| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no actual proportion of combat you must have to make your game "count" as Pathfinder. The comment may have come from the fact that a large proportion of the rules are built around supporting combat, but you do not HAVE to have a certain percentage of playtime be combat. Your game is what you make of it; the rules simply exist to help you and your group make of your game what you will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So over on another thread someone said:
"Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play. "
The person is an ignoramus. Ignore them.
So what's the minimum % of combat that you're allowed to play the game?
As Rennaivx said, there is NO requirement for a percentage of combat of your game. When combat DOES ensue, you may choose to make use of the Pathfinder chassis. Thus you are playing Pathfinder. Without mechanics, and the interaction of said mechanics with randomised dice rolls, you are mostly roleplaying and collectively telling a story with a guide/arbiter (the GM).
If this is so, why did they release things like Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Intrigue, or are these the 'trap options' I keep hearing so much about?
If what is so? Not sure what "trap options" means in this instance, nor where you have been hearing so much about" them.
Ultimate Combat introduced the Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai, a bunch of archetypes for other existing base classes, new feats, equipment options and alternate and optional combat rules (performance combat, AC as Damage reduction etc).
Ultimate Intrigue...well, that is not due to be released until 2016. Wait, are you from the future? If this is so, I hope you are not representative of the general thinking then. Now-in-the-future. Well, whenever you are from.
There's not a minimum percentage of combat required, but in a typical Pathfinder game such as one based on an Adventure Path there will probably be a lot of combat, and most of the XP the PCs earn will probably come from combat encounters.
I think it could be tough to make a good set of rules for adjudicating every aspect of roleplaying. Different groups like to play social encounters out in more or less detail. Some rarely bother with d20 rolls to determine the outcomes of conversations while others rarely bother conversing and just say stuff like "I use Diplomacy. I got a 32." Most of the ones I play with give the player a chance to make his or her speech and perhaps have an exchange with the NPC before calling for a d20 roll which the DM judges in a mostly arbitrary manner (often with special consideration for nat 1s and nat 20s even though the actual rules don't call for any)
I think a lot of groups get a little bored if roleplaying conversations go on for too long. This is probably at least partially due to the fact that most DMs can only effectively converse with 1 person at a time. In one of the best campaigns I ever played the party would usually split up into smaller groups in town and the players of the PCs in each group would talk to each other in character while the DM went around the table giving each group a turn to interact with NPCs. In the right group I think it could be interesting to have players take on the roles of certain NPCs during social interactions, perhaps giving the player a cheat sheet with enough info to play the NPC. At worst it could be something to do with talkative players who happen to be playing anti-social PCs.
The person is an ignoramus. Ignore them.So over on another thread someone said:
"Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play. "
The confrontational "I know better than you" attitude may make the hypothetical speaker one, but there is a valid point under the smugness. There is no hard and fast "must have x% combat or suck" rule, but if you aren't really interested in combat then perhaps Fate would be a better system. It's not about you having badwrongfun so much as you may really just have more fun with a system that better supports your idea of how the game should work. If you want to tell a story that may or may not include fighting, Fate may be better for you; everyone will have a hell of a lot more narrative power. If you like playing a war game with roleplaying, then Pathfinder may better suit your needs; everyone will have a lot more tactical choices.
I have a bunch of players leery of 3.5 D&D, but are prepared to consider a cleaned-up version.Most people want a mix. Some combat is fine, but all combat is a turn-off.
Well, if you are looking for a game that strongly supports roleplaying and skills instead of tactical minatures combat, and if your group doesn't like 3.5 D&D, then I'd suggest not going with PF. PF's big market strength was that it preserved the 3.5 feel at a time that D&D proper was going in a different direction.
Combat is still the major part of the rules by pagecount, and there's a tremendous amount of game baggage that's related directly to miniatures, such as "threatened area," "attack of opportunity," "iterative attack," and so forth. The game goes into excruciating detail about exactly how many times you can swing a sword within a given abstract six-second period, or the difference between hitting someone five feet away and ten feet away, but there's almost no guidance on handling social interaction.
If you want to see how social interaction works, here it is.
If you want to see how combat works, well, this is a start. And this. And this.
The published adventures are usually at least 60% combat and often much more.
So while you can try to run High School Musical, the RPG, using the PF system, you'll probably be better off with a different system.
FATE, as mentioned earlier, is a good one. The older Pendragon and Ars Magica systems were also good, in part because they put personality strengths and limitations into a mechanical framework, so there was every bit as much a challenge for an arachnophobic to chase a spider out of the bedroom as there was for a thug to kill an orc.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people have a very, very, narrow view of how RPGs and PFRPG work, can work, could work, and are actively hostile to any ideas that other solutions exist.
They are campaigning very, very hard to make sure that everybody conforms to their own rigid molds.
Shame on them.
The person is an ignoramus. Ignore them.So over on another thread someone said:
"Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play. "
I disagree. While the idea could have been better expressed, the fact is that PF does not support skill-based challenges or social challenges particularly well.
There are lots of rules that describe ways that I can kill, injure, or incapacitate a person through violence. There aren't very many rules to describe ways I can lower a person's social standing in the eyes of the king.
Here's an example. D'Artagnan arrives in Paris with two goals. First, to beat the Comte de Rochefort in a duel, and second, to obtain a position with the King's Musketeers.
It's very easy to design, say, a 5th level character to be an awesome duelist. I have my choice of several character classes ranging from Fighter through Cavalier to Swashbuckler, and a laundry list of feats I can use to customize my character so that he's better at dueling.
It's not very easy at all to design a character to be a politician. I can take the Diplomacy skill, I suppose, and I can get generic bonuses to that skill, like the Skill Focus feat. But how do I represent familial connections? Letters of recommendation? A reputation as an honorable gentlemen? Experience in a lesser regiment? Those are all things that could be acquired through role-play, but there's little or no rules to support them.
Some people have a very, very, narrow view of how RPGs and PFRPG work, can work, could work, and are actively hostile to any ideas that other solutions exist.
Alternatively, some people have a very broad view of how RPGs work and are very knowledgeable about the fact that PF, like any other RPG, has both strengths and weaknesses.
If someone has a seafood allergy ("I have a bunch of players leery of 3.5 D&D"), then the thing to do is not to argue that the Lobster Boat has a few things on the menu that aren't shellfish. The thing to do is to point them to a good restaurant specializing in steak, or in chicken, or in salads, or in BBQ, or whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do certainly understand that there are other systems that would cater more to a less combat-heavy game; however, to say that a game is "not Pathfinder", despite using Pathfinder rules however they may apply to a given scenario, is an absurd statement, and a dangerous one; it can lead to groups avoiding the kind of game they want to play just because someone said it's "not right", and that takes away from the richness of the hobby.
Is there a middle road between a pure combat, Diablo-type game like many people claim PF is (a wargame with role-playing, as the above poster puts it), and a no-rules make-it-up-as-you-go-along game? Where there's some structure and combat, but space for other things too?
To be honest, this is very much how my group uses Pathfinder. We definitely like our battles, but we take opportunities to do a great deal in between, as well. Rule sets are tools, not hard-and-fast decrees; you can have a very combat-heavy game with a rules-light system, or a diplomacy-and-skills game run in a rules-heavy system. Some tools will be a better fit than others for a given situation, but it's all about how you use them, in the end.
As for specific advice on other systems, unfortunately I don't have a ton of experience, although I'm working on it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 60% combat guy is certainly entitled to his opinion on how to play his own games, but that is certainly not a generally accepted "rule" of Pathfinder.
Some of my game sessions are more combat oriented, others are more roleplaying oriented. This links to what I call "pacing". In a given game session, I think it is important to alternate diplomacy/investigation episodes with pure combat episodes, in order to keep things moving and to give the players a satisfying gaming experience.
Some sessions may be 60% or more combat, but others can be as little as 20% combat. Very rarely have I had a totally non-combat session, but also rarely do I have 100% combat sessions.
It's all a question of "pacing" and a good DM keeps an eye on the clock and pushes slow episodes along.
|
|
As another system you may try which may have the vibe you're looking for - consider Cthulhu-tech. The fluff is amazing (if you like the idea of a post-apocalyptic Lovecraftian world :P). The main reason I don't play it much is that the combat is too swingy for my taste - but that isn't so bad if you only have combat occasionally. The combat system isn't bad - just swingy.
I'm with many others though - I like Pathfinder - and you can rp as much as you want with it.
However, I see it as driving around everywhere in a tank. It can get you where you're going just like a car can in an rp sense, but it's a bit awkward and it's not really the main thing it was designed for, and you're hauling around a lot more than you need. But when a fight breaks out you'll certainly be glad you brought it. If fights seem unlikely - it may not be worth it. Maybe split the difference and grab a Humvee instead.
|
From what I hear, Ultimate Intrigue is going to feature some new mechanics for non-combat encounters ("verbal sparring" is the one that comes to mind) so I'm looking forward to that.
Beyond that, there are the kingdom building mechanics and the "downtime" mechnics for running business and organizations from Ultimate Campaign.
I think that it might behoove Paizo to do a book that focuses exclusively on mini-games or mechanics for running non-combat encounters within the Pathfinder game.
From what I hear, Ultimate Intrigue is going to feature some new mechanics for non-combat encounters ("verbal sparring" is the one that comes to mind) so I'm looking forward to that.
Beyond that, there are the kingdom building mechanics and the "downtime" mechnics for running business and organizations from Ultimate Campaign.
I think that it might behoove Paizo to do a book that focuses exclusively on mini-games or mechanics for running non-combat encounters within the Pathfinder game.
I'd be all over that - it'd be fantastic. I don't usually find myself requiring that sort of thing often (our non-combat encounters tend to be fairly freeform and "what-happens-happens"), but it never hurts to have the mechanics as options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, everyone's so picky about how things are phrased. Fine, I'll write something longer.
RPG systems have strengths and weaknesses. Pathfinder is a game that descends from a wargame and is largely focused on Combat with 80+% of the rules being about combat. While Pathfinder does have a skill system it is not nearly as robust or as detailed as the combat mechanics. It is effective for resolving certain kinds of social conflict, but not all. Even then most of the skills have some kind of combat application though. Because of the fact that Pathfinder has so many rules for combat, it lends itself much more easily to a game that is mostly about combat, with some roleplaying (ie. skill use) on the side to add some verisimilitude to the system.
FATE on the other doesn't really care about combat at all. It's more about conflicts in narrative. If player wants to resolve some issue in the narrative like overcoming an obstacle, creating an advantage, attacking or defending, it's covered by different narrative aspects that make up your character. You don't add your attack bonus to your +3 Greatsword. You look at your Fight skill and bring up the fact that your character "Has Sword, Will Travel" and hopefully overcome the opponents opposition to your skill. Not nearly as robust as Pathfinder's combat, but FATE's combat is more about resolving conflicts in the narrative.
If you want a game that is 50% or more roleplaying with no focus on combat you better served by playing a system like FATE that caters to it. If you want strategic and detailed combat, you are best served by playing a game like Pathfinder that is built around it. Or to apply a metaphor, you can use a wrench as a hammer, but you would be better served to actually get a hammer. And it would be weird for you to question someone saying "Gee if you are going to put in all those nails, you should really be using a hammer."
That took so much longer then simply saying: "Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play." so wouldn't it have been easier to just say that?
Would be weird for you question someone saying "Gee if you are going to put in all those nails, you should really be using a hammer."
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always tell my players that I try to balance the game between 50% combat and 50% roleplay. Of course that is my ideal, whereas the reality means if the PCs are heading into a dungeon that the roleplay will slack off based on the opportunities available in the dungeon. If they're going to be in a town or somewhere engaged in subterfuge or politics, I'll place some early "random" encounters to give them a frontload of combat before they reach their destination.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is there a middle road between a pure combat, Diablo-type game like many people claim PF is (a wargame with role-playing, as the above poster puts it), and a no-rules make-it-up-as-you-go-along game? Where there's some structure and combat, but space for other things too?
Maybe 5E D&D? The entire ruleset is much more streamlined, combats are much simpler to resolve, and the non-combat rules are malleable enough to fit plenty of different narrative situations without much re-working (and also changes a lot of paradigms that, in Pathfinder, hinder noncombat endeavors, such as the role of skills and utility spells). It sounds like it might be what you're looking for.
So what's the minimum % of combat that you're allowed to play the game?
This is a weird question. Are you asking it seriously? Seriously?
There is no "minimum % of combat". No Pathfinder-police to come to your house and arrest you for falling below the "minimum % of combat". The rules are very clear, multiple times, that this is your game and you should play it the way you want.
However...
If we really analyze all the books and try to make sense of it, and really examine the entire system closely, you will see that this is a combat game. Almost all of it.
I've never done this, but I bet if you go through the core rulebook and make a list of every rule, divided into two columns - one column for combat rules (how to hurt and kill stuff or how to get better at it) and one column for everything else), I bet the combat column is 20x the length of the other column. If you mix in the other books (not counting setting books), that disparity gets even more weighted to combat (the four bestiaries are 100% combat rules).
And that's exactly how it should be. As a GM, I can invent RP stuff off of the top of my head. Want to be a politician, fine, let's have you chat with another politician whole you try to convince him of your political agenda. Lots of talk, maybe a diplomacy or bluff check now and then (don't need many rules for that), some more talking, and we're done. I used a couple paragraphs out of the CRB and you had a successful RP event.
What's your reward? XP. How much? Well, the same as if you killed that politician in combat. Hmmmm, so now your RP event gets tied to a combat event even though it wasn't. And if I make that politician 1st level, you get very little XP for talking to him. But if I make him 10th level and give him a magic sword that he didn't use in your conversation, you get more XP (for no reason at all - your conversation was the same, but he has more HP and does more damage in battle - that you didn't have - so you get more XP for talking to him).
And if you get enough of that reward, you go up a level. You gain more HP and get better at swinging your sword and killing things, even though all you did to earn that was talk.
So even the RP stuff is built on the combat framework. Can't escape it.
Ultimately, if you want to know how many inches to move your plastic combat figuring on the "battle mat" so that you can catch the most enemies in the radius of your next combat attack, I can find gajillions of rules for that kind of stuff in the books. But if you want to sneak into a palace and forge a signed document to influence a trial tomorrow, I can find a couple rules for that and still have to make up the results of exactly what your document does in that trial off of the top of my head.
Pathfinder IS a combat game. You can do an infinite amount of non-combat stuff and there are some simple rules for that, but the vast majority of the rules are for combat.
Still, there is no "minimum % of combat" - every game is different and hopefully suits the play-styles of the people playing at that table.
And that's exactly how it should be. As a GM, I can invent RP stuff off of the top of my head. Want to be a politician, fine, let's have you chat with another politician whole you try to convince him of your political agenda. Lots of talk, maybe a diplomacy or bluff check now and then (don't need many rules for that), some more talking, and we're done. I used a couple paragraphs out of the CRB and you had a successful RP event.
That's still an unresolved issue. While it's certainly true that you don't need rules to run an RP encounter, you also don't need rules to run a combat encounter. The rules exist to provide support, guidance, structure, and fairness for what is ultimately just a group of people sitting and talking.
The ruleset provides, for combat encounters, a very detailed and objective resolution for questions like "just how badass is a katana" and "but I'm super strong so I should be able to punch him and knock him on his butt!" That's actually one of its selling points.
The rules do not provide an equivalent amount of support, guidance, structure, and fairness for social or skill encounters. We don't get into the difference between raking a lock, using a vibration gun, or single-pin picking, or the difference between how you address a baron, count, or duke. There are a hundred rules about different ways to throw a punch to make combat interesting, but none at all about how you throw shade.
And if you want to have a game where you're throwing more shade than punches, you might want a system that supports what you want.
This is actually important for a number of reasons. It helps keep different encounters interesting because they're not all "make a Diplomacy check." It provides different things for different characters to do. It levels the playing field by allowing someone who's not naturally social to effectively play a social character in a more interesting way than "I roll an 18. Did it work?"
But if you want to sneak into a palace and forge a signed document to influence a trial tomorrow, I can find a couple rules for that and still have to make up the results of exactly what your document does in that trial off of the top of my head.
That's not a bad example. I've seen a lot of systems that provide a lot more support for legal disputes, implicitly suggesting a lot of ways that players might not have thought of for influencing trials and providing a straightforward and fair way to balance different ways against each other. The forged document is useful, but we also need a way to prevent the witness from testifying.... no, that's too obvious, we need to find a way to discredit his testimony before he even gives it. Is it possible to bribe a court clerk, and what would that do?
I think that's a lot better than "The bard makes a Bluff check with a +2 circumstance bonus."
Pathfinder, like 3.x, is a very specific system that is very specific about what does what.
In my opinion, this is great for combat, but less so for non-combat (unless the non-combat rules were as good).