Repetition and 2e / "Taking20"s Break Up Letter


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 671 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

How do you get at any other game, like say Magic or chess?

- You play the game, try out some things, see what works and what doesn't.
- You pay attention. If your buddy just hit with a 16 and you know your third attack has a +1, you can calculate that you need to roll a 15 to hit with it, or 30% chance. Not too shabby.
- You talk it over with your friends. "Bob, do you think I should fish for 20s or raise my shield?"
- You play with people outside your normal circle of friends. Because other people have probably discovered tricks your friends don't know yet.
- You read about it. What's the hot new deck in Magic? What's the shocking new AI-generated chess tactic? What's the cool new archetype combo in the new Pathfinder book that makes barbarians crazy good?
- After getting beaten, you talk over with your friends, "where did we go wrong? what could we have done differently?" Note that this works better when you don't immediately blame the author but consider if maybe your own play wasn't 100% good.

And in the end, because this is a dice-based game, it's a matter of betting. You can sort of eyeball the odds. Usually they're complex odds: "if I hit on this long-shot attack I can drop the enemy, but if I doesn't, then he's still there to flank me and the enemy rogue is gonna shank me, unless my friend manages to take out the rogue..."

Most of the time, in interesting combats, you simply can't calculate all the possibilities. You have to gamble a bit. Gambling takes a bit of skill but there are no guarantees, and that's what makes it exciting.

Stangler wrote:
Cody's video is ultimately about a group of experienced players getting run down by this system Paizo designed and quitting.

Cody's video is about people who overestimate their skill in this game and who have fooled themselves into thinking they have no choice. There is a big failure at introspection going on there. He literally says that the ranger does the same thing every turn, hunt prey, hunted shot, third shot that misses anyway. If it misses anyway, why are you doing it? Because it's "optimal" to do the thing that will miss anyway?

Cody's gang have talked themselves into the theory that the game is so hard, that nothing except maximum DPR is going to save them. But it's not working. But they're unable to go back to their assumptions and wonder if maybe they need to be doing something else.

Second edition is set up to make it very easy to make a versatile character. And even if you make a decision that afterwards you don't like, it's got a retraining system in it that gives you a lot of leeway to backtrack on your choices.

Cody's style of optimization sounds to me like someone was told there was gonna be a race, and got the fastest Formula 1 car available. And then it turns out part of the race is through the congested streets of Cairo, then a trek across the Sahara where sand will wreck most vehicles' gears, then a part through the jungle through the middle of a civil war. But they gotta have the fastest possible car because the game is so hard that only hardcore optimization is enough. Instead of considering, hey, maybe if I look at the rules for this race again, it turns out I'm allowed to pick a different car for each leg of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


It is not paizo's responsibility nor is it even their ability to tell the players what is a good choice in any given situation.

Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design. I really don't think this is a point worth arguing about because it is so obvious and well accepted in any discussion of game design.

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

A Paizo employee comes to their game and smacks them in the head with the core rule book when they try anything and get told they’re playing it wrong.

WtF kinda question is this? The player learns what options are best at each individual round in combat by playing the game, just the same as every game ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:


How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

I am not saying it is bad to have players weigh the costs and benefits. I am saying that the information they have when making that decision matters. The nature of that decision matters. The types of things they are weighing against one another matters. The hurdles the player needs to overcome to make an educated decision matter.

These are all decisions made by Paizo with regards to how this works. Paizo designed the math involved. They designed the cost and benefit analysis.

Cody's video is ultimately about a group of experienced players getting run down by this system Paizo designed and quitting.

Let me give an example.

My swashbuckler is designed heavily around making one big attack as his primary thing, his Confident Finisher. The cost to this is once he makes this attack, he cannot do any more attacks for the rest of the turn. He can choose to do this with his rapier, which does more damage, or his whip, which does less damage but has a better range, and will knock an enemy prone on a crit.
So I've filled those actions instead with a multitude of different possibilities. He can use Bon Mot/Tumble Behind to help set up his panache while also weakening an enemy, One for All to help allies, or Twin Parry to give himself a little more defense (which may include swapping to his main-gauche instead of one of his other weapons for even more defense).

But what if he's facing a large number of weak enemies? He might be able to do severe damage to a single enemy with one hit, but the fact that there are a lot of enemies will eventually take its toll. This is a point at which he might want to forgo that one big hit and instead just keep attacking (since even when he goes down to his third attack's MAP, he has a good chance of hitting because they're weaker than him).
Alternately, if I chose to raise Athletics as a skill and take Assurance, that third attack is very useful because Assurance cuts out both bonuses and penalties, making it ideal to use on a third action - especially because he has low Str, making it so that Athletics is a more difficult proposition normally. With that third Assurance maneuver, targeting the right skill (like trying to trip an elephant) can still be a guaranteed success.

It's a good choice when it's used in the proper situation. When that situation is is for the player to figure out.


Jester David wrote:

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

Depending on what your issues with the system are, you can try to check out the variant rules found in the Game master's Guide and try out the new classes that are upcoming, Magus and Summoner were playtested recently and there's a new playtest opening up January 5, with yet unknown classes and one of them will be a new.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Alright, I'm positive this is relevant now

From the Wikipedia page:

"Sealioning: (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"."

I think I'm personally done trying to explain the rules to someone who won't even take the pdf for free when offered and completely ignored the generous invite to play from someone who only seemed to sincerely want to teach him the game, WHILE trying to educate others who have actually played the damn thing. I think maybe everyone else should be done too, but thats just my two cents.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It is not paizo's responsibility nor is it even their ability to tell the players what is a good choice in any given situation.

Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design. I really don't think this is a point worth arguing about because it is so obvious and well accepted in any discussion of game design.

The game tells you what options you could take and does a very good job of presenting options that will be valuable in different situations.

But it can't do the tactical analysis of the battlefield situation for you. It is definitely something the GM should talk to their players about if they see their players consistently making choices that lead to player frustration and character death. In fact, the rules do emphasize the importance of communication with players about their expectations and not forcing them to make endless checks for things that don't matter, just because there are rules for how to do so.

Paizo doesn't just count on every player having access to a 600 page rulebook either. They let their rule set be shared online and housed in several databases that allow for much more convenient usage than most other games.

We are not arguing about whether paizo is effective at communicating with players because the company has gone out of its way to make that information accessible. You seem to be under the impression that the game rules are suppose to make it clear when attacking is more valuable than tripping or shoving inherently. The game does that through the intermediary of the GM. A GM that says "you walk into a room, you see 2 goblins 30ft away from you, what do you do?" is not communicating nearly enough information to their players for that combat to work out as anything more than a white room simulation. APs and modules do add lots of extra details, but they don't necessarily go into depth about how you can flip x table to use for cover or how much damage every chandelier would do as a weapon, because those things are covered in the game mastery chapter of the core rulebook. GMs need to make sure to describe the environment enough to get the players looking for ways to exploit it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Stangler wrote:


How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

I am not saying it is bad to have players weigh the costs and benefits. I am saying that the information they have when making that decision matters. The nature of that decision matters. The types of things they are weighing against one another matters. The hurdles the player needs to overcome to make an educated decision matter.

These are all decisions made by Paizo with regards to how this works. Paizo designed the math involved. They designed the cost and benefit analysis.

Cody's video is ultimately about a group of experienced players getting run down by this system Paizo designed and quitting.

Let me give an example.

My swashbuckler is designed heavily around making one big attack as his primary thing, his Confident Finisher. The cost to this is once he makes this attack, he cannot do any more attacks for the rest of the turn. He can choose to do this with his rapier, which does more damage, or his whip, which does less damage but has a better range, and will knock an enemy prone on a crit.
So I've filled those actions instead with a multitude of different possibilities. He can use Bon Mot/Tumble Behind to help set up his panache while also weakening an enemy, One for All to help allies, or Twin Parry to give himself a little more defense (which may include swapping to his main-gauche instead of one of his other weapons for even more defense).

But what if he's facing a large number of weak enemies? He might be able to do severe damage to a single enemy with one hit, but the fact that there are a lot of enemies will eventually take its toll. This is a point at which he might want to forgo that one big hit and instead just keep attacking (since even when he goes down to his third attack's MAP, he has a good chance of hitting because they're weaker than him).
Alternately, if I chose to raise Athletics as a skill and take Assurance, that third attack is very useful because Assurance cuts out both...

Actually the choice of single target damage vs AOE is one of the most obvious combat choices a game can offer to players. It is an example of a decision where the player should have solid information to make the decision(many weak enemies, understanding of your abilities). There is no reason this choice shouldn't be clear and transparent to the player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It is not paizo's responsibility nor is it even their ability to tell the players what is a good choice in any given situation.

Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design. I really don't think this is a point worth arguing about because it is so obvious and well accepted in any discussion of game design.

And this is not a problem you can find in PF2e. This is more of an issue with assumptions and player baggage. Some people will assume that because they played PF's cousins and the first edition, that this new edition will share the same kind of meta. It doesn't. You adapt to the new system, you don't make the system adapt to your preconceived notion.

If you read the book you would realize that just the existence of MAP and a quick read of the skill chapters will make any player see that there are other combat options. Sure, sometimes, when you're a new player, you still don't know how valuable somethings are, but it is a learned experience.

The issue is, PF1e and other similar editions see feats that gave you +1 to hit and damage at basically every corner, and they picked it all because they would bank everything on being able to hit often as possible and as hard as possible, then in this edition they see that there are very, very few abilities that give you easy to have unconditional bonuses.

If in other systems your mastery was shown how well you've built your character and how many obscure and benefits you managed to cherry pick and jammed into it, in PF2e system mastery will come in the form of making the most out of your feats and conditional benefits as well as clever positioning that may aid you during battle. There are no more god spellcasters completely bypassing encounters just because they picked the most broken spells and don't even need to think about it, neither you'll stack so many bonuses on your specialty that failure is impossible, thus negating the challenge after certain levels for your character and making everyone else not investing in it suffer because the GM needs to challenge your character instead of offering the balanced challenge. Pathfinder 2e manages to give you enough depth and mechanical options while not requiring the kind of effort that it took to create well rounded characters in PF1e and other complex editions, it sits comfortably in between crunchy systems like PF1e/Starfinder and the casual D&D5e.

IF you and your friends are not afraid to learn an TTRPG then PF2e will reward you, if you just want to randomly show up somewhere and have a good time with your friends without caring about creating a mechanically interesting character, then it's better to play simpler systems. It's that simple.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is clear and transparent. You play, and you notice those kind of things

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Strangler wrote:
There is no reason this choice shouldn't be clear and transparent to the player.

Annnnd the choice is unclear to you how? This isn’t a P2 specific situation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:


Are you saying that the opacity in terms of "best choices" in any given circumstance for the players is a bad thing? Not being sure what would be the best thing to do is exactly how choice can exist...

I am saying this will impact how players play the game and potentially enjoy or not enjoy the game. It is actually pretty clear that there is some enjoyment for some people to overcome that opacity while others don't care to even try.

Not all opacity is the same either.

Choosing to use a limited resource for example can be a hard decision because it is impossible to know what the future holds.

Most of the problems revolve around math. When one choice is simply mathematically superior to another. For example if the player has a choice between trying to kill something as quickly as possible or helping their team defend against the attack. The player may decide to try and kill the enemy as fast as possible but then have two more choices to make where they don't know what choice will kill the enemy more quickly. This is intentionally simplistic to demonstrate the point.

I dunno, man. Sounds like white-room supposition based around second-hand "math" and actually not really how the game plays at all.

Making decisions without enough of the picture to know what is best is a design feature of RPGs. You're not really going anywhere with this. Especially since the only time I have seen such certitude in probably over 100 sessions GMed in this system at this point is when it is time for the players to run the hell away because this thing will kill them.

You want it to be clean and simple, and you want this simplicity to also imply that any complexity is actually a waste of time or resources. It's just not that way, no matter how much you want it to be. Any given action, there are a bundle of choices to pick from, and some will be good and others bad. Sometimes it's clear in the context of the fight what might or might not work, and sometimes it's really not.

And frankly, all this hope to find a perfect white room solution to things is so grotesquely anti-narrativist. Leave room for your characters to be your characters and try to solve difficult combats with their own thought processes, not pre-determined expectations. This is 2020--you're encouraged to roleplay your combats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Stangler wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It is not paizo's responsibility nor is it even their ability to tell the players what is a good choice in any given situation.

Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design. I really don't think this is a point worth arguing about because it is so obvious and well accepted in any discussion of game design.

The game tells you what options you could take and does a very good job of presenting options that will be valuable in different situations.

But it can't do the tactical analysis of the battlefield situation for you. It is definitely something the GM should talk to their players about if they see their players consistently making choices that lead to player frustration and character death. In fact, the rules do emphasize the importance of communication with players about their expectations and not forcing them to make endless checks for things that don't matter, just because there are rules for how to do so.

Paizo doesn't just count on every player having access to a 600 page rulebook either. They let their rule set be shared online and housed in several databases that allow for much more convenient usage than most other games.

We are not arguing about whether paizo is effective at communicating with players because the company has gone out of its way to make that information accessible. You seem to be under the impression that the game rules are suppose to make it clear when attacking is more valuable than tripping or shoving inherently. The game does that through the intermediary of the GM. A GM that says "you walk into a room, you see 2 goblins 30ft away from you, what do you do?" is not communicating nearly enough information to their players for that combat to work out as anything more than a white room simulation. APs and modules do add lots of extra details, but they don't necessarily go into depth about how you can flip x table to use for cover or how much damage every...

The vast majority of the responses to Cody can be summed up as the players and possibly the GM making bad decisions with the most common explanation being a lack of understanding of the choices the game presented to them.

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
Actually the choice of single target damage vs AOE is one of the most obvious combat choices a game can offer to players. It is an example of a decision where the player should have solid information to make the decision(many weak enemies, understanding of your abilities). There is no reason this choice shouldn't be clear and transparent to the player.

Ah yes, those plentiful AOE Swashbuckler abilities...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Stangler/// What are you trying to teach... Everyone here knows more about the game than you. You OBVIOUSLY have no interest in learning it yourself. Are you trying perhaps to teach a lesson to Paizo, to those designers who clearly in "Cody's" opinion and yours, made mistakes in design based on some anecdotal notes, most of them wrong even.
What is the purpose of all this relentless sealioning? (my new fav word)

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stangler wrote:

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Ok, so for PF2, it is clearly communicated.

In depth.

In the Core Rulebook and in the GMG.

Glad I could clear that up for you so you can stop repeating yourself and don't need to read the rules you continue to insist be clear to you without reading or playing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
Stangler wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:


Are you saying that the opacity in terms of "best choices" in any given circumstance for the players is a bad thing? Not being sure what would be the best thing to do is exactly how choice can exist...

I am saying this will impact how players play the game and potentially enjoy or not enjoy the game. It is actually pretty clear that there is some enjoyment for some people to overcome that opacity while others don't care to even try.

Not all opacity is the same either.

Choosing to use a limited resource for example can be a hard decision because it is impossible to know what the future holds.

Most of the problems revolve around math. When one choice is simply mathematically superior to another. For example if the player has a choice between trying to kill something as quickly as possible or helping their team defend against the attack. The player may decide to try and kill the enemy as fast as possible but then have two more choices to make where they don't know what choice will kill the enemy more quickly. This is intentionally simplistic to demonstrate the point.

I dunno, man. Sounds like white-room supposition based around second-hand "math" and actually not really how the game plays at all.

Making decisions without enough of the picture to know what is best is a design feature of RPGs. You're not really going anywhere with this. Especially since the only time I have seen such certitude in probably over 100 sessions GMed in this system at this point is when it is time for the players to run the hell away because this thing will kill them.

You want it to be clean and simple, and you want this simplicity to also imply that any complexity is actually a waste of time or resources. It's just not that way, no matter how much you want it to be. Any given action, there are a bundle of choices to pick from, and some will be good and others bad. Sometimes it's clear in the context of the fight what might or might not work, and...

Hi welcome to the thread where there has been a long line of people telling everyone that Cody's players made the wrong decisions.

Where everyone admits that there is a cost benefit calculation that players have to make each round but there's is zero expectation that the game communicate the nature of this calculation. Nor can anyone really describe it all that well btw.

In Dark Souls I know when to move based on visuals. In Tetris I look at a block and can see how it could fit into the field.

So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

(I know you're getting a bit swamped, but it also seems you're ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of points being made.)

A digital strategy game like XCOM can offer things such as success percentages, actions from a menu, and potentially even hints or other info for specific circumstances. A tabletop game like Pathfinder 2E can't do this because specific circumstances aren't built into the same fabric as the rules, and the computer is a human who might be naughty or nice about guiding the player. Even Adventure Paths only offer info for rules so specific the core book don't cover them, because Pathfinder 2E — for all of its (attempted) rigor in balancing — is still fairly narrative-based, as with most tabletop stuff. You are encouraged to play as the person on the map rather than the player making moves from above.

So when you say "Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design.", you have to understand, Game Design™ is not a single cudgel you can bludgeon things with. As with most things, it's contextual. Good design in XCOM wouldn't necessarily work in Pathfinder 2E because the core assumptions and systems are different. In the case of Pathfinder, the unknowns and various ways to navigate it are part of the point, because stories are always full of surprises. It wouldn't even be in the same genre if you were always told what choices are the best, and barred from taking others.

And it's on all players, including the GM, to know the rules, which also tell you what your possible choices are and what they can do. If someone doesn't know, they might be helped out by knowledgeable fellow players. Same as any other RPG.

I'm inclined to agree with a few others that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere fruitful, especially since your reply to this just kind of says a lot of buzzwords. Any game has a learning curve, and I'm not convinced PF2's was the problem for Cody's group as much as their alleged refusal to try learning was.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And, in case you want to know "then why did Cody and his players not know this" my response is the following anecdote:

For the past month, my bank's lobby has been closed. We have a big sign out front on a sandwich board facing both sidewalks leading to the bank saying "Lobby Closed except by appointment" and every day at least six people walk past this sign and yank on the locked doors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reckless wrote:
Stangler wrote:

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Ok, so for PF2, it is clearly communicated.

In depth.

In the Core Rulebook and in the GMG.

Glad I could clear that up for you so you can stop repeating yourself and don't need to read the rules you continue to insist be clear to you without reading or playing them.

Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
How does a player know when [taking a third attack] is the "good" choice?
Stangler wrote:
Actually the choice of single target damage vs AOE is one of the most obvious combat choices a game can offer to players. It is an example of a decision where the player should have solid information to make the decision(many weak enemies, understanding of your abilities). There is no reason this choice shouldn't be clear and transparent to the player.

Thank you for agreeing that this choice is clear and transparent, since you appeared to be having trouble with it earlier.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

Of course not, because roleplaying games also have an element of mystery. As a GM my job is to give clues not to tell the resolution of a mystery. I will say, "The amorphous mass of what appears to be raw sewage is held together by a thin membrane and moves by shifting its weight inside that boundary," hinting that its AC and its speed are low. But I won't say, "The sewer ooze has AC 8 and Speed 10," unless the PC rolled a successful Recall Knowledge (Occultism) check. And if they did, I would use more flavorful language.

And choosing to use an action for Recall Knowledge is already a tactical decision.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I for one am pretty glad that Paizo doesn't tell us how we should play our game. That's for us to figure out and for us alone to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:

(I know you're getting a bit swamped, but it also seems you're ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of points being made.)

A digital strategy game like XCOM can offer things such as success percentages, actions from a menu, and potentially even hints or other info for specific circumstances. A tabletop game like Pathfinder 2E can't do this because specific circumstances aren't built into the same fabric as the rules, and the computer is a human who might be naughty or nice about guiding the player. Even Adventure Paths only offer info for rules so specific the core book don't cover them, because Pathfinder 2E — for all of its (attempted) rigor in balancing — is still fairly narrative-based, as with most tabletop stuff. You are encouraged to play as the person on the map rather than the player making moves from above.

So when you say "Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design.", you have to understand, Game Design™ is not a single cudgel you can bludgeon things with. As with most things, it's contextual. Good design in XCOM wouldn't necessarily work in Pathfinder 2E because the core assumptions and systems are different. In the case of Pathfinder, the unknowns and various ways to navigate it are part of the point, because stories are always full of surprises. It wouldn't even be in the same genre if you were always told what choices are the best, and barred from taking others.

And it's on all players, including the GM, to know the rules, which also tell you what your possible choices are and what they can do. If someone doesn't know, they might be helped out by knowledgeable fellow players. Same as any other RPG.

I'm inclined to agree with a few others that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere fruitful.

Actually understanding that limitation of the TTRPG genre is a really important first step in understanding my pov.

People are not computers.

Where you are wrong is that you ignore how the game design impacts the player's mastery of the rules and is a fundamentally important part of the game's design.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Cody's "Experienced" players, based on the example that he gave, and the anecdotes he provided (Druid and a Ranger's terrible example) came to the conclusion that; "All you do in this game, is repeating the same rotations with no variations, because other actions don't matter"
There is NOWHERE in the core rule-book where it is stated, that you should attack 3 times, and most of the time miss the third one, but YET, these "Experienced" players choose to do so...
You can be experienced and good in Dragon-age, and be terrible on the Witcher... It doesn't mean that the Witcher is a badly designed game, it has other expectations, in which you have to adapt your play-style, based on your knowledge of the game, that you gain by PLAYING the game


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:

Hi welcome to the thread where there has been a long line of people telling everyone that Cody's players made the wrong decisions.

Where everyone admits that there is a cost benefit calculation that players have to make each round but there's is zero expectation that the game communicate the nature of this calculation. Nor can anyone really describe it all that well btw.

In Dark Souls I know when to move based on visuals. In Tetris I look at a block and can see how it could fit into the field.

So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?

The "wrong decisions" people keep pointing out that that group made were just the same ones over and over again.

Players learn by either reading about options they can try in the books or by actually trial-and-erroring in the game. Both of which seem to be methods that you haven't partaken in?

I'll probably bow out now. Been lurking for a while but it's getting old in this thread. I just don't get what you're going for here. You're not defending a favored system like 5e. You're not earnest to learn about Pathfinder. Far as I can tell, you're here to argue on behalf of an influencer, and not even one who will sell you his used bathwater.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:
So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?

Cody's players (and Cody) "failed" or did "badwrongfun" because they played the game and stopped having fun when playing it. Why did this happen? Because they were making decisions based upon other games and not learning from their character's and their GM's mistakes, and decided that the system itself wasn't working rather than asking questions about what was happening and listening to others that could help them play the game the way they wanted to play it and still have fun.

Now that is not really that big a deal in and of itself. It happens all the time, some games just aren't for some people. But shouting that a game is badly designed because you don't enjoy playing it and that you don't want to try other ways of playing it than the way that you tried it and had no fun playing it, then you should expect people to be pretty vocal in explaining why the way you approached it led to you not having fun.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

I started TTRPGs with 3.5 and my first character was a monk. I played him like a Final Fantasy Tactics monk classed character because the book read that way to me.

I have since learned better through experience. They appear not to have done so.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stangler wrote:


Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?

Yup. I've got over a dozen players I've run this exact game for over a year, and only two of them every bother mathing anything out. The other successfully play by playing their characters and making decisions. Crazy, right? These non-number crunching people have figured out there are many tools in their belt. They try new things. They expand their capabilities as their characters gain abilities. They are excited to try out the new thing they gain each level.

GMG has 54 pages of advice on how to GM. Read the sign.

Why would I give you an example of what's being clearly communicated? It's on the sign.

You keep walking around the sign and pulling on the doors.

Seems that is the game you enjoy playing, but it's winter and you're going to get cold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Stangler wrote:
So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?

Cody's players (and Cody) "failed" or did "badwrongfun" because they played the game and stopped having fun when playing it. Why did this happen? Because they were making decisions based upon other games and not learning from their character's and their GM's mistakes, and decided that the system itself wasn't working rather than asking questions about what was happening and listening to others that could help them play the game the way they wanted to play it and still have fun.

Now that is not really that big a deal in and of itself. It happens all the time, some games just aren't for some people. But shouting that a game is badly designed because you don't enjoy playing it and that you don't want to try other ways of playing it than the way that you tried it and had no fun playing it, then you should expect people to be pretty vocal in explaining why the way you approached it led to you not having fun.

I am saying if a game is designed to play like the way many people here have said then how was that information communicated to the player? Was it clear? All of the evidence presented in this thread points to no.

If you think it is clearly communicated in the Rules then tell me the page number.

If there is a breakdown in communication between Paizo and Cody's group then if I am Paizo I am definitely wanting to know what went wrong.

Keep in mind that by simply claiming that their decisions are wrong is admitting the thesis that the choices are illusions correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reckless wrote:
Stangler wrote:


Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?

Yup. I've got over a dozen players I've run this exact game for over a year, and only two of them every bother mathing anything out. The other successfully play by playing their characters and making decisions. Crazy, right? These non-number crunching people have figured out there are many tools in their belt. They try new things. They expand their capabilities as their characters gain abilities. They are excited to try out the new thing they gain each level.

GMG has 54 pages of advice on how to GM. Read the sign.

Why would I give you an example of what's being clearly communicated? It's on the sign.

You keep walking around the sign and pulling on the doors.

Seems that is the game you enjoy playing, but it's winter and you're going to get cold.

Ohh it is written down clearly! Why have you been hiding this information. End the thread now and tell everyone the page number.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Read, play, and see for yourself


12 people marked this as a favorite.

*taps the sign with the definition of sealioning on it*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TSRodriguez wrote:

Cody's "Experienced" players, based on the example that he gave, and the anecdotes he provided (Druid and a Ranger's terrible example) came to the conclusion that; "All you do in this game, is repeating the same rotations with no variations, because other actions don't matter"

There is NOWHERE in the core rule-book where it is stated, that you should attack 3 times, and most of the time miss the third one, but YET, these "Experienced" players choose to do so...
You can be experienced and good in Dragon-age, and be terrible on the Witcher... It doesn't mean that the Witcher is a badly designed game, it has other expectations, in which you have to adapt your play-style, based on your knowledge of the game, that you gain by PLAYING the game

The Witcher is designed in a way so that the player learns the game as they play. It is a demonstration of show don't tell information sharing and is highly regarded for how well they handled this.

So now looks at PF2... what does the system need to communicate? How does it communicate it? How does it guide the GM to help players understand the mechanics of the game? How is the monster manual designed to facilitate this?

It should be a given that this is part of PF2's design and it should be easy to point to.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
Reckless wrote:
Stangler wrote:

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Ok, so for PF2, it is clearly communicated.

In depth.

In the Core Rulebook and in the GMG.

Glad I could clear that up for you so you can stop repeating yourself and don't need to read the rules you continue to insist be clear to you without reading or playing them.

Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.
It doesn’t matter how experienced they are with 5e and Shadowrun and what else, if they don’t read the rules for P2 and don’t enjoy P2 they’re not going to magically understand and be experts at playing it.
Strangler wrote:
You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?

We have. You just have no idea what anyone is saying since you haven’t read the game yourself.

Have you played any TTRPGs at all?

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Page 7. You're welcome.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Reckless wrote:
Page 7. You're welcome.

Linkified.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Reckless wrote:
Yup. I've got over a dozen players I've run this exact game for over a year, and only two of them every bother mathing anything out. The other successfully play by playing their characters and making decisions. Crazy, right? These non-number crunching people have figured out there are many tools in their belt. They try new things. They expand their capabilities as their characters gain abilities. They are excited to try out the new thing they gain each level.

This.

People don't need 'maths and analysis' to learn to play this game well.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Have you played any TTRPGs at all?

Signs point to no.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
So now looks at PF2... what does the system need to communicate? How does it communicate it? How does it guide the GM to help players understand the mechanics of the game? How is the monster manual designed to facilitate this?

The Core Rulebook, the Gamemastery Guide, and the Bestiary.

The books you refuse to acknowledge existing.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Heh, I meant pg 7 of the Core Rulebook but that's a great pg 7 too, for the GM.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else think it's kind of ludicrous to expect the system to handhold you to the optimal decision every turn? At some point the onus to get good is on you.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Stangler wrote:
So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?

Cody's players (and Cody) "failed" or did "badwrongfun" because they played the game and stopped having fun when playing it. Why did this happen? Because they were making decisions based upon other games and not learning from their character's and their GM's mistakes, and decided that the system itself wasn't working rather than asking questions about what was happening and listening to others that could help them play the game the way they wanted to play it and still have fun.

Now that is not really that big a deal in and of itself. It happens all the time, some games just aren't for some people. But shouting that a game is badly designed because you don't enjoy playing it and that you don't want to try other ways of playing it than the way that you tried it and had no fun playing it, then you should expect people to be pretty vocal in explaining why the way you approached it led to you not having fun.

I am saying if a game is designed to play like the way many people here have said then how was that information communicated to the player? Was it clear? All of the evidence presented in this thread points to no.

If you think it is clearly communicated in the Rules then tell me the page number.

Page 443 of the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rulebook. You can find the text at this link. The information is at the beginning of the Playing the Game chapter and it even has a section called Making Choices.

The preamble and "The First Rule" on page 7 are pretty good about choices, too.

Stangler wrote:
If there is a breakdown in communication between Paizo and Cody's group then if I am Paizo I am definitely wanting to know what went wrong.

That is why I am glad that Cody made the follow-up video where he explained his players' experience and debunked some misconceptions.

Stangler wrote:
Keep in mind that by simply claiming that their decisions are wrong is admitting the thesis that the choices are illusions correct.

No, that sounds backwards. Being able to make bad choices means that choices matter. Cody's argument was different and he did not base his claims on the one TPK that his players suffered. He argued that playing well meant following optimization and that the options had only one optimized option for each turn during combat, so that created an obvious choice.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Anyone else think it's kind of ludicrous to expect the system to handhold you to the optimal decision every turn? At some point the onus to get good is on you.

Or just change the rules or outcome if it’s not becoming enjoyable. No one is holding a gun to your head and preventing the GM from just saying “none of you die, this happens instead”.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Anyone else think it's kind of ludicrous to expect the system to handhold you to the optimal decision every turn? At some point the onus to get good is on you.

Just as ludicrous as demanding the system tell you every optimal thing to do while also refusing to read said system in the first place.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This discussion is focused entirely on the wrong thing, in my opinion. rather than arguing with somebody who knows extremely little about the system, why not just address what really matters?

Unless you're playing with a group that's extremely hardcore and specifically wants to power game, things that are suboptimal are still effective enough to be enjoyable and you can create the character you want without worrying about it not being viable.

Which is a hell of a lot better than pf1 when it comes to choice, and significantly better than pf2 if you want your character's themes to have mechanical traits assigned to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I Agree, its an extremely manageable system, you can lower the difficulty easier than any game ive played so far - So if your players are having a rough time because they dont use tactics, just follow page 7 of the GMG for advice, and page 7 of the Core Rule book, rule number 1


For how results are communicated to you it’s like any other game. You look at how you did in play and combat. Assuming that Paizo (or your home brewed gm) made a balanced scenario you can tell how you did by how successful you were. If you’re failing a lot and it’s not just bad rolls than that is one place to start. Now if you’re good at math you can easily figure this out yourself without even playing but people don’t need to do that. They can just try things and find what works through playing the game.

This is the same as any other TRPG. I’m not sure what better way there is to communicate this than from the results of the game through your GM. It’s also why APs start with easy encounters and then ramp up to give you time to learn your characters. It’s also why starting at level 1 is easier because there is less things to keep track of and you can focus on comparing smaller groups of options.

I’m curious what level of documentation are you looking for to tell you this stuff? Any type of documentation is going to fail with adding new content and likely that type of info is better made by the community in the form of player/class guides. There you can read theorycrafting about different types of builds/actions/options/archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Caralene wrote:

This discussion is focused entirely on the wrong thing, in my opinion. rather than arguing with somebody who knows extremely little about the system, why not just address what really matters?

Unless you're playing with a group that's extremely hardcore and specifically wants to power game, things that are suboptimal are still effective enough to be enjoyable and you can create the character you want without worrying about it not being viable.

Which is a hell of a lot better than pf1 when it comes to choice, and significantly better than pf2 if you want your character's themes to have mechanical traits assigned to them.

PF2 is significantly better than PF2? Huh?

501 to 550 of 671 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Repetition and 2e / "Taking20"s Break Up Letter All Messageboards