|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if we, the players and DMs, are responsible for some of the balance and general design issues we're constantly pointing out in Pathfinder? Let me walk you through a timeline of the last few games in which I've played.
1. Minimal Exposition - No player input whatsoever, just some NPC telling us what the adventure is going to be about.
2. Perception Checks - We walk around town or travel somewhere, and the only skill ever called for is perception. Whoever rolls highest gets their name attached at the beginning of "___ notices [plot point]."
3. Vanilla Battle - A long, drawn-out grid battle against a bunch of statistically identical enemies. 12 orcs with greataxes. 10 town guards with longswords. 6 wolves. It's really just a two-hour-long tennis match of BAB vs AC.
4. Perception Checks - (see above)
5. "Boss" Battle - Instead of an interesting, dramatic, dynamic boss fight, we instead get another vanilla battle (see above), except there's one extra bad guy with 10x the normal hit points.
How many adventures have you been on that follow that template, more or less? I think we've all been there at some point. By the complaints I read in these forums, it sounds like some players rarely get to experience anything beyond that. So let's package that up and call it the "Minimum Vanilla Adventure". Can you see how, in an MVA, a lot of the Pathfinder rules go unused?
My point here is that I think a lot of us either ignore or simply aren't proficient enough with the whole game system to really use all it has to offer. Think about all the combat maneuvers that rarely get used, the rules for weather, settlements, and light levels. If your DM thinks stuff like that slows down the game, what he's really doing is altering the balance to favor some playstyles and trivialize others. A DM who never bothers with traps is really saying "I'm making the decision to devalue rogues." It would be just like playing in a campaign where almost every monster the party fought was a golem immune to magic - why would you ever play an offensive spellcaster in a game like that?
I think that the game was designed so that every rule was important. Leaving stuff out to streamline combat really just makes it blander. Glossing over stuff like encumbrance and resource tracking might save you a few minutes here and there, but it also makes players focus more on combat, since they don't have to worry about anything else anymore. Static NPCs with no wiggle room in their behavior really turns off social players who want to bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate their way through non-combat encounters. If we put more effort into using all the rules, maybe the game would seem more balanced.
Thoughts?
How many adventures have you been on that follow that template, more or less?
Very few thankfully, but I am the DM.
My point here is that I think a lot of us either ignore or simply aren't proficient enough with the whole game system to really use all it has to offer. Think about all the combat maneuvers that rarely get used, the rules for weather, settlements, and light levels. If your DM thinks stuff like that slows down the game, what he's really doing is altering the balance to favor some playstyles and trivialize others. A DM who never bothers with traps is really saying "I'm making the decision to devalue rogues." It would be just like playing in a campaign where almost every monster the party fought was a golem immune to magic - why would you ever play an offensive spellcaster in a game like that?
Actually, almost every piece of the rules I alter or expel is related specifically to time. I game with people that have very similar time constraints as me... older, with families, jobs that demand extra hours, etc. Time is very much a concern to us, and we mold the game to our liking accordingly. The game *can* be very time consuming both in and out of combat. Knowledgeable players can help alleviate that. However, every rule change I make is also run by my players. I don't make these decisions solely on my own. For example, no one feels bartering prices adds anything whatsoever to the game for the time spent. Appraisal is a dead skill in our games. Everything follows the 50% (100% trade goods) rules and we don't mess with values. Gold Pieces no longer equal Experience Points, so there's little gain from haggling. The players asked for that change, and I obliged. The changes we implement rarely approach the broadness of "remove traps" or such.
I think that the game was designed so that every rule was important.
Actually it is designed to be fun for a vareity of playstyles, and it is designed to malleable.
Leaving stuff out to streamline combat really just
makes it blander.
That's only true if both the DM and the players allow that to happen. I've played in some rules-lite systems (not Pathfinder) where combat was anything but dull.
Glossing over stuff like encumbrance and resource tracking might save you a few minutes here and there, but it also makes players focus more on combat, since they don't have to worry about anything else anymore.
You are speaking from the extreme ends of the spectrum. Either we're using all the rules and have good right fun, or we've removed almost everything, the players have it easy and its bad wrong fun. That's not a fair characterization of most of the DMs and players I know.
Static NPCs with no wiggle room in their behavior really turns off social players who want to bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate their way through non-combat encounters. If we put more effort into using all the rules, maybe the game would seem more balanced.
Balance has nothing at all to do with a DMs willingness to play outside the lines, so to speak. Even decent DMs will be aware of what their players want from the game and design/react accordingly. There are plenty of balanced games with near zero roleplaying... they're called board games... and there's nothing wrong with them. If people want to play their RPG like a strategy board game and they still have fun doing so then that should be fine. Any attempt to "balance" the game will not help the more social players. You can balance the rules until you are blue in the face, it will never matter in the slightest to a "social player".
Yes, if you're an unimaginative DM, with unimaginative players, with a major focus on combat, the game may feel "vanilla". I disagree strongly that the case you describe is the standard or that it is somehow at fault for the lack of balance. (And yes, there are things askew balance-wise in Pathfinder, and not a single one would I lay at the feet of DMs or players)
I'm sure a lot of games go this way. Part of it, I imagine, is that there are vastly differing levels of system mastery between groups and even between players in groups. When your system mastery is relatively low it makes sense to ignore some of the more complicated bits until you have the simpler, more fundamental aspects worked out. These usually include what you described above. It only occurs to a DM after a while of playing, for instance, that they could have players make Perception checks for absolutely no reason just to freak them out. It may not even occur to them at all, however, and that could lead to consistent games like what you've put out there.
When I was 13 DMing a game for my friends I thought I was sooooo clever and original and came up with the idea of letting my players use different skills or abilities to get past a room of whirling blades. I let the default way (Reflex) be the fastest and least dangerous, but for the cleric she could make a Wisdom check to patiently time her steps, the barbarian could use a strength check to try and hold off a blade with his sword to help others, etc. Really what I was doing was performing at a higher level of system mastery because I had at that point been DMing for somewhere around 5 years, and I reached a tipping point. After that I started inventing and allowing other ways for players to do things not RAW with skills and abilities, usually harder or less efficient than the default but still do-able. Today, on my 13th year of DMing, my games flow very smoothly and sessions are consistently punctuated by epic scenes, interesting battles, lots of crazy traps and ruins, and plenty of little subsystems I've made up and house ruled in for my home games.
Part of that is taking the time to be very precise in my rules-analysis and execution (I'm pretty sure playing D&D is part of what's getting me into Berkeley law on scholarship...) and knowing what each and every rule is meant to do at specific and general times to the best of my ability. From there I can build on the framework provided by Paizo to create an experience tailored to my players and my own tastes. For new players this might be difficult. Even for experienced players and DMs this may remain difficult because not everyone is super into reading what are essentially fantasy textbooks and they might miss minutiae like the fact that clerics can leave slots open (wizards too) and prepare spells in them later on by spending 15 minutes of meditation or study. I mentioned this to a player of mine who I know has played probably as much 3.5/3.P as me and he was floored; he made me go to the spot in the rules and slapped his forehead because nobody reads the sixteen billion pages of rules for a specific class' Spells section. They read what they gotta read, or are told by the DM who got it from another DM or read it, and then they go.
So, I mean, I think what you describe happens. Probably a lot. But I also know that there are a tons of very experienced gamers on these message boards with very high levels of system mastery. A lot of complaints are serious issues with rules and not necessarily "playing the game wrong" or not utilizing enough rules. I actually think that at a certain point you have to excise some rules or your game will become a slog. Good topic though, I think you'll get some interesting responses. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a giant robble-robble-fest...
What if we, the players and DMs, are responsible for some of the balance and general design issues we're constantly pointing out in Pathfinder? Let me walk you through a timeline of the last few games in which I've played.
1. Minimal Exposition - No player input whatsoever, just some NPC telling us what the adventure is going to be about.
This would be total user error, correct.
2. Perception Checks - We walk around town or travel somewhere, and the only skill ever called for is perception. Whoever rolls highest gets their name attached at the beginning of "___ notices [plot point]."
This would also be user error.
However, the existence of Perception makes it relatively easy for an inexperienced, improvising, or simply tired GM to bring a game to a grinding halt by withholding plot informations necessary to keep the pace moving. Although there is some advice on introducing clues in a mystery investigation when everything else stalls, I don't see any GMing advice on how avoiding this trap.
Still, on the whole, this issue is probably more of a user error.
3. Vanilla Battle - A long, drawn-out grid battle against a bunch of statistically identical enemies. 12 orcs with greataxes. 10 town guards with longswords. 6 wolves. It's really just a two-hour-long tennis match of BAB vs AC.
In my experience, combats like that aren't too common, because PF is such a rules heavy system that it makes fights with that many combatants too unwieldy.
My point here is that I think a lot of us either ignore or simply aren't proficient enough with the whole game system to really use all it has to offer.
This may relate to the individual user's capacity or the system's complexity that might induce the user to throw aside or forget. More than likely, what's at play is an interaction of player style and system.
<SNIP>
Think about all the combat maneuvers that rarely get used
Again this may be due to user playstyle, system rules, or the interaction of the two. Combat maneuvers require investment or luck- there's a lot of disincentive from using them in general (provoking attacks of opportunity w/o feat, many are standard actions, PF breaking the previous Improved Feats into two separate ones, arbitrary feat taxes and ability score requirements, and the many separate maneuvers each having its own feat chain, etc.) OTOH, user style may have something to do with it. (Stealing or sundering an enemy's material component pouch or holy symbol is a potentially powerful tactic that I don't think is often thought of.)
the rules for weather, settlements, and light levels.
One of the most lobbied criticisms of PF is the versatility (and therefore power) that spellcasters have over nonspellcasters. All of those issues are much more easily dealt with by spellcasters (teleport,area effect spells, darkvision, light spells, etc.) than nonspellcasters.
If your DM thinks stuff like that slows down the game, what he's really doing is altering the balance to favor some playstyles and trivialize others. A DM who never bothers with traps is really saying "I'm making the decision to devalue rogues."
I think if that trapfinding is the primary thing that keeps rogues afloat, then there might be an issue with the system here. Especially if a a trait can give that to you.
The Pathfinder rules are too complex and hodgepodge in toto to use all of them all of the time. Even PFS recognizes this fact. It is far easier to simplify down to achieve a level of balance than to use all the things to do the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Pathfinder progresses the rules get more complicated with feat lists from players and monsters getting larger and larger. If a group needs to cut corners to make his or her game run smoother then so be it. (Note I say group and not "GM" since I feel the players should be on board or at least understand that the GM might alter rules in efforts to keep the game moving.)
And as Darkbringer perfectly stated, "Time is a concern". This is certainly true at our table. We gather each week for 3-4 hour sessions so we don't have the luxury to look up each and every rule when common sense can move the game along to everyone's satisfaction.
Momentum is very important to us. Nothing can break momentum quite like a rules lawyering. ...ok, well maybe Monty Python jokes.
-MD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people like vanilla and hate sprinkles. There are a lot of problems people have with the system that I dont like; 15 min work day, vancian casting, alignment, LF;QW. Just because I dont have a problem becuase I use rules, as you say to get over those issues, doesnt mean that the problem is soley on them. I used to think if everyone just played like me they wouldnt have any problems with balance or whatever. The E-war taught me there are more than one playstyle out there. So yes technically "we are the problem" the solution is far more complicated though. If you force the rules than some folks have to play a way they dont want to. If you change them then I cant play the way I want to. So here we are.
As Pathfinder progresses the rules get more complicated with feat lists from players and monsters getting larger and larger. If a group needs to cut corners to make his or her game run smoother then so be it. (Note I say group and not "GM" since I feel the players should be on board or at least understand that the GM might alter rules in efforts to keep the game moving.)
And as Darkbringer perfectly stated, "Time is a concern". This is certainly true at our table. We gather each week for 3-4 hour sessions so we don't have the luxury to look up each and every rule when common sense can move the game along to everyone's satisfaction.
Momentum is very important to us. Nothing can break momentum quite like a rules lawyering. ...ok, well maybe Monty Python jokes.
-MD
Monty Python, the slayer of hours of game time.