The Avalon Chronicles

Game Master lynora

I find it utterly mindboggling how one can any system 'boring', particularly one with as much variety and customization as PF1.

A system itself isn't boring, imo, it's the way you use it.

For example, Ace's core concept was a shapechanger, jack of all trades, and somebody who could adapt to a given situation and overcome most obstacles thrown his way.

I could have easily pulled off that mechanically as a human with a skill monkey class like bard or rogue and a wizard. That would have given me plenty of skills, and access to plenty of spells. Doubly true if I opted for bard, since that would get me some divine spells, like healing.

However, that's kinda boring, in a game like Avalon where some 3pp stuff was allowed, rules only sorta matter, and Lyn gave us a lot of leeway to create our 'perfect' PC.

So I made him a doppelganger, with levels in factotum, taskhaper, and a revised Chameleon/Red Mage from the Dicefreaks forum. This truly let him be and do pretty much all the things.

As for 'system mastery', yeah, I've been playing PF1 since the alpha and while I have played a ton of characters over the years, there's still so many I haven't.

With just Paizo, there's around 42 classes. This does not include archetypes or PrCs. Then, add in things like Path of War, Spheres of Power/Might/Guile, Psionics, Akashic, etc. and I could probably keep playing for another 50 years, lol

I'm taking a break from the forums right now, but I don't want to leave Kryzbyn fending for themselves here, so I will say this: It makes me want to answer an ostensibly information-gathering question like "what are your problems with PF1?" a little less when I know it's gonna turn into an argument I didn't sign up for. Sometimes people like different games, or find different games boring, and those emotional preferences really can't be "wrong". It's not any kind of indictment of your love of the system for Kryzbyn to want a change of pace.

I have my own reasons for moving on to PF2, but they're not really important here.

It's not an argument, it's delving deeper into something to try and make sense of it.

And while someone's emotions can't be wrong, they can be based on incorrect information, invalid biases, and other such issues that if rectified would lead to a different emotional outcome.

Your reasons for moving on to pf2 are relevant here. You don't have to share, but it's the main topic so feel free.

Also, I hope your break from the forums goes well.

Yes they do.

If you rp as a strong person, you'd better have the stats to justify it.
If you want to be someone who's good at bluffing someone, you'd better have the skill for it.
This is what I mean.

As far as Glamdring vs +3 longsword...
I mean, if someone was just going on and on about their fancy named sword, but wasn't actually special in any way, people would think they were mental. The "+3 Longsword" mechanically justifies the special treatment, to anyone who notices it slicing well in combat, or who casts detect magic.

You can't wholly divorce RP from the mechanics.
Ergo, your choice of mechanics matter, even if it matters to no one but yourself.

This is kinda backwards though. It's the communication aspect of the system. The system as a tool for communication needs to actually fo the job. Interesting or not, if your character is strong then that fact needs to be conveyed.

But there are two directions there. You can say a character gets a high strength score because the character is narratively a strong character.

Or you can say the character gets to be narratively strong because they have a high stat.

I have the impression that you almost exclusively build up the narrative bases on the stats and thus feel the stats need to be interesting because only then would you build interesting narrative. Would that be accurate?

I'm taking a break from the forums right now, but I don't want to leave Kryzbyn fending for themselves here, so I will say this: It makes me want to answer an ostensibly information-gathering question like "what are your problems with PF1?" a little less when I know it's gonna turn into an argument I didn't sign up for. Sometimes people like different games, or find different games boring, and those emotional preferences really can't be "wrong". It's not any kind of indictment of your love of the system for Kryzbyn to want a change of pace.

I have my own reasons for moving on to PF2, but they're not really important here.

I hope I didn't come across as trying to claim people are wrong for thinking PF1(or any system for that matter) is boring, as that wasn't my intention. Though, I realize it might have sounded that way.

Rather, I'm curious what makes it boring for them, as to me, it's anything but.

I do apologize if it seemed like I was telling ya'll it's wrong to find PF1 boring or to have switched to PF2.

Maybe it's cuz I have so many friends whose livelihood's are rooted in PF1 that it hurts a lil whenever I see people disparage the system, or have switched over to PF2.

Which, incidentally, also makes me angry and mad beyond belief over what WotC is trying to do via their new OGL....

This is kinda backwards though. It's the communication aspect of the system. The system as a tool for communication needs to actually fo the job. Interesting or not, if your character is strong then that fact needs to be conveyed.

But there are two directions there. You can say a character gets a high strength score because the character is narratively a strong character.

Or you can say the character gets to be narratively strong because they have a high stat.

I have the impression that you almost exclusively build up the narrative bases on the stats and thus feel the stats need to be interesting because only then would you build interesting narrative. Would that be accurate?

I mean, yeah, except the character is created first, then the roleplay happens.

My creation process is come up with a character concept, then make mechanical choices that represent that concept.
When rolling stats instead of point buy, I roll the stats, then make a concept based on them.

So far this is just a discussion. I haven't taken offense at anything.
Key is to give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they aren't being aggressive, and not assume the worst.
I do appreciate the kind thoughts on my behalf KC :)

I guess maybe I should say that PF1E is a very robust system, and very good as is. It's just no longer the "go to" system for my players and I.

I guess for me, there's a roleplay aspect but also a game aspect. It's nothing so abstract as allowing the system to fade into the background - I want the system front and centre. It's the part I get to interact with to influence my character - how and what they do is completely tied up in the system.

For me, I view systems as sets of incentives. This goes for game systems, but also societal systems, financial systems, and so on. The primary question I consider when evaluating any system is what are the incentives?, aka how does the system shape play?

And at least for me and the groups I've been in, PF1 incentivizes winning a given scenario before that scenario has begun through build choices. There was a time when I found that kind of gameplay thrilling. I definitely see the value in it as builds are always part of any TTRPG - they are how you express your character after all. But I feel in PF1 that once your build is set, there's very few choices left - you have an optimal solution available for most problems your characters can face.

Starfinder has this to a lesser degree. but I still prefer Starfinder's setting (Pact Worlds) to the Inner Sea and that helps take the edge off a little when I'm playing Starfinder (though I yearn for a Starfinder 2e).

Like you guys though, I think people should play what they like. There was a time when 3.5 and PF1 really really appealed to me so I can definitely understand wanting to stick with them.

I haven't played Starfinder.

And at least for me and the groups I've been in, PF1 incentivizes winning a given scenario before that scenario has begun through build choices. There was a time when I found that kind of gameplay thrilling. I definitely see the value in it as builds are always part of any TTRPG - they are how you express your character after all. But I feel in PF1 that once your build is set, there's very few choices left - you have an optimal solution available for most problems your characters can face.

Pretty much this. We've played this for so long that once we know what the campaign goals/story will be, we can each make a character that will crush most encounters easily by level 5 or 6. We don't even bother having a dedicated healer anymore. We still try to build characters that synergize, but as more and more options were added to PF1E either by Paizo or 3rd party stuff, it was very easy to make self sufficient characters that didn't need the rest of the party, but still complemented each other well.

One example is playing through Wrath of the Righteous. We didn't even use the army mechanics. We fought the enemies ourselves, and won, easily. We cleared the enemy forts quickly, and one or two rounded all the major fights. It took maybe 2 sessions per book to finish it.

How long does this stay fun?

First, does this mean you'd never enjoy playing freeform?

I personally like freeform except it has problems that I find I can solve with mechanics. Such as making it easier and more certain to communicate traits of the world if we classify those traits and give them a shorthand label, aka, stats. A system also helps with maintaining consistency. Dice also adds more tension and uncertainty to my choices, but it feels really weird if the dice don't account for my character's capabilities.

So for me, the entire point of a system is to make freeform play easier and better.

Second, everything Kryzbyn just said about encounters being too easy has nothing to do with system, especially 3.5 which counters that by leaving it to the GM yo adjust difficulty.

But more than that, is using tactics and strategies. If the players can so easily build for power, so can enemies, and enemies often have home turf advantage, meaning the ability to prepare ahead of time, to say nothing of having strategies to negate obvious strategies.

If your GM can't make an encounter dangerous and difficult, it's quite literally the GM's own fault. There is just no cause for it. Heck, the entire concept of encounters being roughly equal to the players is explicitly against the rules, so they can't even use that as an excuse.

So the solution to a game system that gives so much to players for use is... do even more work as a GM? And that's the GM's fault?

Also hi again everyone. Seems I missed a fair bit haha.

If your GM can't make an encounter dangerous and difficult, it's quite literally the GM's own fault. There is just no cause for it. Heck, the entire concept of encounters being roughly equal to the players is explicitly against the rules, so they can't even use that as an excuse.

Hit points of enemies doubled and later tripled, AC increased by 10 or more, saves/stats increased, monsters given class levels or made gestalt if they had them already, minions added, etc.

All of this wasn't quite enough to offset the party's action economy.
He did a lot, but didn't want it to feel like he was trying to cheese us or go out of his way to outright kill us, cuz you know the game isn't GM vs PCs...

It's fine. YMMV. We've gotten all the mileage we feel we needed to.

Funny enough, one of the aspects that makes PF2 such a relief to me is that the encounter-building numbers actually work. I don't have to desperately reverse-engineer every encounter to make sure its numbers are in line with my PCs', because the game did that mathematical busywork for me.

So the solution to a game system that gives so much to players for use is... do even more work as a GM? And that's the GM's fault?

Also hi again everyone. Seems I missed a fair bit haha.

Isn't that how all game systems work? If the PCs aren't being challenged, regardless of why, is it not up the GM to do more work? Even if that 'more work' is as simple as choosing slightly tougher monsters from the monster manual?

As for what Kryz said, I long ago learned that it's okay to cheat a little as a GM. Ie, make use of things the PCs don't have access to, which as GM is a lot. Give them unique abilities, which not only can help make the encounter more challenging, it also makes it interesting and different. This helps combat meta knowledge as well, which we're all generally guilty of to one degree or another...

I don't find it to be more work really, but then again, in addition to the numbers is tactics.

I mean think about it, how do wargamers win? They don't have builds for individual characters that can cheese numbers, they use strategy and tactics.

Apply the same strategy to the rpg. Rushing in headfirst is strategically simple, and should absolutely be punished if the PCs are finding encounters too easy. Stop relying on mere numbers, use tactics.

I bring up tucker's kobolds once again. An excellent example of tactics having far more power than numbers.

If combat has been reduced to everybody rushing forward and attacking, then of course it's going to get boring, regardless of the numbers or of the attack types.

I don't find it to be more work really, but then again, in addition to the numbers is tactics.

I mean think about it, how do wargamers win? They don't have builds for individual characters that can cheese numbers, they use strategy and tactics.

Apply the same strategy to the rpg. Rushing in headfirst is strategically simple, and should absolutely be punished if the PCs are finding encounters too easy. Stop relying on mere numbers, use tactics.

I bring up tucker's kobolds once again. An excellent example of tactics having far more power than numbers.

If combat has been reduced to everybody rushing forward and attacking, then of course it's going to get boring, regardless of the numbers or of the attack types.

I’m about to be offended on my GM’s behalf. You’re making a lot of assumptions about how he runs things that aren’t true.

As for what Kryz said, I long ago learned that it's okay to cheat a little as a GM. Ie, make use of things the PCs don't have access to, which as GM is a lot. Give them unique abilities, which not only can help make the encounter more challenging, it also makes it interesting and different. This helps combat meta knowledge as well, which we're all generally guilty of to one degree or another...

Oh, yeah this is definitely a thing, and we all expect fudging. What we would not expect is a creature that suddenly has a dc 75 save or die ability in the name of challenge.

The thing is, when you start just making up numbers (like trying to force monster AC to scale, for example), you put at risk one of the core design tenants of PF1--the idea that the monsters and the PCs are playing by the same essential rules. If your game depends on that fudging too heavily, it may be a sign that you'd be happier playing a different game that treats NPCs as fundamentally, mechanically distinct from PCs.

The best way to use PF1's design tenant to your advantage is to build your own enemies as much as possible--to design NPCs with class levels who are just as minmaxed as the PCs. To literally play NPCs and PCs by the same rules. NPCs casting fickle winds, pugwampi master summoners who summon more pugwampis, that sort of thing. That works, by a certain measure. It's an arms race at that point, though. It's quite a lot of work that I would usually prefer to spend on other aspects of GMing. You could tell the players to dial it back, but then you're sort of admitting that another core tenant of PF1, the extreme customizability at the expense of balance and ease of play, is also becoming a hindrance.

PF1 is incredibly touchy like that. It's not a bad system, exactly, but it's clunky and unwieldy and requires a lot of fine-tuning. Late level play is a nightmare for me.

I like the basic math of an encounter to not be something I have to worry about. I like it when the game takes care of that for me. The game can do that math more efficiently than I ever can, and it frees up time I can use to focus more on building an atmosphere, designing unique battlefields, and so on.

I like PF2 because it's incredibly versatile and customizable once you know the engine. I can play just about anything I played in PF1, and more besides. The feat system is a thing of genius. It's what third edition--3.0, 3.5 and "3.75"--always wanted to be, but it manages it without sacrificing ease of play or game balance. I didn't think such a thing was possible until I got into PF2.

By the time PF2 came out, I was basically a 5e convert. I'd resigned myself to the idea that we'd be forever trapped between the FATE vs. GURPS dichotomy. But I started playing PF2, and after making it through some substantial growing pains, I realized it struck the balance I'd been praying for. It eliminates the trap options, cleans up the rules, and handles the pointless math internally so you can just focus on choosing between interesting strategic options for builds and combat.

It's neat. I like PF2. It's what I wanted third edition to be.

These are my personal answers to "why I moved away from PF1". I've been playing PF1 for a long time as both player and GM, and I love its janky, clunky, shibboleth-laden approach, but it's not right for me.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I don't find it to be more work really, but then again, in addition to the numbers is tactics.

I mean think about it, how do wargamers win? They don't have builds for individual characters that can cheese numbers, they use strategy and tactics.

Apply the same strategy to the rpg. Rushing in headfirst is strategically simple, and should absolutely be punished if the PCs are finding encounters too easy. Stop relying on mere numbers, use tactics.

I bring up tucker's kobolds once again. An excellent example of tactics having far more power than numbers.

If combat has been reduced to everybody rushing forward and attacking, then of course it's going to get boring, regardless of the numbers or of the attack types.

I’m about to be offended on my GM’s behalf. You’re making a lot of assumptions about how he runs things that aren’t true.

I’m also starting to get jealous of the perfect in all circumstances table you apparently play at. Kudos.
I think that if in order to never get tired of PF1E all of these things needs to be perfect, I don’t need to make my case any further.

It doesn't require perfect, but I have had GMs that far exceed the common GM. If we remember that by 3.5 rules Einstein was a level 5, I've had a level 3 and level 4 GM and they were naturally better than the multitude of level 1s.

Nothing wrong with being level 1, that's where everyone starts, but I do have a problem with the idea that we should be happy with just remaining at level 1. I believe we should be seeking to be higher level in all we do.

I do not see it as a bad thing to recognize this, nor to recognize what level GMs are and how to improve.

I've seen better, so why shouldn't I share the fact that better exists. Why shouldn't I encourage people to seek being better and getting better? Most relevant here, why shouldn't I recognize that an individual's problem with something is that they're only familiar with the low quality version if it?

I kinda get that people get a bit touchy if you acknowledge that someone is not as good as they could be. I honestly don't understand that, especially when the goal is to be better and to learn the failings of those that are not yet better so we can improve. Can't get better without acknowledging the room for improvement.

Being frank and acknowledging that most people are level 1s is not insulting. Or at least it shouldn't be because you can't really progress if you get stuck on being insulted.

Further, being better at the simpler aspects doesn't grant any ability at higher aspects. To compare with math, no matter how good you get at addition, it doesn't teach you trigonometry. It's entirely possible for a GM to be great at some certain basics while not knowing about higher aspects.

I mean no insult to your GM, but I do recognize how it is possible to do better and resolve the apparent issue you have with the system, and that recognition is born of experience.

Yeah, ok. Thanks.

It's not an argument, it's delving deeper into something to try and make sense of it.

"Your GM is probably just bad" doesn't feel like a clarifying question to me.

To think all this time it was something that simple.
Amazing.

I also like PF2 because you can play a kobold and you're actually on everyone else's level. PF2 finally ditched that weird hostility to monstrous ancestries.

About time.

Not sure I like the shark head look, tho

Me neither. Honestly, fanart has always provided the best kobold art. I wasn't huge on PF1's kobolds, either.

Hitomi wrote:

It's not an argument, it's delving deeper into something to try and make sense of it.

"Your GM is probably just bad" doesn't feel like a clarifying question to me.

The mentioned problem to be solved is one that I know from experience is a problem with the GM not the system. It's a clarification of the source of the problem.

It's important because the whole point is to identify as many problems as possible and identify solutions. You can't even start on a solution until you understand the source of the problem. Therefore it's important to know.

For example, from this conversation I learned that in my GM chapter I need to include a section (or a whole chapter really) on using tactics and strategy so not everything is reduced to mere numbers and being overly simplistic (or to intentionally be simplistic when desired).

I also like PF2 because you can play a kobold and you're actually on everyone else's level. PF2 finally ditched that weird hostility to monstrous ancestries.

I actually dislike that. One of my favorite aspects of kobolds is that they are so much weaker and yet through cleverness, hard work, perseverance, and preparation can contend with more powerful peoples.

And it adds additional difficulty that feel awesome to overcome, such as a 3.5 kobold wizard that's the only survivor and with the highest kill count.

Not gonna lie - my heart skipped a beat when I saw over 50 new posts.

Gonna go curl up in the corner and cry for a bit now. Apologies in advance for the puddle... (;_;)

[And Belatedly waves to FCD] (^-^)

Sorry for the disappointment bomb, Dalesman.
I'm re-reading through again...

It'd be cool to do a "where are they now" if we can't continue :(

All good, my friend - time moves on, and we have to as well, and all that rot. Not virtually hanging around with you fine folk is the biggest kick in the feels....I hate getting old and sentimental ;)

My own re-reads keep grabbing me with 'What If' moments....makes me think that if it's good enough for Marvel, it's good enough for Agartha, lol.

I staring at 50 later this year. I know what you mean...

"Where are They Now?" does have an interesting ring to it...hm.

51 is about to roll over me in less than two weeks, heh.

And I just had the fool idea to check my very first post and see how long I've been haunting the Paizo message boards.....

September 13, 2006. Yowza (o_O)

Damn. Got me beat by 3 or 4 years I think.

Also, re-reads lead to my great dislike of broken image links.
There was some great fan service for this game.

"Where are They Now?" does have an interesting ring to it...hm.

51 is about to roll over me in less than two weeks, heh.

And I just had the fool idea to check my very first post and see how long I've been haunting the Paizo message boards.....

September 13, 2006. Yowza (o_O)

Day before my birthday!! My first post was apparently April 18th, 2005...

I turn 42 this Sept, so a bit younger than you old folk :P

"Where are they now?" I might have Ace show up in my World Serpent Inn game eventually. Our favorite Kobold has joined, perhaps others would like to as well!

I have most/all of the pix for Lyn's characters saved on my laptop, somewhere, since hers' were often the victim of broken/dead links. Had to take care of the boss lady! lol

I seem to remember DB3 doing class portraits...do we still have those?

"Where are They Now?" does have an interesting ring to it...hm.

51 is about to roll over me in less than two weeks, heh.

And I just had the fool idea to check my very first post and see how long I've been haunting the Paizo message boards.....

September 13, 2006. Yowza (o_O)

Five months my senior! In terms of Paizo years. You've got a couple more on me in human years.

Kinda wish discord woulda been a thing while we played this.
Coulda been interesting to get into a voice chat and brainstorm.

I seem to remember DB3 doing class portraits...do we still have those?

o.o

That's news to me, since I am not artistically inclined. I know I was dabbling around with HeroMachine back before flash player went belly up.

My first thought for the "Where are they now" thing was: at least one of mine is dead somewhere.

Discord is cool. No game I am in or running on it seems to last too long though. One day I'll get my post-apoc done...

Not gonna lie - my heart skipped a beat when I saw over 50 new posts.

[And Belatedly waves to FCD] (^-^)

You and me both! Sadly too much Hope for us. Esperanza was always kinda mean.

Lyn was the one who did the class portraits, I think they're still linked under her profile...

Discord is decent but I'm not sure super sure it would be good for this type of game...

Honestly there's a lot of potential on the "What Ifs". There was a lot of plots going, and it felt like we might even get to the Dragon Empire someday hah.

I found the portraits: they're in the Campaign Info tab.

Sweet, thanks FCD.
I meant more of a discussion tool, than a gameplay tool. But also more of a way to not lose touch.
DB3, I guess I’m proof that memory is the first to go

I just suddenly realized, this was an over the top game that only loosely followed the rules. Does that mean you guys would be willing to test out rule variations to see how they go?

Heh, seeing Michael just two steps away from Kitty and posed like that is kinda funny. Cute though.

Ryuzo & Nala! So good.

I think to pass the time I’m might try to recreate Krays in pf2e

Allo! Yes, it is I! MG sent out the bat signal over on twitter that y’all were hanging out and chatting about the good old days, so here I am. It’s been a rough few years for me, as I’m sure is true for many. Although so far I’ve managed to avoid Covid, by some utter miracle. Which is good since I don’t think that would go well for me with all the other health problems I’m trying to cope with. I miss gaming in general and this game in particular, but there’s no way that I could maintain the necessary speed of writing and mental processing to make it happen these days. Which makes me sad, but not much I can do really.

The discussion about game systems is very interesting, especially in the discussion for a game that was basically run by stripping down game systems for parts and ad libbing most things. Like, seriously, this game was run like an episode of Whose Line is it Anyways. I very much used the “yes, and” ad lib drama rules for practically everything. Why? Because I have adhd and rules bore me, but you need a few to keep things fair, but as few as possible please and thank you. It worked because I was playing into my strengths and away from my weaknesses (minutiae do not spark joy for me), which is honestly all being a good GM is really. Plus, different systems work better for different types of stories. A superhero story needs less rules and more flexibility, IMO.

Anyhow, if anyone has any questions about how I had planned on ending things, now’s the time to ask. Most arcs were totally player/character driven, but the overarching plot had been planned quite thoroughly from the beginning. Pretty much set in stone since the whole champion arc really kicked off. The attack from the Others and the Empire was going to occur more or less simultaneously, which had some interesting possibilities for defections I think as enemies might (or might not) be willing to form temporary alliances in order to survive. The Others were going to pull out their anti-Time weapon, there would be sort of a blink as Kronos 1.0 ‘ended’ (not exactly, non-linear existence and all that, there are two, therefore there always were two and will always be two, it’s just about which points in everyone else’s perception of linear time which version of Kronos gets the final say on things) and Kronos 2.0 comes online. And she’s kinda pissed. Please tell me I don’t have to tell you who she is?! I foreshadowed the hell out of that one. :P Anyhoo, big battle, etc, etc, scrappy heroes win against the Others, get saved from the Empire by the combined fleet of the other hidden planets (non-linear being! Just because you haven’t sent the envoys yet doesn’t mean they haven’t actually been working on building alliances for years!). I expected there to be mass destruction, which is why I set up the whole Bradley storyline, powerful angel who sacrifices himself to repair the world, etc. It was inspired by a doctor who storyline which is why it’s so damn sad, if that helps. Anyone who wanted their character to come back from the dead and have their chance at a happily ever after could choose to do so. And roll credits, write your own epilogue, etc. It was a loose framework to make sure that I left enough room for everyone else to tell the stories they wanted to with their characters.

I had considered a possible future campaign set on Haven since that was a very different, more industrial/futuristic sort of setting. But even if I hadn’t hit burnout before this story ended, I probably would have run out of steam by then anyways.

Oh no...