Athaleon's page

Hear me out.

I'll be the first to tell you, Mythic is broken, no one uses it, and it piles more complication onto a game that is already overly complicated at high level. But there are two very good reasons to incorporate something resembling Mythic into the mid-to-high-level progression (say, level 7 and above) of the base game. The first is it'll help close the gap between casters and non-casters, by letting non-casters be unabashedly superhuman in a genre famous for enforcing realism selectively.

The second is that, as I see it, the quality of high-level play is what will make or break PF2. 3rd edition D&D, including PF1, already works mostly well at the low levels. If high-level gameplay doesn't meaningfully improve, there's little reason for fans of older editions to switch. High levels are where things go pear-shaped, as casters start to run away with the game, and crunch overload makes the game increasingly cumbersome to play (let alone run). This is why PFS ends at level 12, most APs end at level 15-17, E6 is a very popular set of houserules, and—most importantly to this argument—5e's solution was to stretch the low-level experience across all 20 levels. PF2 can differentiate itself from its predecessor, from 5e, and from the large number of other fantasy RPGs out there, by making the high levels both playable (streamlined and well-balanced) and by making them feel like high levels whether you're playing a spellcaster or not—in other words to keep the power ceiling high for everyone, not just casters. A tall order, but well worth it.

A major obstacle will be, as I mentioned, the additional complication that Mythic adds to the system. But I think this can be partially alleviated by making a slimmed-down version of Mythic part of the universal progression rather than being a parallel system bolted on to the core. For example, the abilities could run on existing class resources (Stamina, Ki Points, etc) rather than an additional pool of Mythic Power. Character levels are an easy substitute for Mythic Tiers. Many fiddly little abilities of marginal usefulness that exist only to fill in dead levels (see Monk), could be outright replaced by Mythic progression—though I do believe it should remain part of universal progression rather than having (for example) Champion path abilities parcelled out among Fighter, Barbarian, etc. Combined with an overall streamlining of the base game's rules for 2e, adding pared-down and more thoroughly edited/tested Mythic mechanics to the game at high levels need not make the game overly complex.

From an anonymous author here. I have to admit, I've been guilty of a few of these myself. An understanding of these fallacies may help alleviate some of the futile and/or circular arguing that goes on in certain threads.

1.The Realism Fallacy
This fallacy is basically caused by someone forgetting that the RPG is make-believe and therefore the only rules that exist are the ones we want to exist. Therefore saying something is "realistic" is no excuse for it being bad game design, even if it is realistic for our world. If the option is unequal and advertised as equal, and doesn't work as the FICTIONAL universe is supposed to work, it's bad game design no matter how accurate it models real world physics in magic dragon land.

2. The Band-Aid Fallacy
This fallacy states that if a solution to the imbalance or bad design exists in the system, no problem exists. For instance if an extremely minmaxed Monk using every book is equal [or nearly so] to a Wizard in Pathfinder, that means the system is balanced, even if 99.9% of Monks are far weaker. This is a very common fallacy to use in game discussions, because it lets you focus on particulars instead of the broad design flaws. You get wrapped up in little solutions in-system, instead of recognizing the flaw in the system itself, and start picking apart John C /tg/'s Ubermonk build, instead of the vast number of Monks who don't work at all as advertised, as their fluff suggests, or in a balanced fashion.

3. The Stormwind Fallacy
This one is already known and is famous. Basically put it states that roleplayers can't rollplay, or that people who care about game mechanics don't care about stories. I like to call this one the "No true roleplayers fallacy". The main reasons people will bring up this fallacy is to get mad at discussions themselves, rather than anything thats being said. People who make this fallacy will often ask /tg/ why they care about mechanics instead of story, little realizing that the people in that thread probably have rich campaigns going on, many of them using the very system currently being critiqued.

4. The Anecdote Fallacy
This fallacy simply states that because a given gamer has not experienced a game design problem, it does not exist, despite the testimony and theorycrafting of many other individuals.

5. The Houserule Fallacy a.k.a. The Oberoni Fallacy
This fallacy states that if a flaw in game design can be houseruled away, it does not exist. You most often see this one in Wizard threads, where people will suggest limitations on Wizards as proof they are balanced, little realizing that by having to suggest limitations they are covertly admitting they are not balanced RAW.

6. The Aesthetic Fallacy
This fallacy is less a flaw in logic and more a bad mindset. It basically states that it doesn't matter if a feature works as advertised, is balanced, and matches its fluff perfectly, if I don't like that fluff. This could also be termed the "Martials can't have nice things fallacy". Simply put, even if you could balance a system by making Monks work like guys in kung fu movies and Fighters work like heroes of legend, that's not acceptable because it doesn't match my internal aesthetic vision. People who make this fallacy will often make comments like "go play Exalted" or "thats weeaboo" when you throw it at them.

7. The Mathematican's Fallacy
This fallacy is an assumption that all the problems of game design are ultimately the result of bad internal math. Examples of this fallacy are people trying to fix combat maneuvers and damage when balancing martials in 3.5/Pathfinder. As though that was their primary problem, and if you just balanced all the numbers, it would all be ok.

8. The Party Ad-Hominem Fallacy
This fallacy, informally the "That Guy Fallacy" states that if you are having a problem with a system, game mechanic, or class feature, its because you or your fellow players are incompetent, actively malevolent, or both. This is obviously one of the most enraging fallacies, because it is firstly offered without proof, secondly very hard to disprove formally (because it amounts to having to testify to your own INNOCENCE instead of guilt), and lastly of course because its insulting your friends.