I have a similar preference to you, I think. I don't generally run pathfinder, but when I do the "laissez faire" approach works fine - provided people don't get too hung up on checking how the rules say things should be. We don't really use experience points either and definitely don't optimise very effectively.
I'd reconcile yourself to slow combats though. It's an inevitable consequence of providing lots of meaningful tactical choices, in my view. A random encounter may take ten to fifteen minutes in AD&D and still be challenging, but I don't think that's very easy to achieve in pathfinder (at least not unless you're particularly adept at using the system).
It is certainly possible to run PF using narrative-style for combat (I do so, sometimes). The only thing to bear in mind is really the Attack of Opportunity rules, as they are the trickiest to adjudicate without a clear tactical map. You will find that provoking AoOs happens far less often than the rules expect, so be sure your players know this when it comes to selecting skills and feats.
Other than that: go for it.
|
I’m a forever DM; I’ve always run games for people who aren’t heavily invested in the hobby from a mechanical standpoint. They like to participate in a story, but they don’t optimize. They usually just pick a simple class and roll with it. We’ve been playing rules lite systems as of late because we’re on deployment right now and we’re usually pressed for time.
When I get back home I want to branch out though, and it looks like everyone is playing Pathfinder. I don’t have any objections to it; I think it’s a serviceable system. I’m worried that my laissez-faire style of DMing won’t be well received though, and I’m admittedly pretty ignorant on how most people actually play Pathfinder. The few times I’ve run into someone who’s a fan of the system I was left under the impression that I wouldn’t fit in.
How I DM:
-I like to sketch out a simple drawing of what the room looks like, I might place some coins here and there to give players an idea of where the enemy is, but I don’t fuss over movement and placement too much. I don’t want to play a tactical board game; I want to tell a story. I want combat to be fast and cinematic. I’ve heard horror stories about combat taking 30+ minutes and in the back of my mind I’m thinking “No, not for me.”
-I want combat to move quickly is because I want it to be frequent too. I like to toss in combat whenever it’s appropriate, but if I ran Pathfinder the way I’ve seen a lot of people run it I’d probably hold off on encounters most of the time because I’d be thinking “Well, here goes another 40 minutes where the plot doesn’t move forward.”
-I tend not to count EXP, characters just level up after major campaign events.
Will my DMing fly? Should I bother running Pathfinder at all? Is the culture surrounding the game static? Or is it more varied?
A good place to start to get some ideas on how others play might be to look into your local pathfinder society.
From a personal standpoint, I too am a maverick in some ways, but as long as my players enjoy it and keep coming to my games then I know I must be doing something right. If at any point you find that to not be the case, then maybe reevaluate the situation.
|
Culture varies intensely from group to group. I think actually a given group will tend to play every different game in the same way; if they're cruncy and defensive in one game they'll probably be that way in another game as well.
Whether you need to map out combat varies a lot. Generally the more "stuff" is on the battlefield, the more you need it. If you have a lot of PCs, summoned monsters, animal companions and there's hordes of enemies, you're going to need a map, just to figure out what will and what won't be in the Area of Effect, and who can help flank who. You can TRY to do without, but it turns out that movement speed will work really wonky, especially if some players invested in high movement speed and others are encumbered. And, importantly, characters who specialize in battlefield control are hosed if there's no map so they can't figure out how to place spells for effect.
I think they key determinants in combat speed are, in descending order:
- Number of players
- Players that have trouble making decisions
- Inefficient handling of the Initiative mechanic
- Players controlling multiple critters (animal companion, summoned creature)
- Lots of enemies
- Strong enemies with a lot of defensive abilities, hard combats
- Battlefield circumstances and battlefield control
Hard combats take longer than easier combats. Combat with a creature that's hard to hit but also doesn't hit hard will take more rounds than with a hit hard, die fast monster. Battlefields with so many obstacles that it often takes multiple rounds to reach an enemy will also go slower. Players who take a lot of time to make up their mind should be discouraged from playing a class that gives them a lot of summoned beasties.
Initiative order can be a boon to speed up combat. If everyone knows when their turn is going to come, they can plan ahead and immediately act. For that reason I recommend placing cards with people's names in initiative order so that everyone can see them; having cards also makes it easier to change the order if people use Delay and Ready actions.
Combat will become more tactical if you let people use lots of tactical things. PF does resemble multiplayer nondeterministic chess; for a lot of classes the more refined tactical points are quite important in combat.
I'd like to defend the crunchy nature of PF combat. It means that just because you don't have the big barbarian DPR, you can still be useful or even more useful, by engaging in tricky tactics, and receive a real mechanical advantage. PF rewards more than just the brute strength builds.
As for XP, styles differ per group. Some people play adventure paths and when the booklet says "PCs should be this level at this point" is when the GM says you all level up. I personally tend to give out XP based on how the session went; I'll give more XP if the PCs faced a difficult combat, RPed a lot or significantly pushed the plot. If there's a lot of OOC digression or everyone spends the session shopping in town I hand out little XP. I base it on the principle "reward the behavior you want more of".
Elderbean, I don't see why it won't work. A rough map and some narrative work well enough. These days counting Experience points just seems like a drag. I let the players level up when I think they're ready, or deserve it, or need the boost for the next big challenge.
|
I chuckled when you said that a 40 minute battle was too much. With my table, we have had battles that lasted 4 or 5 four hour sessions spanning a month. For 5 rounds (ish) of combat. Why? Complicated initiative due to many prepared actions, a couple dozen individually acting entities on either side totaling over 30 in all (though some acted as a group), high power levels (lvl 15) and my group is a heavy rules-specific group.
On the other hand, my Play by Post group has only ever used a map for general navigation.
All this to say that culture is extremely dependent on the group. Find the right people, and you're golden.
In your place I might consider house-ruling that there are no Attacks of Opportunity. Make it clear to the players ahead of time not to invest in traits and feats that are AoO based.
Attacks of Opportunity are a huge portion of why combats become so tactical and take so long. It adds a whole second tier of combat every round.
Every time someone moves (PC or BBEG) time has to be spent calculating who threatens, in what way do they threaten, have they already taken an attack of opportunity this round, do they have combat manuevers, do spellcasters have to make a concentration check, do spellcasters want to cast defensively, is there a 30' path that isn't threatened, etc, etc, etc.
Accurate maps and miniatures are required to clearly represent who's near who every nanosecond of combat.
To additionally simplify you might want to also remove 5' steps. Characters either move or they don't.
These two features make Pathfinder very tactical and very cumbersome if you don't want to spend most of your time on combat.
Can your DMing fly, Bobby?
Read up on combat, and play some sessions as a player so you can see how they all work together. If this is really a worry of yours, then incorporate the rules. There is no harm in learning them. You can always go back to your way afterwards. Who knows, you might even like some of the rules. :)
Pathfinder puts a lot of rules into combat, because a lot of people enjoy it. This is a great system to choose if you like that minutia. Fights will frequently take 30 minutes at least, and this time only increases as the PCs increase in level. If you can't adjust to that, and perhaps take some of the above advice about speeding things up, Pathfinder may not be for you.
As Ciaran says, I'd recommend a few sessions as a player, to see what it's all about. If you like it at all, you'll do fine. Pennies, paper maps, that's all good. If you don't like it, get out and find a system that doesn't have so many combat rules. (I wouldn't know which one, though. I play Pathfinder.)
Can you play Pathfinder rules lite? Sure, absolutely you can. But why would you? I'm a big fan of both rules heavy and rules lite games (I'm a frequent player in separate Pathfinder and Eclipse Phase games, opposite ends of the spectrum). I don't see the point in playing a rules heavy game rules lite, when there are systems better designed to do it.
That said, if you want to give Pathfinder a go and play it that way, then absolutely go ahead. It's a big community and there's space for everyone!
On a vaguely related note, your "nightmare" idea of 30 minute combats made me laugh. My current Pathfinder group is 11 people (10 players + DM, I know, but we all enjoy playing together so it's not like we can get rid of someone) and we're currently playing a campaign at level 17 (started from 1st level). 30 minutes is about the average time it takes to complete a round of combat, if we're quick.
30 minutes is nothing for a combat in Pathfinder... I'm in a group now with 6 players and once the fighting starts it tends to last at least an hour to an hour and a half but the battle is usually decided much earlier than that and then the tactics aren't needed and its just rolling until the already defeated enemies die so you can take their stuff. One way to cut back on the time commitment of combat would be to end it once it's clear that the danger is over; play out a few rounds, let the PCs do their thing, but just go "cinematic" for the remaining-enemies-don't-know-they're-already-dead clean up phase. That might keep things below or around your dreaded 30 minute combat mark :p
|
Just my $.02.
It all depends on your group. Literally, every style of gaming is out there, and Pathfinder is pretty flexible. If it doesn't work for your group, it doesn't work...but if you have a little flexibility, and Pathfinder is what you want to run...and your group wants to play...somewhere, there's a common ground.
...but if you can regularly do challenging combats in 15 min...I'm impressed. RQ is great for quick combats...Pathfinder, not so much so.
|
For my current game I'm leveling up the PCs casually without tracking XP and it's working pretty well.
I've also been going without a map for a lot of combats - mostly pulling it out when there are obstacles or movement powers involved. Since none of my players focus on AoO or heavy positioning-based abilities it works OK. I find it's not too hard to "fudge" basic stuff like whether a character can get in flanking position and last time the wizard wanted to use Glitterdust in a map-less combat I just rolled a die to see whether he could avoid catching allies in the area.
In general my group does spend a fair amount of time in exploration and RP, but that's party because we run long sessions (I think the last one was 6-7 hours, though that was unusual) and partly because we don't have a ton of combat. One combat in a session is not unusual, and I don't think we've ever had more than four. Usually if we have more than one combat, only one of them is significant. Minor, easy, uncomplicated encounters can be around 20-30 minutes, while the significant ones take an hour or more.
Whether you need to map out combat varies a lot. Generally the more "stuff" is on the battlefield, the more you need it. If you have a lot of PCs, summoned monsters, animal companions and there's hordes of enemies, you're going to need a map, just to figure out what will and what won't be in the Area of Effect, and who can help flank who. You can TRY to do without, but it turns out that movement speed will work really wonky, especially if some players invested in high movement speed and others are encumbered. And, importantly, characters who specialize in battlefield control are hosed if there's no map so they can't figure out how to place spells for effect.
Yeah, this sounds about right. The more combatants or obstacles there are the harder it is to fudge flanking and area effects.
|
As others have pointed out, the question is not whether you could play pathfinder, rather whether you should play pathfinder.
There are better systems for storytelling style RPGs. I don't understand why you would not want to play one of those instead of trying to force the system to work in a way in which it is not designed.
If you are hung up on playing Pathfinder, then I guess I would recommend the Beginners Box. At least you would then be starting with a stripped-down version of the game, so there is less for you to trim. In fact, if I recall correctly, there are no attacks of opportunity in that version.
|
|
As you have doubtlessly noticed, PF has a lot of 'purists', especially on these boards. So my advice, in keeping with your style, would be to avoid them. I would be up front about running a 'Pathfinder variant with more of a story driven feel' and as others have said make clear any necessary changes before characters are rolled up. (Or at least allow substitutions.)
Personally, I am running Paizo APs with Savage Worlds for exactly the same types of concerns you listed. Crunchy, detailed, grid combat gets a little board-game for my tastes. With that other system I can have options without so much investment. Would I expect to find players online or at my FLGS? Not so much. But you're not alone. You should definitely give it a go.
Again, though, market your table in a way that filters for those that love the fiddly bits of the rules...
|
|
I’m becoming more accepting of lengthy combat the more I read about it. Do you guys get much roleplaying or exploration in though? All I ultimately want is a decent balance between those three aspects.
As posted above, yes, there can be plenty of time for RP and exploration, it just requires having fewer combats or easier, straightforward combats. And I think someone mentioned avoiding creatures with strong defensive abilities - if an enemy has fast healing, or DR or resistances the PCs can't easily ignore, they'll take longer to kill it.
Just scale back the frequency or difficulty of combat until you feel you've reached a balance.
Quick easy combats are more fun than hard combats except in clear "boss fights".
I feel for you, Elderbean. PF isn't really the game I want to play, but all my friends play it, and its the only thing we can agree on.
If you stress RP and exploration, I expect most players will follow suit. A number just won't care about certain things, though. I tend to disregard exploration unless the DM is skilled at painting such a picture well. I have only met one particularly good at it.
Quick combats and be forthright that skills is more important than combat effectiveness, and you can form the game you want. Look into E6 and Gestalt game types, too.
