the difference between playing the rules and playing the game, but what I don't understand is how it relates to the Playtest.

I think stepping back and refocusing might be helpful here. =]

Okay, so the reason the new edition worries me,

D20 was always about being descriptive and giving tools that you could pluck and manipulate at need to serve any situation, and even had the expectation of the rules being bent in favor of narrative.

4e is a good example of the opposite. 4e has no tools for description of the world. The numbers in 4e do mot relate to anything at all, I.E. the difficulty of a trap depends on your level, not the skill of the trapmaker.

4e is however, a good combat minis game. It became a good combat minis game because it didn't even try to be useful in way other than act as a combat minis game.

My concern is that as pf2 heads away from d20 that'll go towards 4e, and lose more and more usefullness in these ways,
-it'll lose connection between numbers and the world milieu,
-it'll be more like legos and less like clay in terms of the scale at which flexibility is found.
-it'll try so hard to always have answer that it becomes harder to cobble together an answer when the system does fail to provide.
-it'll string things together so tightly, that it becomes a nightmare to make adjustments. I.E.,will the classes be so dependant on the class feat trees that it becomes impractical to alter a class to fit an individual's concept (not the greatest example given archetypes, but I figured simple and hopefully clear).

Basically, my concern is that it will become so much a game, that it's utility as a mere tool gets hindered.

Other systems, such as Savage Wirlds, Fate, Champions, Rifts, they all are less capable as tools than d20.

D20 is not only the most capable as a mere tool, but it also is highly popular. I can find people to play it, and even when they don't play my way, we can still play together, and when I gm (in person at least) I can give an exoerience beyond the mechanical.

If PF moves away from that, then I can no longer play my way with others who don't play my way. I'll be forced into playing their way or playing by myself.

Edit: I play with d20 for it's utility as a tool and the ability to play others who aren't like me. Removing the utility from the system removes all the reason I even use a system at all.

I like the blatant dismissal of other systems as "all are less capable as tools than D20". (Along with the apparent conflation of D20 with AD&D/BECMI.) Other systems - even the few listed, cover a huge range in terms of style and crunchiness and whatever else you want to consider. Others take it even farther in different directions.

D&D is certainly highly popular and it's easier to find a game of Pathfinder or 5th edition than anything else. (Is 5E D20 in this scheme? I dunno.)

I know I have certainly had roleplaying beyond the mechanical and yet not completely freeform in many non-d20 systems (which I think is what you're talking about? Maybe. It's really hard to tell what you mean.)
And in 4E for that matter, though it pushed in a direction I wasn't fond of.
Though systems certainly have influence on the experience, GM and group style usually matter far more.

My concern is that as pf2 heads away from d20 that'll go towards 4e, and lose more and more usefullness in these ways,
-it'll lose connection between numbers and the world milieu,
-it'll be more like legos and less like clay in terms of the scale at which flexibility is found.
-it'll try so hard to always have answer that it becomes harder to cobble together an answer when the system does fail to provide.
-it'll string things together so tightly, that it becomes a nightmare to make adjustments. I.E.,will the classes be so dependant on...

There we go some actual meat to your concerns. None of which seem to be particularily enlightened or requiring several pages of metaphors to get to.

It seems they are keeping the connection between numbers and the world. Devs have stated that numbers that represent a tree represent that tree whether you are lvl 1 or lvl 20. That isn't any different from PF1 as far as I can tell, and with the more bounded levels of modifiers you can actually expect these numbers to stay more reasonable.

I doubt it will have more and more answers than PF1 does. Especially on release there is far more likely to be a decluttering over PF1 sheer amount of rules for every occasionness.

I also don't see class feats as particularily problematic in any regard. If anything a reliance on options over set in stone features makes it simpler for you to make adjustments.

1549 posts about the first announcement and 600 odd since I last looked at it, what could they still be talking about?

600 odd posts later it turns out the answer is absolutely nothing. I feel stupider for having read the last two pages about how no-one understands the game and we're all playing it wrong.

Roll on August.

I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
I must not read threads with 1500 odd entries.
...