How is Pathfinder a game?
How is Pathfinder a game?
Game (noun): an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.
Some people have fun playing Pathfinder. Presumably you don't?
Will try any system, any genre, any setting. Been playing off and on (mostly off recently) since 1975.
So you don't need a lecture on RPGs. What is it about Pathfinder specifically that makes you suspect it of not being a game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like some sort of poor trolling attempt.
Vague post that insinuates that Pathfidner doesn't even meet the minimum requirements to be a game...
You might make criticisms about Pathfinder that are perfectly valid. You might make a solid argument that D&D 5.0 is a better game. There are lots of arguments one might make that we could (attempt) to amicably discuss.
But honestly, with your opening premise there is nothing to do here except identify you as trolling and to otherwise ignore this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, i don't think it is a troll. Exactly. The game, to a rather vocal portion of the playerbase, is rather more of a conceptual test bed. The focus of the game narrows to the creation of the perfect character, capable of a potential of doing hundreds of points of damage per round in rather specific circumstances. It is the build that is important, the game is just a proof of concept exercise. How much anger is generated when someone develops a strategy/character (strategy and character being inextricable) that trivializes a cherished character/strategy. I remember the actual outrage when I made an offhand suggestion that the rules actually are capable of supporting a non-combat oriented playstyle, as this was anathema to their strategy character concepts. If the concept is what you live for, the game isn't so much the focus anymore.
|
No, i don't think it is a troll. Exactly. The game, to a rather vocal portion of the playerbase, is rather more of a conceptual test bed. The focus of the game narrows to the creation of the perfect character, capable of a potential of doing hundreds of points of damage per round in rather specific circumstances. It is the build that is important, the game is just a proof of concept exercise. How much anger is generated when someone develops a strategy/character (strategy and character being inextricable) that trivializes a cherished character/strategy. I remember the actual outrage when I made an offhand suggestion that the rules actually are capable of supporting a non-combat oriented playstyle, as this was anathema to their strategy character concepts. If the concept is what you live for, the game isn't so much the focus anymore.
If you want to focus on non-combat oriented playstyle, there are dozens of RPGs out there that cater to such playstyle.
D&D/PF isn't one of them. It's a tactical wargame. Playing a combat inept character is directly in counter to the primary rules-driven activity of D&D, which is combat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point. Was it deliberate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, i don't think it is a troll. Exactly. The game, to a rather vocal portion of the playerbase, is rather more of a conceptual test bed. The focus of the game narrows to the creation of the perfect character, capable of a potential of doing hundreds of points of damage per round in rather specific circumstances. It is the build that is important, the game is just a proof of concept exercise. How much anger is generated when someone develops a strategy/character (strategy and character being inextricable) that trivializes a cherished character/strategy. I remember the actual outrage when I made an offhand suggestion that the rules actually are capable of supporting a non-combat oriented playstyle, as this was anathema to their strategy character concepts. If the concept is what you live for, the game isn't so much the focus anymore.If you want to focus on non-combat oriented playstyle, there are dozens of RPGs out there that cater to such playstyle.
D&D/PF isn't one of them. It's a tactical wargame. Playing a combat inept character is directly in counter to the primary rules-driven activity of D&D, which is combat.
If you want it to be a tactical wargame, it sure is, and there's no denying that there are a lot more pages devoted to rules relevant to combat than there are to rules devoted to noncombat scenarios. But it doesn't have to be a tactical wargame.
My favorite PFS game ever involved fast talking the mark, stealing something (I forget what--maybe a key?) then some tomb crawling after that. We completed the entire scenario with only one combat, near the end, and that one only happened because someone stepped on a trap like an idiot. If not for a single poor roll, it would have been a total pacifist run. It was the best PFS scenario I've ever attended--lots of dialogue, players actually tried to get to know each other's characters. And all the houseruled baggage that comes with playing PFS just melted away as we got into our roles.
Outside of PFS: In some campaigns, we semi-frequently go entire sessions without any combat occurring. In others, it's several fights per session; and in still others, there's a distinct rise and fall in the amount of fisticuffs not unlike that found in literary analysis.
Heck, there's a thread up there about playing the downtime rules as a standalone game. That's freaking amazing!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I know a guy who refers to being high as being "puzzled." That's how I interpreted the title after reading first post.
How is Pathfinder a game?
It’s got dice. What else could it be?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.
Your point seemed to be that your bold and provocative opinions provoked outrage from easily offended forum users. But it seems more like people are politely offering counterpoints along the lines of, "You could play Pathfinder without combat, but it's a very combat-focused ruleset; there are other systems that would handle such a campaign more elegantly."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you may be seriously underestimating the bagman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason there are people out there whose conception of "a game" involves some variation of "has a failure state." I would say that since this sort of definition fails to describe tabletop roleplaying games, improv games, or like "tag" and "hide and go seek" then this is a bad definition and should be rejected.
Pathfinder is a game on the basis that it is an activity people opt into for no more practical reasons than "fun" or "socialization" which nonetheless exists within a structure of rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, a TPK is a pretty strong failure state.
Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.Your point seemed to be that your bold and provocative opinions provoked outrage from easily offended forum users. But it seems more like people are politely offering counterpoints along the lines of, "You could play Pathfinder without combat, but it's a very combat-focused ruleset; there are other systems that would handle such a campaign more elegantly."
I agree with Matthew Downie here.
Pathfidner can be played without combat.
I will even attest that some of the most fun that I've had playing Pathfinder was actually in Hell's Vengeance because our characters lied and intimidated their way through so many things and avoided fighting. There were times when we through convoluted and extravagant parties to make certain things happen in the game that where no where on script and our GM just ran with it because we put hours of thought into it, and while we probably should have been able to so easily avoid some of the problems that cropped up, we we're rewarded for well... role playing.
We tend to get very wrapped up in the gamist aspects of the RPG, the technical parts that have the most rules. That sometimes we forget the most fun can honestly be had from planning a charity ball for orphans that really involves a lot of back handed deals for us to skim a bunch of money off the top to pay off a lot of people to look the other way for things we're doing.*
*My memory is a little rusty on exactly what we did, I just remember we basically spent a whole session planning what was effectively a benefit gala but we had our own nefarious plots behind it because hey, it was an evil campaign.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vague, baiting opening with no further response from OP? Yep, that is grade A troll sign.
OP: please prove me wrong.
|
|
Vague, baiting opening with no further response from OP? Yep, that is grade A troll sign.
OP: please prove me wrong.
The OP is making one post per 3 years, so you might wait until 2022 sitting at that "prove me wrong" desk :P
And of course, you can play a non-combat focused D&D just like you can play a heavily combat-oriented game of Golden Sky Stories or houserule Rifts into resembling a vaguely enjoyable experience (for anybody who isn't playing a Glitterboi).
You can. But do you really want to, as we say in Poland, pee against the wind?
D&D/PF are conservative (as in: conservative design, not conservative socially) combat-focused rulesets where most of the design is focused on combat, there's no way of influencing the narrative outside of your in-character abilities and the preferred style of play is grid and minis. It's a game, sure, but it's the Advanced Squad Leader of RPGs.
Actually, making the same topic every year and comparing the different answers across time over the development of a game could be a very insightful exercise.
Not sure if "is this a game" is the right question though. On the whole, I tend to agree that Pathfinder is an engine used to play a game. Rather like how a deck of cards is an engine by which you play a game. Without players and agreed upon rules, a deck of cards is simply a collection of cardboard slips. Similarly, without a GM and a group of players pathfinder is just a book. Furthermore, just like with a deck of cards the fundamentals of the game you are playing can change very rapidly from game to game; just like how you will see different variation from table to table or adventure to adventure in Pathfinder.
He's had three posts in the last five years (only one alias) and his most recent post is as cryptic as his first one.
When AI becomes real, we won't be playing games with it. We'll be too busy getting the time travel machine up and running so John Conner can be born.
/sigh. Ok, ok, ok. Deep breath. Here we go.
There is very strong and convincing evidence that there is no time travel. The major evidence is that nobody has gone back in time to brag about it. Nobody can keep a secret forever. We're finding out secrets all the time. And we're talking about all of future time for somebody to come back to before now and say or do something that would tip people off. It is very much against human nature for nobody to take advantage of all of this and the information they could use.
Nobody has.
Technically I suppose its possible that time travel is possible, but the evidence indicates that no human has ever discovered it.
Just to be a knob...
If you accept the Many Worlds theory, it's entirely possible that no human in this version of reality will have going to be invented-ing time travel. But that doesn't preclude such a discovery being was previously will be made ago. <Grin>
My main argument about a "time machine" is that as it's portrayed in science fiction (by necessity, admittedly), it always involves physical travel as well. Fact is, if I have a machine that can send its contents back in time say... six months and use this machine on myself, I will very much wish I hadn't, because I will find myself (at least) half an orbit away from where my planet was at that time. Even very, very small time-jumps would lend incredible physical inaccuracy as there's so much movement, what with the solar system moving around the galaxy, and the galaxy moving around within it local cluster, and so on.
So hey, who knows... maybe time travel is possible, but utterly, completely impractical without instantaneous, infinite, precise, energy-efficient travel also being possible.
there's no way of influencing the narrative outside of your in-character abilities
wat
Anyone smart enough to build a time machine is smart enough to NOT come back and brag about it. If I had access to a time machine, I wouldn't tell anyone about it. Either people would think I'm crazy or they'd try to take it for themselves.
And I wouldn't be changing major things either. I'd keep my trips small. For example, I'd go back and attend the first Beatles concert. And the last Beatles concert. Meet Agatha Christie. Meet the first three Doctors. That kind of stuff.
Give myself a book that contains the results of all the sporting events for the next 50 or so years and use it to become rich and buy a casino until my stepson goes and ruins everything for me.
Anyone smart enough to build a time machine is smart enough to NOT come back and brag about it. If I had access to a time machine, I wouldn't tell anyone about it. Either people would think I'm crazy or they'd try to take it for themselves.
And I wouldn't be changing major things either. I'd keep my trips small. For example, I'd go back and attend the first Beatles concert. And the last Beatles concert. Meet Agatha Christie. Meet the first three Doctors. That kind of stuff.
If I had a Time Machine, I would go back and ensure the success of Nicola Tesla and then go stop Alan Turing from being arrested. Then I'd go buy about 9000 shares of Microsoft Stock in 1980-ish and go buy a tropical island with a good wifi signal in 2019 :P