| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been kicking this idea around for a while since there is usually a bunch of disconnect and I personally use it to try and help avoid the headaches it can cause.
Pathfinder works best to me when viewed not as one game but several and i'm going to try to touch on them as i see them. There might be more and there might be less but these are the ones that work best for me.
Pathfinder as 3.X Framework
In this type pathfinder is a bare bones mechanics set you use to provide a rules framework to the game you want to run. This is the default assumption of most of the big hardback books. In this rules set class names are skins you use to define your characters abilities and how they interact with the world you're in. Fluff and crunch are disconnected. Fey foundling is a way to get better heals, Goblins are not all comical pyromaniacs and your character can claim paladin/gunslinger/wizard/ninja/samuraihood without having a single level in the actual class. Feat and trait names try to be generic because they are meant as mechanical options and while Golarion examples are given it's largely contextual or as filler information. Fluff where it is present is also somewhat barebones and largely easy to ignore. For example my bloodrager has the dragon bloodline because I like what it give me more then because he had an actual dragon ancestor. Rulings here are simple straightforward and based off of rules interactions. Math is king here and nebulous concepts lead to exploitation. Let's use the following example of tail. Tail is not a thing covered in the rules. Kobolds from a mechanical point of view do not have a tail since having or not having a tail does literally nothing. If I take a feat that gives me the ability to make an attack with my tail it is no different from a feat that gives me a bite or a claw attack that i also do not have. the human heritage feat to gain access to the kobold tail attack is fine since 'tailed' is not a race trait that is toggled on and off like say darkvision or weapon familiarity. House rules are not really as much of an issue because your adding or subtracting stuff as you want to make your game. 3PP, The race building rules, it's all good since basically it's all house rules.
Pathfinder as Golarion
This is the middle of the road. It's also the default assumption of most of the APs and splat books. You're playing in the official game setting so fluff and crunch work together and the names of things have context in the world. You can't take traits pertaining to being from Cheliax as an andoran, wizards and sorcerers are mechanically and socially different with wizards using magic from studying books and sorcerers having magic in the blood reflected both in the rules and the knowledge of the world. As the GM since this is a home game you have final say. Maybe in your world osrion has a different king or maybe Geb is helping Clexiax take over the River Kingdoms. They designed the sandbox and you bought it so now you can tweak it but if you try to bend it to far it's not going to be the same sandbox anymore. Now let's go back to the tail. Kobolds in golarion have tails, there's still no mechanical justification for a tail but artwork and fluff back this up. Kobolds can take a feat to attack with their tails. The human heritage feat does not call out that if you take it for kobold feats you gain a tail so a human taking it to take the tail attack probably will not work unless you work it out with your GM that the heritage feat gave you a useless fluff tail like the kobolds have. It's more of a GM fiat sort of thing. The rules aren't so much different as the assumptions are and fluff relevance has mechanical fallout. House rules happen, it is after all still a home game but, but for the most part RAW and RAI matter. This type of pathfinder is where thing like 'Virtual number of hands' tend to crop up the most.
Pathfinder as A living campaign
Pathfinder Society games are set for a very specific balance level. Weather or not you agree with how it's balanced or that it is balanced don't matter much. What they shoot for is what they shoot for and your opinions don't matter. Not only do the rules have relevance but some options are different or just not allowed to better facilitate it's particular playstyle. Not many rules are seemingly designed for this but FAQs and Errata seem *strongly* influenced by this as it is the largest collection of feedback available to the company. If you never had the problems they make the changes for in your home game it doesn't matter. Because of the balance aims here some things are just flat out no. Back to the tail example. Here it doesn't work. Virtual number of hands problems sort of occur but are less of a problem because at the end of the day this is their sandbox and your just building castles in it.
Pathfinder as a guideline
You have friends, dice, snacks and the books. You don't care about making your own world, you don't obsess over exact rulings. Beer and pretzels and good stories are your goal so all the rules discussions are kinda pointless for you. You're probably on these forums for the same reason crash fans go to nascar rallies. YaY explosions. No one really care about tail attacks.
Sounds legit to me. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It think it is played like different games, but not like what you describe.
At low levels they are like regular people.
Then they become more like action heroes
Then they become more like super heros.
Later they basically become almost god-like.
As they go up in level you can't throw the same stories at them.
An investigation that takes days or weeks to solve with skills gets taken care of a lot faster with divination magic as an example.
The castle wall that keeps them out can be flown over or just dismantled later on. Eventually, they just teleport, and the wall is about as close to being a barrier as grass is.
Other challenges become insignificant in the same way.
Guideline and 3.X Framework seem awfully similar.
As someone who's style is primarily "Pathfinder as 3.X Framework" and as someone who wouldn't find "Guideline" fun, I'd say they're not awfully similar.
In "Framework" I have things like Dwarves stats being used for Giant Ant people. In "Guideline" you wouldn't care enough to check if the stats would work for ant-people and then change the flavour of dwarves into giant ants.
Basically the 'as a guideline group.' are the people who don't focus much on either the rules or the setting of the game they play in and are getting together for funsies more then anything. Alternately they're the type of gamers who usually play Amber Diceless, Noblis, or Wraethu. In either case system mastery and setting are far less important to them then such things as character growth, communal storytelling, beer, or that cute girl with glasses who invited me to come check it out while we at the bar last night.
This group doesn't get a detailed definition because they aren't so much a way of playing as a group of people who aren't actually interested in playing the game as written for whatever reason but are there and sorta going through the numbers anyways.
It think it is played like different games, but not like what you describe.
At low levels they are like regular people.
Then they become more like action heroes
Then they become more like super heros.
Later they basically become almost god-like.
As they go up in level you can't throw the same stories at them.
An investigation that takes days or weeks to solve with skills gets taken care of a lot faster with divination magic as an example.
The castle wall that keeps them out can be flown over or just dismantled later on. Eventually, they just teleport, and the wall is about as close to being a barrier as grass is.
Other challenges become insignificant in the same way.
I don't disagree with any of this but that's not quite what I was referring to. This is more of a power level thing and I was going more towards peoples different ideas on how important the rules are, how official the FAQs are, acceptability of 3PP, and how much 'balance', ie how powerful the characters are in relation to each other, is important for the game to have.
I understand that is now what you were referring to but what you refer to as different games to me are different parts of the same game or different ways to play the game. Each one of your examples is a playstyle I have seen, but they are all Pathfinder. If we want to consider each playstyle as different then every table is a different game, but not too many people are going really look at each table as being a different game in the sense of the word that we use when we describe Shadowrun as being a different game from Pathfinder.
They are more like different games in the sense that the game going on at Tommy's(made up person) is not the same game that is happening at Jerry's(made up person) house.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue there's a lot of potential overlap between "Pathfinder as 3.X Framework" and "Pathfinder as Golarion", at least as you define them. And probably between some of the other types as well.
For example, it's very possible to do a game with a pretty focused Golarion flavor while still allowing some varieties of reflavoring of particular mechanical options, and I'm pretty sure several official books make note of people who are, for example, a samurai without any levels in the Samurai class, or a barbarian without any levels in Barbarian.
Frankly, Classes are in-world things even in Golarion precisely to the extent that they are descriptors for an in-world set of abilities. Nobody in-world can tell the difference between a Fighter/Rogue and a Slayer, so for practical purposes there's almost no difference (unlike the Wizard and Sorcerer distinction you mention, where the difference is pretty obvious even in-world).
There are certainly different styles of game in Pathfinder, but I think defining them into particular boxes like this is a really bad idea, because the categories are inaccurate. Like almost everything humans do, the difference in gaming styles isn't in neat little boxes, it's arranged in several spectrums of behavior that interrelate.
Coming up with new categories/boxes to put things in is thus not especially useful. You'd be much better served coming up with some of the spectrums that different people operate at different points on. For example, 'strict adherence to rules as written (or lack thereof)' might be one spectrum while 'adherence to inherent rules flavor' might be another. A game high in the first and low in the second matches your 'Pathfinder as 3.X Framework' model, but seeing them as two separate things that aren't necessarily related makes it a much more useful tool in discussing the differences in the way people actually play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've also played in some beer & pretzels D&D games where it was just an excuse to hang out. Sadly, not been invited to any by cute girls with glasses I met at the bar.:)
My games used to be almost 50% female.
Married one of those girls, still gaming together 20 years later :)
|
Basically the 'as a guideline group.' are the people who don't focus much on either the rules or the setting of the game they play in and are getting together for funsies more then anything. Alternately they're the type of gamers who usually play Amber Diceless, Noblis, or Wraethu. In either case system mastery and setting are far less important to them then such things as character growth, communal storytelling, beer, or that cute girl with glasses who invited me to come check it out while we at the bar last night.
This group doesn't get a detailed definition because they aren't so much a way of playing as a group of people who aren't actually interested in playing the game as written for whatever reason but are there and sorta going through the numbers anyways.
To me, roleplaying is about a few things. In descending priority, these are...
First, it's about having fun. If I'm not having fun, and you're not having fun, then what the heck are we doing this for? Joking around is a common occurrence, maybe there's snacks and beverages involved. Was in a group for a while where we took turns supplying the soda and snacks. We're a bunch of friends, or at least people who could become friends, sitting around a table and taking part in a hobby we enjoy. Doesn't matter if it's a physical table or a virtual one.
Second, it's about telling a story. As a GM, I have a tale to tell. Maybe it's an epic tale where a group of young idealistic people embark on what seems a simple adventure but quickly becomes a labyrinth of murder, mystery, and eventually preventing the End Of The World (as we know it). Or maybe it's the story of a group of friends thrown into an impossible situation, and their struggle to return home. (sorry for the D&D cartoon reference) Or maybe it's a group of plucky adventurers and their heroic wanderings. No matter what the nature of the campaign, there's a story being told. As a player, I'm signing up to play a staring role in another person's epic story about my character and his friends.
The rule system provides a way to determine if an action works or not. A campaign setting may provide a ready made world for the story to be set in. But what the game system and campaign setting is aren't as important as the first two points. Is everyone having fun? And is the story people want to tell being told? In that case, well done.
I guess that puts me in the "rules are a guideline" camp, regardless of if it's an organized play campaign or not.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Huh. The OP is definitely not what the thread title made me expect.
What you call "different games" sounds to me like one game being approached with different attitudes.
Example:
Another game I play is Magic: the Gathering. Sometimes, I play at home with my wife. She gets take-backs, explanations, and sometimes even "Can you please not do that because I wanted to play this other card next turn?" will be honored. Other times, I play at a kitchen table with friends. Things are a bit more "what happens happens" there, but there are still allowances for, say, when someone casts Counterspell against something across the table and didn't realize the target can't be countered; they can undo that counterspell. Or if there's a weird interaction to their play that they might not realize, I'll sometimes point it out and ask if they really want to go through with it. Other times, I play at tournaments. Then, I hold my opponents (and myself) to the rules more tightly. Cast a spell with a legal target but won't have the effect you thought? Tough. Knowing how the game works is part of being good at it, and it's not your opponent's job to help you along.
Does this mean that MtG is three different games? No. It means that this one game can be approached in three (or more) different ways based on your attitudes and goals. It's still the same game, you're just changing your expectations and level of adherence to how the game works in order to suit your needs. It's still just one game.
In the same way, I'd have to disagree with the OP's presentation of those different attitudes toward a Pathfinder game being "different games".
Just to say, Pathfinder for me, is the guidebook, not Golarian, as I always homebrew my settings with zero interest in the default setting for any RPG. For example, I've never used Greyhawk, nor Forgotten Realms for various editions of D&D. For me world building is at the center of the fun I have in running a setting, so I only run or play in worlds I design (and sometimes I publish). To me Pathfinder doesn't require Golarian, just any consistent fantasy setting.
These four categories feel related to Bartle's model of 4 player types:
Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this.
(...)
Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work.
(...)
Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players.
(...)
Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it.
I think that looking at it as playing different games is better overall. A little muddy perhaps, but anything dealling with actual people is going to be.
This effectively defangs all the vicious little "you are doing it wrong" attacks. This will keep the idea from gaining a lot of traction here. The idea that there is no Right answer is fundamentally disturbing to a lot of people, especially here. This is a forum that primarily promotes Rules Over Fluff. There are exceptions of course. That Fluff is the accepted term says a lot though.
But this is a game culture that lionizes people who came to and often sat at convention panels and games drunk and disruptive, and highly insulting to anyone who did not slavishly agree with their every "profound" utterance. The forums are really quite civil considering all this, and this can't ALL be due to good Mods.
These four categories feel related to Bartle's model of 4 player types:
Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this.
(...)
Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work.
(...)
Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players.
(...)
Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it.
Hmm.. I've never seen this before.. It's sort of like a non joke version of the REAL gamer types.
I think that looking at it as playing different games is better overall. A little muddy perhaps, but anything dealling with actual people is going to be.
This effectively defangs all the vicious little "you are doing it wrong" attacks. This will keep the idea from gaining a lot of traction here. The idea that there is no Right answer is fundamentally disturbing to a lot of people, especially here. This is a forum that primarily promotes Rules Over Fluff. There are exceptions of course. That Fluff is the accepted term says a lot though.But this is a game culture that lionizes people who came to and often sat at convention panels and games drunk and disruptive, and highly insulting to anyone who did not slavishly agree with their every "profound" utterance. The forums are really quite civil considering all this, and this can't ALL be due to good Mods.
I think that as long as you let someone know how you game, that attitude goes away. If you mean on the forums, people will just mock you for trying say you are playing a different game when you are still playing Pathfinder.
Some people say "flavor" also and most have no negative connotations about the word "fluff". I think you are looking to see more than what is actually there.
And how does Garyhawk differ from Grayhawk?
Hmm.. I've never seen this before.. It's sort of like a non joke version of the REAL gamer types.
It has some scientific background, and it's handy to put players into bins. If you get known to new players, it's sometimes helpful to throw each in one of the four bins. This way your expectations will be more realistic, resulting in less disappointment (for example when the socializer doesn't really care about well-meant gameplay advice).
The big problem I see with it is that it was developed for MUDs and doesn't really map well onto RPGs. Probably fits better to MMOs.
It's a model, so it has its limits when describing reality. Yes, it works better with MUDs, but I think it still has some value at Pathfinder.
Killers, for example, are much rarer in small group RPGs because they get easier to spot and kick out in small groups. The games are intentionally more cooperative.
I agree that they are more rare. However, a killer in PF could enjoy destroying NPCs, especially when they were not intended to be beaten. Keep in mind NPCs are controlled by a human too - and what's more satisfying than spoiling the plans of someone who is more powerful by default?
An achiever and a killer can be both murderhobos - but for different reasons.
I'm not sure where I'd fit - there doesn't really seem to be a niche for rolepalying other than as socializing. Exploring the setting, figuring out the villain's plots and foiling them, along with developing exploring your character's personality.
You answered the question yourself with 'exploring the setting'. Foiling a 'villain's plots' is not so explorer-like, true - few people fit into a bin by 100%. But if you consider RP identities something interesting to be explored, that's also an explorer attitude. That's different from an achiever who tries to roleplay perfectly or a socializer who uses RP to get their own personality into the game.
