Does system mastery really exist?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 149 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

There is a monster in front of you, he is something with many attacks, reach and likely to charge (because you built with Knowledge:Whatsthatstuff). You ready and brace for its charge. It charges, it hurts itself. It hits you. Then you full attack (say pure martial level 6).
Him: 1 attack.
You: 3 attacks.

At the same time Buffoon the Probably Dead Soon does this:
Doesnt recognise that it's a many attacks thing with reach (because knowledges are for what I dumped int). Buffoon charges. Gets 1 attack off and receives 1 AoO. Then the thing unleashes his first action, a full attack. All with charge -penalties.
Same time gone by:
Him: 4 attacks
You: 1 attack and definately dead

-----

How does this have to do anything with a build pro guide turbo splat supported.

Edit: Completely legit to build a character that does not use such tactics or doesnt have the capacity to, but the possibility exists for the above situation to happen with the same character (i.e. decently smart frontliner) with different players.


necromental wrote:

If you have system mastery, you should be able to tell that you have a character much more powerful than others, but I certainly see it as a different thing to being aware you shouldn't play that character...that's inter-personal relations mastery, not system mastery.

Not saying you shouldn't have that too.

Playing the Devil's Advocate here. Pathfinder is intended to be a group activity, so why shouldn't group dynamics and interpersonal relations be involved in a system mastery discussion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
necromental wrote:

If you have system mastery, you should be able to tell that you have a character much more powerful than others, but I certainly see it as a different thing to being aware you shouldn't play that character...that's inter-personal relations mastery, not system mastery.

Not saying you shouldn't have that too.

Playing the Devil's Advocate here. Pathfinder is intended to be a group activity, so why shouldn't group dynamics and interpersonal relations be involved in a system mastery discussion?

I think someone else was pushing for that too and confused the tar out of me.

for me RPG mastery maybe could include social aspects but system mastery when I think system. I think a specific system like pathfinder or vampire the masquerade (really most WW since they are really all the same system). Social elements is something valuable across all rpg systems. I would say system mastery needs to be things specific to the system your playing and not general stuff like table manners.


Ventnor wrote:
necromental wrote:

If you have system mastery, you should be able to tell that you have a character much more powerful than others, but I certainly see it as a different thing to being aware you shouldn't play that character...that's inter-personal relations mastery, not system mastery.

Not saying you shouldn't have that too.

Playing the Devil's Advocate here. Pathfinder is intended to be a group activity, so why shouldn't group dynamics and interpersonal relations be involved in a system mastery discussion?

The problem is that if you make the terms too broad they lose usefulness. (You'll start having to talk about "social system mastery" and "mechanical system mastery" or something).


Steve Geddes wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
necromental wrote:

If you have system mastery, you should be able to tell that you have a character much more powerful than others, but I certainly see it as a different thing to being aware you shouldn't play that character...that's inter-personal relations mastery, not system mastery.

Not saying you shouldn't have that too.

Playing the Devil's Advocate here. Pathfinder is intended to be a group activity, so why shouldn't group dynamics and interpersonal relations be involved in a system mastery discussion?
The problem is that if you make the terms too broad they lose usefulness.

I don't think so. Terms like "a good football player," or even "a good athlete" don't lose usefulness even though different people have wildly different aptitudes, skill sets, roles, and expected tasks. A starting pitcher has tasks he's expected to perform which are different from what we expect from a hockey goalie or an NFL linebacker. But we'd all agree that any of the people who perform those tasks at a professional level are better "athletes" than I am.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure. It depends on context though, right?

Being "a good athlete" isn't much use in determining which player to put where on the soccer field - you need more granularity.

Similarly, if we make "system mastery" so broad that nearly every gamer has it in some degree then the conversations we want to have about it will require us to invent new subcategories.

Taking the broad definition given above, we may be able to say that you have more "system mastery" than my mum, but those aren't the conversations we're having when using the phrase system mastery. We're really talking (I think) about the many different ways to play the game, rather than trying to define a single concept corresponding to "mastery". Skill with the mechanical side of the game is one talent and it's usually labelled "system mastery", in my opinion so where's the advantage in coopting that term for something broader?


Steve Geddes wrote:

Sure. It depends on context though, right?

Being "a good athlete" isn't much use in determining which player to put where on the soccer field - you need more granularity.

Similarly, if we make "system mastery" so broad that nearly every gamer has it in some degree then the conversations we want to have about it will require us to invent new subcategories.

Depends on the conversations. I've never seen a useful conversation about "types" of system mastery, and the closest that I've come are not about things like mastering social conventions, but about, literally, roles to play. As in "Fred's a good GM, but he's not a very good player; Becky's a great player but she specializes in clerics and the party already has one."

When people talk specifically about "system mastery," in my opinion, they're talking about the ability to play a character well enough to make the game fun. (As in, "well, yes, you can make an archer cleric, but you need a lot of system mastery to do that.") And social aspects of gaming are definitely part of making a game fun.

I've rarely if ever seen the term system mastery used in a sense of "well, Arthur is a master of the system but he never showers, so we don't invite him to our games."


Orfamay Quest wrote:
When people talk specifically about "system mastery," in my opinion, they're talking about the ability to play a character well enough to make the game fun. (As in, "well, yes, you can make an archer cleric, but you need a lot of system mastery to do that.") And social aspects of gaming are definitely part of making a game fun.

Every time I've seen it it's been this usage, but the "fun" is at best implied. While "power" is implicit - you need a lot system mastery to make an archer cleric effective enough to be fun.

I've never seen "You need a lot of system mastery to play a god wizard" - with the implication being that they're so powerful you need to use "social system mastery" to avoid spoiling the game for others.

I have seen arguments that you don't need system mastery because you can have fun with the roleplaying/social aspects without mastering the mechanics.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
I've rarely if ever seen the term system mastery used in a sense of "well, Arthur is a master of the system but he never showers, so we don't invite him to our games."

That seems a little hyperbolic (I've never seen that either).

How about "Arthur has terrific system mastery, he can build awesome characters really easily - he seems to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of almost every rule option there is. However, he tends to overshadow the other players so we don't really like playing with him." I've heard something like that a lot.

To me, it's unhelpful declaring someone like him and someone like me (who can't build decent characters but plays well with others) to both have system mastery. I think we've lost the important distinction and that category is too broad to be useful (in the context of drawing out different strengths and weaknesses of various playstyles and player preferences).

Whilst the conversation has clearly shifted, it's not clear to me how access to the online databases and so forth mentioned in the OP as reasons system mastery doesn't exist is talking about anything other than mechanical aptitude.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Sure. It depends on context though, right?

Being "a good athlete" isn't much use in determining which player to put where on the soccer field - you need more granularity.

Similarly, if we make "system mastery" so broad that nearly every gamer has it in some degree then the conversations we want to have about it will require us to invent new subcategories.

Depends on the conversations. I've never seen a useful conversation about "types" of system mastery, and the closest that I've come are not about things like mastering social conventions, but about, literally, roles to play. As in "Fred's a good GM, but he's not a very good player; Becky's a great player but she specializes in clerics and the party already has one."

When people talk specifically about "system mastery," in my opinion, they're talking about the ability to play a character well enough to make the game fun. (As in, "well, yes, you can make an archer cleric, but you need a lot of system mastery to do that.") And social aspects of gaming are definitely part of making a game fun.

I've rarely if ever seen the term system mastery used in a sense of "well, Arthur is a master of the system but he never showers, so we don't invite him to our games."

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the next bit (particularly the question):

Steve Geddes wrote:
Taking the broad definition given above, we may be able to say that you have more "system mastery" than my mum, but those aren't the conversations we're having when using the phrase system mastery. We're really talking (I think) about the many different ways to play the game, rather than trying to define a single concept corresponding to "mastery". Skill with the mechanical side of the game is one talent and it's usually labelled "system mastery", in my opinion so where's the advantage in coopting that term for something broader?

What do you think is gained by using "system mastery" in this broad sense, instead of using "system mastery" for deep understanding of the mechanics of the game and "interpersonal skill" for the ability to read others and to 'fit in' with the group dynamic?

The reason I don't like the change (I see it as a change, anyhow) is that I don't see much upside.


@thejeff:

God Wizards are a good example for how these things interconnect.
You want to play a God Wizard, you actually should have solid knowledge about tactics, and should be clear that the gm has to put more work into encounters to readjust the expected difficulty and it might annoy people who´re into it for a "hard and fast" style of combat without tactical depth.


Heh. At our table just knowing that wizards are good could be seen to constitute system mastery. My players think wizards are amongst the weakest classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Overkill wrote:

@thejeff:

God Wizards are a good example for how these things interconnect.
You want to play a God Wizard, you actually should have solid knowledge about tactics, and should be clear that the gm has to put more work into encounters to readjust the expected difficulty and it might annoy people who´re into it for a "hard and fast" style of combat without tactical depth.

I get that. I agree with that. I was in fact referencing that.

I have never before seen system mastery used to describe the social aspects of playing a God Wizard in a group of players and a GM not interested or up for that level of tactics/optimization.

(The "solid knowledge about tactics" part would fall under my normal understanding of system mastery.)

Shadow Lodge

System Mastery absolutely does exist, but it can be different things.

A Player that knows that some spells, Charm Person, Color Spray, Grease, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Web, Entangle, Fly, Haste, are significantly better than others is a basic level of System Mastery. By "better", I mean are significantly more important to have and use, have a much higher degree of effectiveness, can be used much more often to solve a larger number of encounters (not even all Combat-Related encounters), and reduce the impact of threats much more often than other options.

Sure, a caster can take things like Magic Stone, Detect Undead, Shocking Grasp, Erase, Doom, or Hide From Undead, and those options MIGHT come up, and MIGHT even be life-saving when they do, but, the likelihood of Magic Stone saving the day when say, Divine Favor or Magic Weapon wouldn't do is pretty low. <However, see below>

Another degree of System Mastery is that authors, DMs, ST's, and the like all have styles, and Campaigns, Modules, APs, and Seasons all tend to have themes. For example, in PFS's early seasons, when many encounters mainly depended on the 3.5 Monster Manual 1 and then the Bestiary 1 for monsters to fight or interact with, Undead where much more common. A lot of folks complained around Season 2-3, (if I recall correctly) to reduce the amount of Undead involved, and now we know that Undead are not nearly as common as they used to be. They still appear from time to time, but you can also go multiple sessions in a row without seeing one.

What does that mean? Well, for some Classes like the Cleric who are somewhat stronger against a particular type of enemy, such as Undead, or even for some classes that have to pick specific creature types such as the Ranger with Favored Enemy, knowing that Favored Enemy Undead, or Favored Enemy Dragon, which is extremely rare in PFS will largely go unused, while something like Favored Enemy Human/Animal/Evil Outsider will come up a lot more often. So, if two Rangers start up at the same time, one picking Human for their Favored Enemy and the other picking Undead, the first one will probably get benefits from their choice more than the second, (but probably not too much), while a third that picks Dragon may never once even see a Dragon, much less "encounter" it.

We also know that Ranged combat tends to be more favorable in PF in general than other styles. It's easier to full attack, and with decent choices not too difficult to negate many of the penalties for ranged combat (miss chance, cover), and can be cheaper to stack up effects for your main weapon for cheaper, (if you can buy a few shocking arrows with your frost bow, it's cheaper than buying a shocking, frosty bow in the short term), so overall, a full attack ranged combatant will generally have an easier and safer time dealing more damage than the up close and melee warrior. Some options are just better in general because of the way that the general rules and assumptions in the game interact and work.

Finally, another form of System Mastery is understanding how many different options work together. Some do so well, blending in to make a better overall build while others can be done, but tend to work against each other and dragging a build down worse than any of it's individual parts would have been alone. So, sure, you can make a Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric multiclass character, and it might be fun, interesting, and even not totally un-viable, but it is not going to work nearly as well, be nearly as effective, or allow nearly as many solutions to different encounters as an Oracle/Paladin that synergizes well. Your Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric has a bit of crossover, but is basically trying to force three or five different things into one build.

Of course, it's totally possible to blunder the "Oradin", but in general, with a pretty basic understanding of the game, the two options as is, work pretty well together. This one sort of has two layers to it, as one is understanding how to combine different things together for a better end product, while the other is very much based on how much information, (how many books/products you have access to), and tertiarily, that newer products might introduce options that where unavailable earlier and might do something even better.

Now, all that being said, System Mastery does not really equate to "more fun", or mean universally "best", that one must always do these things. Understanding that one option will probably be more effective than another might make things more interesting, but it can also ruin the game if that option is so good that nothing is really a threat or other players are being left out of the spotlight. It also leads to an arms race, which is another thing we have very clearly seen in PFS, where what is challenging to one group of random characters is a cake walk to another, and a TPK to a third.

So, the entire campaign either has to ramp up the threat to keep things interesting for two of those three groups, lower it to keep two other of those three groups in the game, or do nothing and drive away two of those three groups who no longer care.

Party tactics and group/co-operative mentality is another large aspect to consider in System Mastery. More so for PF/d20 style games than some other systems. A "god-wizard" can be a very strong character, but a party of them is going to run into some trouble as their weakness will be much more devastating. They might not blink an eye at most encounters, but that time they go to the Mana Wastes, of fight a few Golems, or get hit with Silence, even at a fairly low CR might wipe the floor with them, where having a single mediocre warrior might have changed things around completely.

I'm also playing in a session right now where the individuals at the <online> table seem to have no concept at all about working together as a group. We finally worked our way through a trap infested dungeon to the final room before the dungeon gets assaulted by a third force come at us from the beginning. It's all small hallways, and we know for a fact that the assaulting teams are coming at to (and for us) at the end in the large room.

So after a few rounds to buff, where I become large and a few of us try to set up a barricade to protect the NPCs we are talking to, the Kitsune Rogue and Bard decide, yah, we are just go to run into the maze and fight them. After I just burned all of my spells buffing the group for short range and myself, and another two players just got set up. I can't follow them, and the other two characters can, but will effectively be stuck behind the line and can't act without swapping places with others. So all of our prep and tactics just got wasted because two characters want to go out on their own. It's not the first time this group has basically said "screw you all, I'm doing my own thing" through their actions, and if this where not the final encounter of a three parter, I'd have walked away from the table.

Being "effective" as an individual, especially at the expense of the other players, one of which is very new to the game, is not at all fun, and is annoying both in and out of character. The game isn't supposed to be a party that is there to showcase one or two characters/players, but be fun for everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think social interactions are important. Vital. But not system based. Mastery denotes a proper way, and groups should decided for themselves what they feel is proper.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
I think social interactions are important. Vital. But not system based. Mastery denotes a proper way, and groups should decided for themselves what they feel is proper.

I highly disagree. In a system like d20/PF, where there are options such as Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate, Sense Motive, Charisma, Wisdom, and the like, allowing Social Interactions to skirt by is terrible. Especially if the reasoning is because the Player, not the Character is good at it. It rewards Players (and Role Players) and punishes Characters.

If you wouldn't allow a Player that is a martial artist in real life but playing a 10 Str and Dex Wizard to utilize their real world talent at fighting with a staff, why would you then, unfairly allow a 8 Cha Barbarian all sorts of "circumstance" bonuses because the Player is metagaming their RP?

PFS has had a lot of social scenarios in the last few years that basically did this, allowing for "other" rolls in place of Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive so that characters with a low Wis and Cha, and who didn't put ranks into social skills to still be able to contribute and succeed. Except, well, it had the side effect of basically saying to those characters that actually DID build towards that that their efforts didn't really matter, because a Barbarian that put everything into Str, Dex, Con, their weapon and armor, and gear to help kill stuff was just as good as the Bard, Cleric, or Paladin that did devote resources to shine in being a "Face".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I think social interactions are important. Vital. But not system based. Mastery denotes a proper way, and groups should decided for themselves what they feel is proper.

I highly disagree. In a system like d20/PF, where there are options such as Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate, Sense Motive, Charisma, Wisdom, and the like, allowing Social Interactions to skirt by is terrible. Especially if the reasoning is because the Player, not the Character is good at it. It rewards Players (and Role Players) and punishes Characters.

If you wouldn't allow a Player that is a martial artist in real life but playing a 10 Str and Dex Wizard to utilize their real world talent at fighting with a staff, why would you then, unfairly allow a 8 Cha Barbarian all sorts of "circumstance" bonuses because the Player is metagaming their RP?

PFS has had a lot of social scenarios in the last few years that basically did this, allowing for "other" rolls in place of Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive so that characters with a low Wis and Cha, and who didn't put ranks into social skills to still be able to contribute and succeed. Except, well, it had the side effect of basically saying to those characters that actually DID build towards that that their efforts didn't really matter, because a Barbarian that put everything into Str, Dex, Con, their weapon and armor, and gear to help kill stuff was just as good as the Bard, Cleric, or Paladin that did devote resources to shine in being a "Face".

I believe Cavall was not talking about in-game social mechanics - which I agree would fall into "system mastery" - but about player level social interactions - spotlight issues, worries about overshadowing other player's, etc.

The side thread some of us have been on for the last page or so.


I think he meant social interactions between players - issues like spotlight hogging and such. Not diplomacy/bluff checks.

EDIT: Favoriting thejeff's posts is far more efficient than making my own, it seems. :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "the social aspect of ensuring the game is fun for everyone" does not fall under system mastery, but instead depends on system mastery at some point.

That is to say, the notion that one character should not hog the spotlight by asserting themselves as the world's best hero by solving all problems singlehandedly is separate from system mastery. The knowledge that a Wizard of a sufficient level can accomplish this feat without really trying that hard is part of system mastery.

So the socially adept player with some mastery of the system realizes that they are at risk of ruining the game for others if they play their class to the hilt, and instead elects to voluntarily pull back in places so as to not hog all the fun, using social cues to guide them.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:

I believe Cavall was not talking about in-game social mechanics - which I agree would fall into "system mastery" - but about player level social interactions - spotlight issues, worries about overshadowing other player's, etc.

The side thread some of us have been on for the last page or so.

Oops, my mistake for jumping to conclusions. :P

I'd read a bit of the first page and then responded to some of the earlier ideas, and now starting to catch up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE AM BUILDING BARBARIAN THAT AM ABLE CRUSH EVERYTHING THAT AM IN WAY.

SYSTEM MASTERY AM BUILDING BARBARIAN THAT AM ABLE CRUSH EVERYTHING THAT AM IN WAY WITHOUT MAKING GM OR OTHER PCS WANT KILL PLAYER OF BARBARIAN. THIS AM REQUIRING ABILITY TO NAVIGATE DELICATE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS WITHOUT LEAVING BUTTS CHAFFED, KNOWING WHEN AM HOLDING EM AND ALSO WHEN AM FOLDING THEM. AM IMPORTANT AS PLAYER OF ALL POWERFUL CHARACTER TO KNOW WHEN TIME FOR TALKING AM OVER, BOTH FOR SMASH AND SO OTHERS AM ABLE DO SOME TALKING.

THIS AM ALSO PART WHY BARBARIAN NOT TALK WITH ENPEECEES FOR MORE THAN 50 SECONDS BEFORE SMASH. THEM AM NOT GETTING DIPLOMANCY ROLLS, ALSO AM LETTING OTHER PARTY MEMBERS HAVE ABILITY TO USE FACE.

Sovereign Court

I originally posted this here, but in some bizarre screw-up it wound up in a different thread.

Over here in game design land, we have system designers, and system mastery is absolutely a thing. System mastery encompasses the ability to make choices that create the most desired result out of the game resources available to you.

Stuff like "interacting with other players" and "managing spotlighting time" is cultural. In video games it's the kind of stuff that is half guided by in-game expectations modeling (e.g. You make a "tip" jar that lets you give bennies to someone on your team who was super-great, to reinforce positive behavior) and half by community management (e.g. Your community team says "It is inappropriate to call people racist/sexist slurs and you will be banned.")

RPGs treat these separately because you can be great at making optimized characters AND also be a colossal dirtbag with whom nobody wants to play. Also culture guidance rarely shows up in RPG book advice in a substantive way in pre-2000 games (with a few pithy quotables here and there).


ENPEECEES xD amazing


@Jesse Heinig:

Savage Worlds/HEX is an interesting example because the best Advantages for a regular build can only be powered by bennies and those you can basically only get be sticking to the social contract and be a "good player".


I'm not sure I'd agree with the statement that the best Edges/Advantages for a regular build in Savage Worlds are only powered by Bennies. Sure, there's Elan and No Mercy, but Two-Fisted, First Strike, Quick, Extraction, and Sweep are all considered excellent Edges. And that's just at Novice level - at Seasoned, there's Block, Combat Reflexes, Counterattack, Dodge, Level Headed, Rock and Roll, and Frenzy. And none of these require Bennies. Actually, now that I've checked, Elan and No Mercy are the *only* Edges that you have to spend a Benny on to activate.


Grandlounge wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

Yes. It's called picking up the book.

Close thread.

Pros don't even open books!

Real pros make extensive use of all available resources.

The trick is, they already know what is available, where to look for it, and how to use it.


thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


It's closer than you think. What if the game focuses on each player having a good time and being able to contribute? There's one of your contexts.
It could I suppose. I'm far from convinced the term is commonly used in that fashion.

As a DM, this is what I strive for in my games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


It's closer than you think. What if the game focuses on each player having a good time and being able to contribute? There's one of your contexts.
It could I suppose. I'm far from convinced the term is commonly used in that fashion.
As a DM, this is what I strive for in my games.

Well, yeah.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not a good idea. Just whether it's what people usually mean by "system mastery".


Yeah, I don't really think system mastery generally refers to social systems.

System mastery in this context normally seems to refer to [game systems], specifically the mechanics of Pathfinder.

You *could* use it to refer to social systems but I have to agree, that's a really weird use of the term. I normally see it used in discussions about character building, or how to get the most out of a character. Which is a mechanical thing.

Generally, social savviness helps to know when and how to use your system mastery, but that's not the same thing as being [a part] of system mastery.

At best, I can see a second kind of system mastery being used to navigate social systems. I usually call that "Charisma" and it's usually a more intuitive thing, though.


Talking "social systems" is a bit confusing.

Pathfinder is both, a social activity as well as a game. As a game, it follows certain rules how to conduct this game, that´re a higher order then the rules you use during the game.
We just seldomly talk about this set of rules, because, well, everybody and their dog knows how roleplaying works, right? And that is pretty much wrong. The most common solution is to shift responsibility for this over to the gm and have the player only be responsible for the mechanical functions of his character.

That means we have boundaries on what can be affected with purely mechanical means, as well as modifications on what really is useful and what not, that also go way beyond the purely mechanical realm.

Simply understand what level of performance is needed, what is game-breaking and unwanted and then go for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not that it's not needed to talk and know these things, but nobody except you and maybe two more people uses system mastery as knowledge of social interaction. "Don't be a d**k" is a universal rule for all social interactions, including sports, politics, games and relationships. Knowing not to give up caster levels in PF isn't as universally applicable. I can not be a d**k and still have a crappy/OP (if loved) character.


I feel like even referring to the social interactions with other humans that playing the game requires as "systems" is a little disconcerting. I don't think we need to really draw parallels between how the game works (though more or less consistent deterministic systems modulo die rolls) and how groups of people work.

You can critical path your way to all but guarantee an outcome in the game, but people don't work that way. You can pump diplomacy and CHA to affect NPCs without actually caring who they are and what they care about, but the person sitting to your left fundamentally doesn't work that way.

There's no "insert social credit into slot A to get result B" that reliably works with human beings, so thinking game mechanically about people is probably a bad way to frame the discussion.


I consider the goal of the game to be maximizing fun for all involved, so taking that into account is a component of system mastery. In most systems, you will have some options that tend to make the game less fun (even if they are very powerful) and so learning to avoid such options is part of system mastery. I've argued this for years.

Grappling might be one; depends on the system. Summoning might be another. Or Ifrit with smokesticks. The most important limited resource is not HP, or spells, or actions. It is table time. For this reason, I have no problem saying "Total Defense" if the fight is well in hand and it would take more time to resolve my action than to skip it.

I also agree that teamwork tactics are vastly underrated as a component of system mastery. Even in PFS, where I do not engage in ooc in-combat strategizing with PCs who do not have Telepathic Bond up, I expect PCs can guess that the sorcerer who has Haste is likely going to cast it on their turn. But way too often players feel that winning initiative is all that matters and they have to act as soon as their turn comes up - charging ahead and out of range of buffs. Delay and Ready are underused.

System mastery is often taken to mean strong builds, but tactics are under-rated. Smart players with good tactics could probably take Core Pregens through Bonekeep.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aldizog wrote:

I consider the goal of the game to be maximizing fun for all involved, so taking that into account is a component of system mastery. In most systems, you will have some options that tend to make the game less fun (even if they are very powerful) and so learning to avoid such options is part of system mastery. I've argued this for years.

Grappling might be one; depends on the system. Summoning might be another. Or Ifrit with smokesticks. The most important limited resource is not HP, or spells, or actions. It is table time. For this reason, I have no problem saying "Total Defense" if the fight is well in hand and it would take more time to resolve my action than to skip it.

I also agree that teamwork tactics are vastly underrated as a component of system mastery. Even in PFS, where I do not engage in ooc in-combat strategizing with PCs who do not have Telepathic Bond up, I expect PCs can guess that the sorcerer who has Haste is likely going to cast it on their turn. But way too often players feel that winning initiative is all that matters and they have to act as soon as their turn comes up - charging ahead and out of range of buffs. Delay and Ready are underused.

System mastery is often taken to mean strong builds, but tactics are under-rated. Smart players with good tactics could probably take Core Pregens through Bonekeep.

Though I don't believe social mastery is (or should be) part of system mastery, being able to effectively utilize teamwork tactics DEFINITELY is.

I can't count how many times I've personally run into the "must go on my initiative" mentality in other players, even when it was WAY inferior to waiting for buffs and the like from their allies.

It's so prevalent, that Paizo even saw the need to make a metamagic feat to help alleviate the problem a little: Vast Spell, which allows you to cast spells on people within 60 feet of one another, rather than 30 feet.


@Ravingdork:

You make me smile a bit. You know that this is a team-based game and you know that creating synergies is superior to wasting resources on a single character.

Expand on that and you´ll know that when suing a subsystem like Naval Combat, one character has to be the captain and invest resources, and it´s a slick move to have the rest of the party being able to prove relevant aid another boni to that.

Now this is contraire to regular system mastery understanding, as you invest in skills and feats that do not directly contribute to the "power" of a character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I feel like the logic of some of these arguments is something like "Social Skills (and other similar non-mechanical concepts) are important to pathfinder, probably more important than mechanical knowledge, therefore Social skills are part of system mastery".

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but this is the gist of what I'm getting from some of these arguments.

If so... I want to clarify. I don't consider System Mastery to be an inherently positive thing. I don't consider System Mastery to equal "Being Good At Pathfinder" (as a whole). It just means "Good at Pathfinder Mechanics". Someone with a strong grasp of Pathfinder mechanics can be an awful Pathfinder player, if they lack social skills and common sense. But I wouldn't consider that person to lack system mastery... just that they lack other things.

Because of this, I don't really think that just because Social Skills are important they're part of System Mastery. All that says to me is that, yes, Social Skills are important. Vital, even. System Mastery is purely about the mechanical system. Social Interactions are the context that uses the mechanical system. They're connected in that sense, but still two different concepts.

So my point: when I say I don't consider Social Skills to be part of System Mastery, that's not a judgement on the value of Social Interactions. It simply means that I don't think the two are the same.

Hopefully that made sense. Given that there's no real definition of System Mastery, any discussion of it is a bit difficult (and is entirely my opinion and nothing more!)

EDIT: After rereading this post... this was definitely not a particularly well written post, lol. I was struggling to put some concepts into words that I don't usually put into words. Still, I stand by my ultimate point, if not the presentation of it.

Sovereign Court

Purple Overkill wrote:

@Ravingdork:

You make me smile a bit. You know that this is a team-based game and you know that creating synergies is superior to wasting resources on a single character.

Expand on that and you´ll know that when suing a subsystem like Naval Combat, one character has to be the captain and invest resources, and it´s a slick move to have the rest of the party being able to prove relevant aid another boni to that.

Now this is contraire to regular system mastery understanding, as you invest in skills and feats that do not directly contribute to the "power" of a character.

This is just like building a bard or cleric or other support character that is all about making the other party members more effective. It's not part of the social sphere of the game to look at your available resources and decide that your best utility is in improving the utility of your team in order to complete your team's goals. It just tends to synergize with social dynamics because people who are more interested in their own character supremacy are less likely to spend their resources on things that directly contribute to getting their own way.


I feel that some aspects of "understanding the system" blur the lines between the social and the mechanical.

"This option is powerful but normally takes a while to resolve, so isn't good if you are running short on real-world time" is understanding something vitally important about the mechanics. Especially in PFS. It can directly affect your ability to overcome challenges.

"This option can be powerful, but is vaguely worded and subject to table variation" is understanding the mechanics.

"This option is powerful if you have A, B, and C in the party but counterproductive if you have X, Y, and Z" is also understanding the mechanics.

Some other social aspects I see as clearly separate from system context (e.g. "Don't be a jerk.") Still worth knowing, but I see where you are coming from that they are not system mastery.

Sovereign Court

Perhaps it is more meaningful if I were to say, the rules of the game say "If you take X, you can make other party members more powerful" or "If you take Y, you can get good synergy if other players have taken Z." Or these may be implicit - i.e. you have an ability that synergizes really well with some other ability, but the rules don't say that; they just tell you what each ability does, and you have to figure it out.

The rules do not say, "Don't take so long at your turn that other players get bored at the table." They don't say, "Don't build a character whose sole purpose is to annoy and sabotage other players, and then try to say 'I was just playing my character!' as a defense." They don't say, "Show up on time and bring copies of all of your character's relevant rules, especially if you are handling minions or summoned creatures." Those are not game systems and so they are not part of systems design or systems mastery. These are part of the social culture of the game - tribal knowledge in some cases, learned behaviors or elements of hard-won personal experience that are not set down as some system that you must manage via a game rule.

Grand Lodge

Jesse Heinig wrote:
They don't say, "Show up on time and bring copies of all of your character's relevant rules, especially if you are handling minions or summoned creatures."

They do in PFS.

On the topic of system mastery, as someone who is still learning Pathfinder as such, it clearly exists, but may differ based on the type of character one plays.

For example, most of my pre-Pathfinder experience is with playing computer games based on AD&D 2E such as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, and there I mostly played plain Mages. Since 2E, spells probably changed the least. An acid arrow still melts the enemies slowly, magic missile cuts through mostly anything, etc. Feats now exist. Even hitpoints changed. For me the Wizard is by far the easiest class to play. In fact, in my first PFS game (and my second tabletop session) I played 7th level Ezren, and was fairly successful, preventing a TPK or two.

Now, Wizard being fairly powerful, I take the approach as being sort of a secondary GM (this probably holds double for wizards with a lot of divinations), as my spells can do a lot to control the difficulty of an encounter. I've never had complaints when I turned a certain TPK into a raging success. Of course, I don't handle everything, but I did notice that I usually handle around half of a PFS scenario, unless I'm out of subtier with a party of more powerful characters.

I'm often in the position of leading the party, and a lot of the qualities of a good GM transfer well to the role of the leader of the party.

As far as character building goes, I did notice that some people are better at building certain classes (often corresponding to what they're like IRL), and lately had a chance to play with a player who usually plays barbarians, but played an arcanist this time. His character was pretty pitiful, and he had trouble figuring out how I got INT 19 on my wizard (soon to go up to 20).

For me, the usual fighting rules are something I only recently learned, and my knowledge of them is still incomplete, so I would not be able to build a fighter or another martial character and make them effective, but for me, wizards are relatively easy.

Sovereign Court

Mangenorn wrote:
Jesse Heinig wrote:
They don't say, "Show up on time and bring copies of all of your character's relevant rules, especially if you are handling minions or summoned creatures."

They do in PFS.

If you read the latest version of the PFS Roleplaying Guild Guide, there is no such rule - or at least, even reading the entire Guide and the Additional Resources document, I've seen no such rule. In fact, "do not cheat" and "keep good records" are considered a subset of community standards. The closest thing to a rule that affects social interaction are the rules of no attacking other players, and no wantonly evil characters. And both of those are rules that affect you as a player by removing you from play, rather than altering the choices that you make to get a desired outcome in the game. These are social conduct standards. If I play in a PFS game and I have a creature on my iPad in my library of legally-owned resources and I choose to summon it, there is no penalty for doing so if I don't already have a pre-written 3x5" card with the creature's stat block. It's nice to have such a thing, but it has no impact on my choices, ergo, not a system.

Systems are things that, as I noted above, affect your ability to get the desired outcome in the game using your available resources. Giving you + or - on rolls is a system. Saying "Your character can do this thing that (s)he can't normally do" or "Your character can't do this thing that (s)he can normally do" is part of a system. Even rules like "You must have a legally-owned reference for any creature you summon" are blurring the line between game systems and play requirements, in the same way that you can't play amateur park soccer if you don't have a soccer ball, but having a soccer ball is not an enumerated rule of the game if you're playing amateur park soccer in the way that "you can't use your hands on the ball unless you're the goalie" is a rule.


Timing out on a PFS scenario because you used options that took longer to resolve is materially affecting your ability to "get the desired outcome in the game using your available resources."

Bonekeep is probably the clearest illustration of this.

It's not purely a social consideration to avoid tactics that slow the game down. It affects your success.

Sovereign Court

But you can time out by just dithering and not doing anything. Not a system.


Everything is a system.
Some are too complex to get a handle on.
The rules are a very simple system, and allows us the illusion of control, and, I suppose, Mastery. Take the human factor out of this discussion and you are left with nothing of value. You know, like the game itself. It is the human factor that allows for enjoyment of the complex interactions.

I guess, realistically, no one Masters the ever-changing, hyper-complex social facet of the game, and wouldn't it be dull if you did? You just do your best and hope.

Problem is, the social aspects aren't always fun. It is a hard thing to tell someone that if they can't stop being a jerk, then they have to go away. It's even harder when it is yourself that is being the jerk. A lot of people pretend that they really don't have to deal with that part. It is so much easier to deal with the simple bits.


Ravingdork wrote:

Again and again system mastery is mentioned across these boards. If you have it, you're considered a god among players. If you don't, you might get by, or squashed; whichever the dice may decree.

Is system mastery really a thing though? Or is it just whether or not the player making the builds has access to d20pfsard, the Archives of Nethys, Hero Lab, or some other comprehensive rule sorting tool?

Seems to me, the only thing that differentiates someone with this mystical "system mastery" from someone without, is that the former likely has the tools that allow him to efficiently sort through the thousands of rules options and find the most optimal choices for whatever it is they're tying to do; and the latter does not.

Let's face it, the rules are pretty easy for the most part. There's not much there to master. What debates we do have on these forums about the rules are often over semantics, minutiae, or corner cases. Really, to make great builds, you really just gotta' know what options are out there, and these tools really help you do that.

Agree or disagree? If you think I'm totally off base, feel free to enlighten me with a detailed explanation as to why you think that is.

I consider this game an RPG, so I say there are two systems to master: Roleplaying and the Game part.

Crushing standard encounters solo requires pure game system mastery.

Crushing standard encounters with you party requires game system mastery and enough roleplaying system mastery to play off your party or influence their decisions.

Appearing to be challenged while defeating standard encounters requires game system mastery and additional roleplaying system mastery to appear to struggle just enough that the DM doesn't ramp up the difficultly so that you can maintain a margin of safety.

Pure roleplaying system mastery means your characters make everyone more passionate about the and are a joy to have at every table regardless of effectiveness.

I consider the ideal fusion of both kinds of system mastery to be where you as a player help balance the system through build and action, help other players actualize their concepts, play a memorable character, and are loved by the GM for doing it. You are a repository of rules woithout being a rules lawyer and can accurately gauge what level of system mastery is appropriate for the party and build characters accordingly that will be challenged without you artificially gating yourself. I consider that the pinnacle of good player system mastery and doubt too many people every come close to that.

ASIDE: I've seen plenty of people "powergame" ineffectual splat-book infused messes of characters. So no, access to a good content parser is not game mastery.

Sovereign Court

Let me put it in a different way.

Showing up at the table with cards and references and charts for Power Attacking does not necessarily demonstrate any system mastery. The guy with the Power Attack matrix might be playing a level 3 wizard and have no idea how to actually use Power Attack in an effective manner. Showing up with a bunch of creature stat cards does not demonstrate system mastery. It just means that I have a tool with me to support what I am trying to engage - my engagement may still be a failure, like if I insist on using full-round summons of natural animals in fights against constructs or something.

At my job I regularly interview people for system design positions. If you come to an interview and say, you get along great with people, you have great time management skills, you know how to work on a team, those are all useful skills, they are what we consider "soft skills." But they will not get you the job. To get the job you have to demonstrate that you understand what makes a rule broken, what makes a choice bad, what changing some value or standard in the system will do to the system as a whole. You have to demonstrate how to make a system understandable to players, and how to measure whether something is doing what is intended. You have to be able to undertake projects like collating data on the overall performance of all the players of the game, figuring out why some players have 1,000x the performance of others, and developing a plan to overhaul systems so that you can close that gap without making the high-performance players feel like they're being cheated, and preferably by making your systems more readily usable by low-performance players to close that gap - but also leaving a gap so that there is aspirational performance for people who actually put in the effort to master the systems.

System mastery is a requisite for system designers to be able to understand the game they're working on and make changes or additions that continue to extend the game and make it fun, by giving players interesting choices in how they engage the game.


I'm glad your narrow definition works well for as a designer. As a player and GM, I don't find it useful.

Only in the context of an actual game do the words on the page matter to me. So my definition of system mastery as a player and GM takes that context into account.

PFS or not? Episodic or AP? PbP or FtF? Battlemat or theater of the mind? Typical encounters per day? Wealth level? Fixed party or rotating? Which setting? Softball GM who has enemies split attacks or target the PCs that can take it? Or hardball? Timed or not? The optimal options change with the context, and that is why I consider system mastery to be based on the game as actually played.

If you are under real-world time limits, many "optimal" options become less so. If it is the boss fight and there are 10 minutes left in the slot, the lantern archon swarm (often a very strong option) might not be as likely to lead to successfully completing the mission as taking a gamble on Baleful Polymorph. Kiting, Walls of Stone, flooding the mat with weak summons, they can be advantageous in the abstract but in some contexts they just don't work.

While intending to not make the game drag is a social aspect, understanding the game well enough to know which options will have that effect is system-specific. (For example, summoning in LotFP takes even longer to resolve).

That's why I say some aspects blur the lines (time management being one fairly clear example). Mechanics can have both in-game effects and meta-game effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aldizog wrote:
That's why I say some aspects blur the lines (time management being one fairly clear example). Mechanics can have both in-game effects and meta-game effects.

You make some good points, I think.

For me though, it's a matter of convention - "system mastery" has been used for years and when someone claims to have it, I don't think many leap to the idea of "A-ha! That player knows not to use summoning spells in the last ten minutes of a PFS slot!"

I fully agree with you that such considerations make you a better player - but I think the horse has bolted on the phrase system mastery. That's used in a much more limited sense, imo (without disagreeing at all that being a good player involves an understanding of such meta-game issues).


Ravingdork wrote:
Dhrakken wrote:

...a couple of weeks ago, I built a few PC's with my players for our new Serpent's Skull game using Hero Lab and the sheer volume of options was overwhelming to them... "what do you mean I have 489 traits to choose from????" Having all the options available was daunting and discouraging and I had to step in to make suggestions on what they should take.

I have encountered this numerous times while trying to introduce new people to the game.

Usually, I just end up telling them not to feel too overwhelmed by all of the options, and that if they wish, they can tell me what they're looking for in a character in their own words. Then I help them track down good options that help them accomplish their concept's goals.

This, right here RD, is system mastery. Or at least one singular aspect of it. Knowing the system well enough to find what you need, when you need it, and being able to point others in the right direction.

101 to 149 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does system mastery really exist? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.