Question for Devs: Is the intent for a ROLE playing game, or a ROLL playing game?

[Tiona Daughtry]

From what I've seen of the playtest pdf, it seems likely that it would be better described as the latter, rather than the former. But I would, personally, like your opinion on the matter, because that does, in fact, dictate whether I will follow the matter any further. Do you want to focus on mechanics to the exclusion meaningful choices beyond race and class, or do you want to create a game that elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players? Making that decision clear will also make it far easier to tell what you need to do to make the game fit your vision. Partially, at least, because it will allow you to focus on players who would be interested in your product, rather than those who have vastly different interests. The choice is yours, and I'd like to see what choice you make. It will, in turn, decide my next steps.

[The Sideromancer]

What category to I put for "focus on mechanics to create a game that elicits experience between creative dms and players"? I want interesting mechanics first and foremost. The current absence is a major problem for me.

[thejeff]

If there's a clear distinction between ROLE play and ROLL play (a complex question debated many time here and elsewhere), I don't see it as particularly related to "focus on mechanics to the exclusion (of?) meaningful choices beyond race and class" vs "elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players".

I definitely want the latter and I find too much focus on mechanics hampers that - though I know that not all gamers do. But that's not the same. More meaningful build choices distract me from that - I have to pay more attention to mechanical optimization when making what would otherwise be roleplaying or flavor choices.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the difference between the two is pretty muddy and generally invoked to call badwrongfun on people who don't do long improv sessions with no dice being invoked, or something.

But in the interest of promoting more shared storytelling, how would you go about doing that? Since I don't see anything in the playtest book that makes it actively harder to do that.

[Matthew Downie]

The best way to facilitate true role-playing is to get rid of all those numbers and dice and rules.

[HWalsh]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

From what I've seen of the playtest pdf, it seems likely that it would be better described as the latter, rather than the former. But I would, personally, like your opinion on the matter, because that does, in fact, dictate whether I will follow the matter any further. Do you want to focus on mechanics to the exclusion meaningful choices beyond race and class, or do you want to create a game that elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players? Making that decision clear will also make it far easier to tell what you need to do to make the game fit your vision. Partially, at least, because it will allow you to focus on players who would be interested in your product, rather than those who have vastly different interests. The choice is yours, and I'd like to see what choice you make. It will, in turn, decide my next steps.

I don't like how you worded this.

You're using a lot of subjective language and trying to paint one in a more positive light.

Can you use the current playtest to:

"Create a game that elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players?"

Yes.

But I find your first comment:

"The exclusion meaningful choices beyond race and class"

More telling.

This sounds like you want stronger mechanical options beyond race and class.

That is usually a hallmark of "Roll Playing" over "Role Playing."

Role Playing doesn't require mechanically meaningful choices. Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

In fact by limiting ancillary mechanical benefits you facilitate more Role Playing because you limit mechanical optimization.

[ANebulousMistress]

This is my own personal experience with the game at the moment so take it with a salt shaker full of salt. But!

Thus far these rules are all about the ROLL play. And they're not very good at it. Too much arguing. Too much frustration. Too much "I wasted 20 minutes trying to find the stupid rule in this poorly laid out book and now I find it tucked away in the Introduction in the middle of a wall-of-text paragraph instead of in the RULES section where it needs to be". Too much "the only reason I have players right now is I bribed them with cookies, wait I made 5 dozen cookies how did 4 people eat ALL of them?!" And right now, too much "Is this 'suddenly got called in to work on a Saturday' real or was it an excuse to not have to playtest these rules?"

ROLE play is entirely possible. If one closes the rule book and sits on it. Hours can be wasted in role play that way wherein dice are mostly used to stack into towers instead of rolled for poorly-weighted Diplomacy checks.

Maybe as errata comes out and starts shifting the focus of some of those rules I won't have to sit on the book to keep the game fun.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Matthew Downie wrote:

The best way to facilitate true role-playing is to get rid of all those numbers and dice and rules.

Exactly. But freeform, while rewarding, brings it's own set of challenges. I also play Fate which offers a much stronger focus on roleplaying (despite still having some dice and numbers involved). Great for a certain kind of experience.

I'm looking for a different kind of experience from Pathfinder. I want the system to have a stronger influence on the narrative. Label it "rollplaying" if you want but it's a false dictomy to claim it's the opposite of "roleplaying". That really depends on the group. I've had great RP come out of rules heavy systems. Heck, I've had some great RP in games of Risk.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

I'm looking for a different kind of experience from Pathfinder. I want the system to have a stronger influence on the narrative. Label it "rollplaying" if you want but it's a false dictomy to claim it's the opposite of "roleplaying". That really depends on the group. I've had great RP come out of rules heavy systems. Heck, I've had some great RP in games of Risk.

I hate Risk, but some of the best role-playing experiences I have had this last couple of years have come out of Pandemic. Which I think goes to show that with a group dedicated to roleplaying, the system mechanics have as much ongoing influence on that as choice of colour does on how well a wheel rolls.

I am specifying "ongoing" because I think the place the system best interacts with roleplaying possibilities is in clearly-defined character classes, and similar things that serve to define feel and flavour of the particular setting and the particular game within it.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

HWalsh wrote:

Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

[thejeff]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

I consider it commonplace.

If the build choices represent abilities, then the character with those abilities has many different options for personality, motivation, etc.

But then I cut my teeth on AD&D back in the late 70s/early 80s. Build choices were few and far between. More crept in over time, but rarely tied to anything that I'd really consider roleplaying.

In fact, I dislike to close a tie, since it can bring such mechanical choices into conflict with how you want to play the character - especially if the non-mechanical aspects came first in your idea.

[neaven]

Matthew Downie wrote:

The best way to facilitate true role-playing is to get rid of all those numbers and dice and rules.

I know people who believe this unironically and would be happy if that was the case, but still claim to like RPGs. I dunno how you can like RPGs if you don't want them to be Gs in any way and want only RP, but hey, I don't have to play with them at least.

[Bardarok]

Sounds like Pathfinder is not the game you are looking for.

If you want some rules to arbitrate combat and success or failure on skill checks than Pathhfinder is a good game for that as is DnD 5e depending on how much you want character choices or builds to affect mechanics and how many rules you are interested in learning. In both games the roleplaying largely exists separate from the rules, three are flavor suggestions throughout the text but most of them have little or no mechanical impact.

If you want a game where the rules themselves directly aid and influence the storytelling beyond arbitrating combat and skill checks that's not Pathfinder/DnD. I like Monster of the Week for such a game though it is an urban fantasy setting by default. I know they have a DnD inspired version called Dungeon World you might try that.

[thorin001]

neaven wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

The best way to facilitate true role-playing is to get rid of all those numbers and dice and rules.

I know people who believe this unironically and would be happy if that was the case, but still claim to like RPGs. I dunno how you can like RPGs if you don't want them to be Gs in any way and want only RP, but hey, I don't have to play with them at least.

AMBER, the diceless roleplaying system.

[camazotz]

The problem is the OP is implying a lot of preconceptions without providing useful feedback to explain why she feels that PF 2.0 (or the original) doesn't perform as expected. The result is a rhetorical question with no useful content.

[HWalsh]

As to can you make characters that roleplay differently and are mechanically different?

Yes! Yes you can!

I present to you 3 different Paladins - (Level 5)

-----

Paladin 1: (Human)
Class Feat Tree: Warded Touch, Hospice Knight, Deity's Domain, Shield Ally, Channel Life.

This is a Paladin who is determined to protect his allies. He brings healing, with a Charisma of 18 at level 5 he has 6 Spell Points per day. He can drop a 5d6+4 Lay on Hands or up to a 5d8+4 Single Target heal. He's got a shield too and he's not afraid to block with it as it can take more dents before popping.

-----

Paladin 2: (Gnome)
Class Feat Tree: Warded Touch, Divine Grace, Steed Ally, Aura of Courage

This is a more aggressive Paladin. Wielding a Shield and Flick Mace this Paladin rides into battle on her mighty steed. Her Retributive Strike is saved for those things that try to hit her pony. She can do a little healing but she'd much rather wham some baddies with her flick mace. Her Aura of Courage helps keep her Mount from being scared and her Warded Touch lets her heal it if it gets whammed. Her Divine Grace helps protect her from spells too.

-----

Paladin 3: (Human)
Class Feat Tree: Warded Touch, Deity's Domain, Weapon Ally, Fighter Dedication, Basic Training (Double Slice)

This is a special kind of Paladin. She mounts a Shield Boss on her shield and gets into the thick of things. When in melee range her preferred tactic is to smash them with her shield, then slice them with her sword. If she doesn't have to move she uses her Zeal Domain Power to Buff up her +1 Flaming longword and smacks an opponent with a double slice for a whopping 3d8+4 +1d6 Fire, with a follow up 1d6+4 Shield Bash giving her a potential one attack damage output of 3d8+2d6+8 (avg 28) who can also heal herself a little if need be (for 5d4+4).

-----

These characters are all mechanically different (despite having virtually the exact same stat array and similar weapon selections) and all play completely different despite being the exact same class.

I would say that these three characters show that there can be significant enough mechanical diversity in the system.

[Mark Carlson 255]

IMHO, right and wrong way to play vastly is determined by your group and GM.
Having said that it is important to have labels to identify what group you fall into to maximize everyone play experience.

I have been playing since the late 70's with various groups as well as having seen quite a few different games and groups in Con, Game Store and even a Game Home (many different games being played at once) settings. And IMHO specific games tend to promote more Role vs Role playing experiences but in general yes the games could have been more of the option that people chose not to promote but for some reason it always seems the system itself promotes one style vs the other.

IMHO, the goal should be to have interesting and meaningful mechanics and rules that make it easy to promote both types of RP'ing. I do agree that that is a very polly-anna or I am in heaven goal as well as a very tough thing to achieve. But it should be the goal and when and if people are telling you something you should listen.
Note: the other thing is that the game by design is not focused toward you and your play style (yes this does happen) and this is generally a business decision or simply "this is the type of game I can create" condition so this is what I am going to publish decision.

In general I have learned to ask myself; "Can I see me playing this game as written now (ie who cares if they plan on supplements to fix problems I am having now in the future, because they may not come) in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years from now or is the game just a filler game I might play for 1-3 months before switching to something on my top tier of RPG's?"

MDC

[Elleth]

Not to be rude or anything, but "roleplay Vs rollplay" tends to really tick me off. Solid and specified combat mechanics, in my eyes at least, don't force a contradiction with playing your character as you want according to their personality. It annoys me on a similar level to the min-max or roleplay false dichotomy. Personally as a GM I feel like players should have a character they enjoy on both an RP and mechanical level, a lot of them are here for both, after all.

By tradition, pathfinder playtest (like other games in its lineage) is heavily based around combat. In my experience so far, the playtest feels very, very tactical -something that makes a nice change after running D&D 5e for two years. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that tactical focus might make it fall flat for you. However. Enough things in the document have caught my eye that I'm writing reasonable parts of a rejigged setting to work with it, with the intent of creating an interesting sandbox world (once we finish the playtest adventures) for my players to explore, find goals, and triumph within. The monsters have abilities that to me at least are narratively fun, while I'm in love with how the highly flavourful IMO ritual system works. So overall I see plenty of fun roleplaying in my future, even between all the combat and trying to find the rules for everything.

As a case in point, during the first mission of the playtest adventure, having completed a reasonable portion of the dungeon-crawly dungeon-crawl, my players had an absolute blast roleplaying an optional encounter, during which the evil party goblin buddy copped up with the goodie two-shoes paladin to solve it socially. And this was with me running everything as absolutely stringently and by the adventure book and hardline Rules-as-written as I could so as to ensure we gave viable feedback. The moment I get to start my next campaign and go off the rails then frankly I'd be surprised if we had any issues with roleplaying.

Also, regarding the phrasing to the devs. They've been pretty clear I feel about feeling strongly about making this a good RPG, on both the game end, and on wanting people to have stories they love.

TL;DR: It's probably fine. However, it sounds like you will probably find the specific sort of crunch off-putting.

[Moro]

These types of games are not at all mutually exclusive.

[Elleth]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

I want the system to have a stronger influence on the narrative. Label it "rollplaying" if you want but it's a false dictomy to claim it's the opposite of "roleplaying". That really depends on the group. I've had great RP come out of rules heavy systems. Heck, I've had some great RP in games of Risk.

Only time I've ever played a character for more than one or two sessions was in a year-long Shadowrun 5 campaign. Party tank, effectively minmaxed for one thing and one thing only... being a musically brilliant pop star. Even when it got to the point where I was rolling 42+ d6s for things I still had great fun playing her, from drinking a troll and dwarf under the table, to launching concerts as distractions and using the proceeds to buy nice gifts for party members.

[The Archive]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

Why...?

I'm actually curious why you would think this.

Individual players are always going to add their own flair to character, even when they have made the exact same mechanical choices.

[The Once and Future Kai]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

I hate Risk, but some of the best role-playing experiences I have had this last couple of years have come out of Pandemic.

Well, back in the day I thought Risk was fantastic...but I wouldn't play it now. We're in a golden age of board games and I have zero desire to go back to Clue, Monopoly, Risk, Battleship, etc. Not when there are options like Settlers, Pandemic, Eldritch Horror, etc.

[Isaac Zephyr]

From my own complaints, I've been enlightened to something on this matter. As it was put: "This is a Playtest, you don't need to test people's ability to roleplay."

To which, I can see and agree. They need to test mechanics to see what needs to be changed in order to make a game that is both functional and fun at the base level. By having the current material focus on just these mechanics they can be focused on.

Example, in PF1, Iron Gods, as a wizard with Animate Dead, I had an undead minion. I used him to wedge himself into a wheel to break it. This is an interesting roleplaying move, and an imaginative solution to the problem. It however doesn't gather information on whether the Disable Device mechanics solve the problem, or if the wheel can be destroyed by normal attacks in a reasonable time.

So while I may be wrong on the following assumption, I believe while this Playtest can feel like game by numbers or game-y, it has to be so that the pretty fluff that makes it a roleplaying game doesn't influence whether the foundation the game is built off works or not.

[thejeff]

thorin001 wrote:

neaven wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

The best way to facilitate true role-playing is to get rid of all those numbers and dice and rules.

I know people who believe this unironically and would be happy if that was the case, but still claim to like RPGs. I dunno how you can like RPGs if you don't want them to be Gs in any way and want only RP, but hey, I don't have to play with them at least.

AMBER, the diceless roleplaying system.

Which is, by the way, still very much a Game, despite the lack of a randomizer. It does have rules and numbers - though you often forget the numbers once you're a few sessions in, since you don't know how they've changed. It's got mechanical character design with plenty of meaningful choices that play out throughout the game. It's also provided me with both some of the best roleplaying and tensest encounters I've had - though that was partly due to some excellent GMs.

You can go a long way from PF style rules heavy crunch and still clearly be playing a game. I suspect that if you actually removed rules entirely, you'd lose the game aspect, but I also suspect that's not really what those who supposedly want this actually want - just far less than some others.

[Tridus]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

From what I've seen of the playtest pdf, it seems likely that it would be better described as the latter, rather than the former.

Honest question - do you think PF 1e does the former? Because if yes, I would like to know what you think has changed to diminish that?

I don't understand where this criticism is coming from. We had a fair bit of RP in my playtest session. We had a whole goofball thing where I tried to get someone else in my party to carry my viol because my Gnome Cleric was awful at it and was desperately afraid he'd fall and break his favorite instrument... then the person who he gave it to is the only one that did fall. The rules and rolling didn't hinder RP at all there, it created an opening that a couple of players ran with.

We solved two encounters via social means using different skills and RPing it all out. We had a great time doing it.

Does the system actively go out of its way to create a collabarate storytelling environment? No, but it doesn't pretend that it's trying to emulate FATE. It's trying to give you a fantasy game where you go to unexplored places and kill the forces of evil (or good, if you happen to want to play that way). Within that framework, it does give you meaningful character choices that create RP opportunities. My second character is the same class as my first but aside from that is specialized differently and has a very different skill set. They don't RP the same way at all.

The thing is, RP is what your table makes it. If you have players who will take the opportunity to engage in RP, then you tend to get a lot of it. If you need something where it's baked right into the system and actively prompted constantly, then I suggest FATE. It's very good at delivering that experience.

But saying the playtest doesn't do that is meaningless. It never tries to, never claims it will, and is following up on 1e which didn't do that either.

[thejeff]

There is a school of thought that I don't belong to or completely understand that seems to focus on the build game and to equate "roleplaying" with being able to mechanically build and distinguish the character concepts they want.

[Steve Geddes]

I'd bet London to a brick Paizo are looking to produce a game with strong potential to roleplay a character.

(I don't find the distinction people sometimes make between Roleplay and Rollplay to be very useful as nine times out of ten two people discussing it will mean vastly different things - there's no use in jargon which doesn't actually clarify matters).

I think the point of a playtest is to check whether the maths is right.
Check whether crunchy subsystems work at the table.
Check whether different classes all feel like they're contributing to progressing the party's goals.
Check whether it's easy or hard to build a character.
Etcetera

I don't think there's much point in "testing" whether a draft version of a system facilitates roleplaying, since you're just going to get a bunch of subjective comments with no real way to quantify the experience.

Sure, they'll be interested in hearing the feedback if there is a large number of people who find the mechanics stop them from thinking in character. But it's unlikely to affect whether we get three actions or four in a round, whether magic weapons should give a flat bonus or extra dice to damage, whether ancestry feats should become available gradually over a PC's life,....etcetera

They have released a bunch of subsystems with the express goal and expectation of changing them in some way based on feedback. If you've followed Paizo over the last fifteen (twenty?) years, there's no reason to think their focus on story, characterisation and roleplaying has suddenly shifted. That's just not the point of a playtest so you won't see much of it in this book.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

The Archive wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

Why...?

I'm actually curious why you would think this.

Because I very strongly favour rules and mechanics to support and encourage that level of variety and flexibility.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

thejeff wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

I consider it commonplace.

It is definitely commonplace, but that does not make it less of a flaw to my mind.

Quote:

In fact, I dislike to close a tie, since it can bring such mechanical choices into conflict with how you want to play the character - especially if the non-mechanical aspects came first in your idea.

Whereas that would sound to me like mechanics poorly designed for the character in question rather than a problem with tying mechanics to roleplaying in general.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

From what I've seen of the playtest pdf, it seems likely that it would be better described as the latter, rather than the former. But I would, personally, like your opinion on the matter, because that does, in fact, dictate whether I will follow the matter any further. Do you want to focus on mechanics to the exclusion meaningful choices beyond race and class, or do you want to create a game that elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players? Making that decision clear will also make it far easier to tell what you need to do to make the game fit your vision. Partially, at least, because it will allow you to focus on players who would be interested in your product, rather than those who have vastly different interests. The choice is yours, and I'd like to see what choice you make. It will, in turn, decide my next steps.

I say "Why not both?"

People saying roleplaying and rollplaying are mutually exclusive are, similarly, people who cannot, and will not, accept a compromise between both aspects, when reasonable people have been able to, which means by relation other people should be able to as well. To which point I would suggest finding a game that better suits the aspect you value more, and avoid games which even barely hint at the other aspect, if such a compromise can't ever be reached. (And yes, this compromise differs between tables, but let's be realistic here; that's bound to happen with any given game at any given table at any given time.)

Stormwind Fallacy banality aside, the roleplaying aspect of this game has changed very little, except for a different codification of certain mechanics (such as determining how well your ability to Deceive or Diplomacy others is). The rest of it? Hasn't changed probably since 1st Edition D&D, back when Gary Gygax (rest in peace) first conceived of the idea.

[Matthew Downie]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.

I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like you think the way you role-play a character should be strongly linked to the mechanics.

I don't think I entirely agree, because the mechanics can't represent everything. Let's say I have a PC whose backstory is that he just wants to get the job done so he can return home to his wife and children. And I have another mechanically identical PC whose backstory is that his wife and children were brutally murdered and who now has a death wish.

Would you agree that I can, in just about any game system, role play these PCs very differently from one another, despite starting out with the same choices?

[Tiona Daughtry]

Part of my problem is, what I've seen from the rules as they are is they make a lot of options that, for example, my regular gaming groups use, completely impossible. The way the focus is on forcing mechanics, there is a lot less leeway to even approaching a given scenario in different manners. You get an encounter, and don't have enough varied abilities to 'alter the battleground' by having reasonably effective chances to communicate, to convince enemies to change sides, to ambush those who think to ambush you, etc. The way it seems, with the extremely low success rate on almost everything, and no one having a significant ability to manipulate the situation, you're forced to approach almost every single encounter the same way. We adapt our encounters constantly in the older versions, reimaging the situation until we can find a solution that works for us. But, really, with the inherent limitations, and the inability to make your characters distinct, you really can't get away with what, for a lot of us, is a standard amount of creativity. I also, personally, find that forcing characters to be optimal or not have any real chance of success eliminates many of the opportunities to really get into the storytelling part of it...everyone is, in effect, completely average. Differences, major differences, between characters, such as things that make a situation more likely to play out one way over another, are, in fact important. Right now, there is no real incentive, even, for creative problem solving, and much deincentivation to do so. Because no one, really, even stands out as a proper hero anymore.

[Tiona Daughtry]

I realized that maybe an actual example of variant approaches should help. This references one of the games I myself am running, a copy of the original Temple of Elemental Evil updated to PF1 rules. We have the Earth Temple, which has 4 earth elementals who rise up, but don't go hostile unless players enter specific parts of the room or try to steal the items on the altar. Meranthryl, our sorcerer, who is focused extensively on charm and diplomacy, decides that he'd like that chest, contents unseen, but doesn't fancy fighting the elementals, which he has already figured out likely would attack if he just 'tries to take it'. Instead, he recognizes that he'd just picked up a lodestone (literally, he was the party member who actually succeeded in the strength check to do so). He carefully goes as close as he imagines is safe, and attempts to find a language in common with the elementals. This part is entirely outside of the original module's 'script', so, yes, I do have to wing it. One of the elementals rolls high enough to seem to understand at least a bit of abyssal, and, discovering that, Merahnthryl begins negotiations, offering the lodestone, which is an elemental earth magic, in exchange for the chest. He has significant bonuses, which overcome the difficulty in communicating in what amounts to a pidgin dialect, and convinces the elemental to trade. Yes, this is completely *not* the intended scenario for the adventure. But that does not make it wrong, or bad in any way. I reward creativity like that. So do all of the other dms I play with. Finding alternate solutions to a situation is always cause for at least a compliment, if not other rewards. The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible, and characters do not have enough chance for a 'personal niche' to pull something like this off. And these are the sorts of problem solving we do pretty much *Every* game session in our group. Being told that we just don't have the ability to alter a situation sufficiently to have a *good* chance of success is not acceptable, and, for us, roleplay is extensively about each character having enough unique going for them that they can solve situations in vastly different ways than 'originally intended'. And that, in fact, is what I see a distinct dearth of here.

[Pramxnim]

That’s not a problem with the game’s design though, but rather with the success rate, which are numbers that can be tweaked. Right now monster skills are a bit high, leading to the DC table being a bit too much for PCs. However, with a bit of tweaking you can easily achieve the sort of success rates that make your group’s off the beaten path approach to resolving conflict palatable.

Honestly, I think PF2 has more options for out of the box thinking, not fewer. Skill feats have concrete rules that codify extraordinary things you can attempt with skills, instead of relying on GM fiat for determining the DC of certain improbable tasks, and the ridiculous investment in skill points needed to succeed like in PF1.

There are now concrete rules for stealing the magic writing from runes and small items, wall jumping, feats that reduce your degree of failure when attempting certain tasks, including the Request action, which sounds like what your PC was doing with those elementals. Heck, there’s a feat that lets you scare an opponent to death, literally! Were there rules for that in PF1, or did GMs have to handwave it when a PCs requests an attempt at it?

If your group finds the success rates according to RAW are affecting their enjoyment of the game, definitely let Paizo know. They are aware there is a small issue with the math and I’m sure are working on a way to fix it. Again, I must stress that I think the issue you perceive is not one of design, but of numbers. You can still attempt off-script ways to resolving conflict in PF2, it’s just that right now the numbers don’t “feel” like they give you a good chance at success yet. I’m sure that the issue will be addressed sooner rather than later, but please don’t write off the game just yet.

[Matthew Downie]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible

I would have thought that roll-playing was anything where the result is decided by rolling a dice. If you want to avoid that, then don't call for a Diplomacy check. Just role-play out the conversation with the elementals and have the result be what makes most sense or what's most fun.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible

I would have thought that roll-playing was anything where the result is decided by rolling a dice. If you want to avoid that, then don't call for a Diplomacy check. Just role-play out the conversation with the elementals and have the result be what makes most sense or what's most fun.

Which is fine unless you're a person who absolutely sucks at acting and thinking of the right things to say, yet still wants to play a character who is good at that stuff.

[Gorbacz]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible

I would have thought that roll-playing was anything where the result is decided by rolling a dice. If you want to avoid that, then don't call for a Diplomacy check. Just role-play out the conversation with the elementals and have the result be what makes most sense or what's most fun.

Which is fine unless you're a person who absolutely sucks at acting and thinking of the right things to say, yet still wants to play a character who is good at that stuff.

If somebody sucks at acting, why even play ROLE-PLAYING games? Board games and video games will have you covered without that whole awkward "interact with other carbon-based life forms" part.

[Vic Ferrari]

Gorbacz wrote:

If somebody sucks at acting, why even play ROLE-PLAYING games?

That's not a very healthy attitude towards those that don't have theatrical zeal in their veins, that somehow they have no business playing a RPG.

There are many types of players, I try to work with them, if someone is playing a witty, urbane character, but they as a person, are not, as long as they can communicate what they want their character to do, approach, etc, I will work with them.

[Tiona Daughtry]

Stop, take a step back, and try to listen. In a good role playing game, a significant part of the actual role playing, is determining *how* the characters approach a given obstacle. By strongly limiting the character variation, you are, also, in fact, sorely limiting the direction any obstacle can be approached from. Having a reasonably wide differences in what characters can do allows for them to modify their approach in ways that reflect character background, goals, etc. If you do not, in fact, allow characters to go 'off-script', you are essentially 'railroading' them, and that has, in my experience, always been considered a very bad thing (note several rulebooks across editions pointing that out). If you do not allow for creative problem solving through the use of character skills, feats, and a potentially 'non-optimal' ability setup, you are, in fact, forcing the characters to solve the problems one way. That is my objection, and why I consider this game to be so mechanics driven to avoid real storytelling. The stories told by my gaming friends almost always consist of ways they've looked at a situation and 'arranged the battlefield' to give them better odds, changed the situation so that it became solvable, rather than a slog-fest. It is clear from what I've seen in the forums that this game attempts to make it outright *impossible* to adjust the odds for overcoming an obstacle more than just a couple of points on a die roll. As players, we are supposed to look at situations, realize that the odds aren't in our favors, and come up with effective ways, based on our individual characters, to change that around. We get a really good feeling at looking at that ambush, and throwing the monkey wrench into it so that the enemies are at a severe disadvantage instead of likely to demolish us. That is what PF1 was really good at, and 3.5. We had options to change the inherent situation so that it was in our favor. This system refutes that entirely. Having options, having many different ways to approach a situation is what a role playing game really thrives on. It is, in fact, just as integral, or moreso, than the conversations, both between players and between players and npcs. Solving problems is what heroes do, and we're not being allowed the freedom to do that.

[Pramxnim]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

If somebody sucks at acting, why even play ROLE-PLAYING games?

That's not a very healthy attitude towards those that don't have theatrical zeal in their veins, that somehow they have no business playing a RPG.

There are many types of players, I try to work with them, if someone is playing a witty, urbane character, but they as a person, are not, as long as they can communicate what they want their character to do, approach, etc, I will work with them.

I agree. A player might not have the acting chops to go the distance and speak in character, describing gestures etc. but if they can describe what the PC is attempting with sufficient detail, that’s already role playing.

E.g. instead of adapting an accent and speaking in character to try and convince the goblins not to attack, Bob says “I will attempt to negotiate with the goblins. My character approaches them in a non-threatening manner and explains earnestly in broken gobbledegook that the party is merely passing through and have no intention of raiding their village. I offer to use my divine magic to heal the sick goblins, to aid in my negotiation.”

Bob has not said a word in-character, but his description of what his character does is enough role playing to warrant granting him a circumstance bonus to his Diplomacy check.

[Shain Edge]

I consider D&D in it's incarnations and Pathfinder more like Tactical Simulations with RP tacked on as an after thought. If you are using a table map, you are basically playing a miniatures game, with cut scenes for some RP.

Fate is a better Role Playing system, which you can better represent fiction in both book and movie media. It is less numbers crunch, less loot gathering, and an in system reason for players would like to play out character complications. Equipment is an afterthought rather then a focus.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Gorbacz wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible

I would have thought that roll-playing was anything where the result is decided by rolling a dice. If you want to avoid that, then don't call for a Diplomacy check. Just role-play out the conversation with the elementals and have the result be what makes most sense or what's most fun.

Which is fine unless you're a person who absolutely sucks at acting and thinking of the right things to say, yet still wants to play a character who is good at that stuff.

If somebody sucks at acting, why even play ROLE-PLAYING games? Board games and video games will have you covered without that whole awkward "interact with other carbon-based life forms" part.

Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s~$% roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?

[Pramxnim]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

Stop, take a step back, and try to listen. In a good role playing game, a significant part of the actual role playing, is determining *how* the characters approach a given obstacle. By strongly limiting the character variation, you are, also, in fact, sorely limiting the direction any obstacle can be approached from. Having a reasonably wide differences in what characters can do allows for them to modify their approach in ways that reflect character background, goals, etc. If you do not, in fact, allow characters to go 'off-script', you are essentially 'railroading' them, and that has, in my experience, always been considered a very bad thing (not several rulebooks across editions pointing that out). If you do not allow for creative problem solving through the use of character skills, feats, and a potentially 'non-optimal' ability setup, you are, in fact, forcing the characters to solve the problems one way. That is my objection, and why I consider this game to be so mechanics driven to avoid real storytelling. The stories told by my gaming friends almost always consist of ways they've looked at a situation and 'arranged the battlefield' to give them better odds, changed the situation so that it became solvable, rather than a slog-fest. It is clear from what I've seen in the forums that this game attempts to make it outright *impossible* to adjust the odds for overcoming an obstacle more than just a couple of points on a die roll. As players, we are supposed to look at situations, realize that the odds aren't in our favors, and come up with effective ways, based on our individual characters, to change that around. We get a really good feeling at looking at that ambush, and throwing the monkey wrench into it so that the enemies are at a severe disadvantage instead of likely to demolish us. That is what PF1 was really good at, and 3.5. We had options to change the inherent situation so that it was in our favor. This system refutes that entirely. Having options, having many different ways to approach...

I’m sorry, but I get the feeling that you’re the one not listening to counter-arguments.

PF2 definitely allows for many different character variations, even in the same class. Different spell choices, fighting style choices and skill feats allow characters to do very different things. A Rogue may focus on deception, creating diversions in combat and Striking when the enemy is distracted. Another may rely on Stealth, Sneaking and peppering goes with crossbow bolts while remaining unseen. Yet another employs brutal tactics that strike fear into the enemy’s heart, using Intimidation to gain the upper hand. Each Rogue distinguishes himself by the skill and class feats he selects, and none of them can be as good as the others at their own specific thing.

Though the deceiver Rogue and the intimidating Rogue both rely on Charisma based skills to gain the upper hand, their choice of skill feats allow them to differentiate their tactics, and the Rogue who is good at creating diversions will not be as adept at scaring people as his brutal friend.

You mention how you think the game forces you to solve things one way, but there are lots of different approaches made available through the feat system. That harpy giving you trouble in the dungeon? The Fighter can jump off a wall and bring it down to earth with a Felling Strike. Those Gnolls blocking the way to the sewers? Luckily the Paladin has Multilingual and speaks Gnoll, and his Bard friend Inspires Competence in hom, giving him the bonus needed to convince the fierce creatures to grant you passage.

Your party wants to set a trap for an enemy convoy? The Rogue with Quiet Allies help his friends remain hidden, while the Bard Fascinates the enemies for 1 round with his Performance. Then the party leaps out of the shadows, descending on the unsuspecting foes. Combat begins with your team at an advantage from attempting an off-script activity.

These are just some examples using the options given in the RAW, and I haven’t even touched on magic spells yet. I’ve done things like set up a Web Spell and luring enemies into its area, Grease up the floor to hinder foes. PF2 does not suddenly disable these options. If anything, it provides more concrete rules to make the options available.

[Elleth]

Hi, thanks for clarifying your precise issues.

I'm in a bit of a rush right now so I'll just TL;DR some of my points:

I think the primary thing restricting the creativity right now is simply that I (and many other GMs here) happen to be following a prewritten adventure as precisely as possible to enable good mechanical feedback. So combats are more forced than I think they would otherwise be.

Because the elementals aren't immediately hostile, the example you gave sounds 100% possible in the playtest rules. E.g. spend a minute to make an impression to make the elementals more amicable, then use an action to make a request, phrased appropriately. With investment, a specced social character could do this in less than the space of a turn, provided combat hadn't actually started.

Deception can very easily be used in combat if you're clever enough to pick something plausible. With some investment intimidation can be used well beyond just frightening folks, even in a moment.

Regarding adjusting odds. A lot of things are relatively minor, sure. But there are a lot of ways to do so. Taking cover produces a more significant +4 to AC, and for an extreme example hiding can give enemies a 50% miss chance even if they know the space you're in. As has been noted, you can combine hiding with spells like obscuring mist and blur. The adjustments from a successful performance are explicitly up to the GM.

Teamwork is important, and is a pretty common way of getting the aforementioned bonuses.

Action economy. Action economy is a massive situation changer. Combined with the global reduction in attack of opportunity, players who don't just charge into combat have plenty of ways to alter the situation.

Maths. As noted, some of the numbers might need changing.

[Vic Ferrari]

Pramxnim wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

If somebody sucks at acting, why even play ROLE-PLAYING games?

That's not a very healthy attitude towards those that don't have theatrical zeal in their veins, that somehow they have no business playing a RPG.

There are many types of players, I try to work with them, if someone is playing a witty, urbane character, but they as a person, are not, as long as they can communicate what they want their character to do, approach, etc, I will work with them.

I agree. A player might not have the acting chops to go the distance and speak in character, describing gestures etc. but if they can describe what the PC is attempting with sufficient detail, that’s already role playing.

E.g. instead of adapting an accent and speaking in character to try and convince the goblins not to attack, Bob says “I will attempt to negotiate with the goblins. My character approaches them in a non-threatening manner and explains earnestly in broken gobbledegook that the party is merely passing through and have no intention of raiding their village. I offer to use my divine magic to heal the sick goblins, to aid in my negotiation.”

Bob has not said a word in-character, but his description of what his character does is enough role playing to warrant granting him a circumstance bonus to his Diplomacy check.

Exactly, some are not comfortable speaking in first-person, why should they be excluded from playing D&D? I find people generally mix the two (first and third).

[Vic Ferrari]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible

I would have thought that roll-playing was anything where the result is decided by rolling a dice. If you want to avoid that, then don't call for a Diplomacy check. Just role-play out the conversation with the elementals and have the result be what makes most sense or what's most fun.

Which is fine unless you're a person who absolutely sucks at acting and thinking of the right things to say, yet still wants to play a character who is good at that stuff.

If somebody sucks at acting, why even play ROLE-PLAYING games? Board games and video games will have you covered without that whole awkward "interact with other carbon-based life forms" part.

Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s*%$ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?

Bingo, and this I why we have social skills, because some are not actually good at Persuasion or what-have-you. So at least you can get some backup for you character, if the whole party knows your character is really good in a Skill, that's it, you don't actually have to be good at the skill your character is to perform well.

[Tiona Daughtry]

Perhaps a lot of my viewpoint is that I take what is possibly a 'backwards' approach to character design. I almost never start out with a character concept, and more or less mash pieces together until something jumps out and essentially says 'hi, I'm your character, and I work like this'. I find that this system makes that, in fact, impossible to do. A lot of it is the mechanical balance, that keeps me from even getting any solid impression of what the character is *supposed* to do, much less how they might approach things. I forced myself through one character creation, and almost couldn't do that (despite having spent hours in several different systems rolling up at least 3-4 characters at a time on many occasions over the years just to play with various ideas). I have tried to look at statblocks, but absolutely none of the statblocks I've seen give me any real impression of who they could be. The fact that there are classes I've seen where, once you make a class feat choice at a low level, it absolutely dictates your choices at other succeeding levels, indicates that there really isn't much room to 'adapt'. I use rules more or less to give me a starting point, and there very much is not one here. The way the system seems to be designed, my impression of examining a character concept could be described to those who can actually visualize things (which I cannot, honestly) as a vague outline amid dense fog. The characters are not distinct enough to tell me who they are. And that means I am also incapable of figuring out what they can do, or how to make them come alive. Everyone seems to be focusing on character personality being almost completely 'untied' from stats, and, I can tell you from what I've learned of psychology and need for my writing, that is very much not the case. How we think, what we do, is very much tied in to finding out what we are actually *good* at, and, really, the character I managed to force myself to create? I can't tell what in the world he's supposed to do, and I can't get any kind of feel for what he would actually be good at. He is just that outline if the fog, nothing that tells me *who* he is. For me, I do need a 'starting block', and the way I can see no measurable difference between builds tells me that there is nothing particularly special about any character I could possibly make here. Which means, in fact, that it is impossible for me to play, because I can't invest in a character that doesn't have a distinct 'place'. And, honestly, the feats and skills I've read really, really, don't have enough weight to feel important. They are, in what I've seen, about as important as eye color and hair color (remember, I can't actually visualize, and have no visual imagination). So, maybe the biggest problem is that I can't create a concept first. I imagine I'm not the only one, though.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

Stop, take a step back, and try to listen. In a good role playing game, a significant part of the actual role playing, is determining *how* the characters approach a given obstacle. By strongly limiting the character variation, you are, also, in fact, sorely limiting the direction any obstacle can be approached from.

I find this is more of a personal limitation than a matter of failing to execute more often than not, as I've let players succeed at an encounter through unorthodox ways within the PF2 gameset (though I will say in this instance, it was through a very lucky roll, as I probably would have not let them succeed in this manner with a regular success), and to quote Mr. Seifter, "allowing for creative solutions and diplomacy/intimidation is definitely in the spirit of the playtest where we included details on NPC motivations that would allow you as the GM to determine what the NPCs really want." So there you have it; if you feel, as a GM, that there is a conceivable way for NPCs to be diplomacied or intimidated into a more "peaceful" resolution to the encounter, then it should be possible and permitted by the GM.

While the encounter itself where this occurred may not have been intuitive to determine whether they could be solved through diplomacy or intimidation, I examined the adventure as a whole to piece certain parts together, and with the way the adventure was set up, the solution the PCs proposed made sense with what happened up to the point they are at now (which a TL;DR version of it is a temporary camp set up after being separated from their troop by a powerful creature when traversing its territory), so I adjudicated that it was an appropriate tactic, especially since they didn't approach their defined territory so intrusively at first (thereby making the NPCs feel threatened and feeling like they had to fight back and fend them off their land).

The best part of it is that, with their solution, I can still input other aspects of important playtest data (such as by having the creatures still end up fighting them depending on what the PCs do, and potentially making for a more difficult encounter later down the road), as well as explore other conceivable options (such as the BBEGs coming in, torturing/interrogating the NPCs they negotiated with, thereby still encountering the BBEGs even well after they've completed their task, thereby still gauging the potential difficulty of the hypothetical encounter).

[Gorbacz]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?

I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".

Square pegs, round holes and all that.

[thejeff]

Gorbacz wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?

I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".

Square pegs, round holes and all that.

There are plenty of aspects to roleplaying that I enjoy, that I don't find in dungeon crawler board games, even though I'm not that good at the "acting it out" aspect.