Specifics Needed: Tactics for 2E

[thenobledrake]

WatersLethe wrote:

It's bizarre to me that people buy up combat focused APs so much more. Combat is so easy to prep for, I usually add combat as filler if I think a session might go short.

Locations, NPCs, motives, plotlines, and backstory is what takes all the time.

Maybe it's weighted by GMs who are only really comfortable GMing combat...

Or perhaps it is just that what a particular GM finds more time consuming to prepare differs rather than all of us matching up to you?

For example, I can think up a plotline, NPCs crucial to it, their motives, and locations for it to take place in the span of time it has taken me to type out this post - but when I set up an encounter, I've got to take the time to budget out the difficulty, fill that with creatures that I've made sure aren't going to monkey-wrench me in the moment with some detail I overlooked, and then I put together a map for the encounter and read up on any mechanics that might come up because of the particulars of the creatures or the encounter environment. So roughly 99% of my prep time for an adventure is the part you find to be easy.

[Joana]

WatersLethe wrote:

It's bizarre to me that people buy up combat focused APs so much more. Combat is so easy to prep for, I usually add combat as filler if I think a session might go short.

Locations, NPCs, motives, plotlines, and backstory is what takes all the time.

Like thenobledrake, I'm the other way around. I have no problem coming up with stories and NPCs and complicated plots, but I find stat blocks a miserable slog. I've GMed through parts of APs where I've improvised so much we're not anywhere close to the story-as-written, but I love having pre-built level-appropriate fights to insert at opportune places.

[Ascalaphus]

Lethallin wrote:

I have two of my four players that mentally check out whenever we're not actively doing exploration or combat. Social interaction just doesn't interest them much within the game.

It used to be that I just couldn't understand this at all. But nowadays, I can, a bit more. Sometimes some social interactions just kind of feel "rote" - press the right buttons, click your way through a conversation menu, get the nod to go talk to the next person.

Other times though, you run into an interesting person, pry a setting-upsetting revelation out of them and the adventure's stakes just went up a bit.

I think sometimes it's just luck which social bits click and which ones don't, although the odds definitely get better when they're about something that the player is really interested in.

If the players want to know "whodunnit", then talking to someone who may have clues is interesting. If they don't actually care that much, then this interaction just doesn't have the same potential.

[Saedar]

Lethallin wrote:

I get the feeling a lot of people just aren't comfortable actually role playing, and really just want to play a video game with people rolling numbers instead of an RNG. That's why combat heavy things sell well.

Counterpoint: PF2 is a combat-oriented game system and the people playing it tend to respond to that design whether they realize it or not. If you are interested in the topic, I recommend checking out discussion on emergent behavior and mechanism design. Cool stuff.

There are many different types of tabletop games with different mechanical strengths and weaknesses. Not enjoying one style of game doesn't mean they only want video game combat sims. It might just mean that they, or you, could potentially be playing a game that isn't quite right for what you want.

[Ten10]

FowlJ wrote:

This is a really weird hill you've decided you have to die on, especially now that you've backpedaled to agreeing that Pathfinder is a primarily combat focused game (which it pretty transparently is), which was the entire point in contention in the first place.

Show me where I backpedaled.

[The Raven Black]

When RP happens, you have to be interested in it, and you have to play a PC that is built for it.

When combat happens, you are automatically interested in it, because your PC's survival is at stake. And PF2 being what it is, your PC will always be at least moderately successful in combat.

I am pretty sure the designers spent far more time on things related to combat (say, the three actions system, for example) than on those related to social interactions.

[Gortle]

Saedar wrote:

Lethallin wrote:

I get the feeling a lot of people just aren't comfortable actually role playing, and really just want to play a video game with people rolling numbers instead of an RNG. That's why combat heavy things sell well.

Counterpoint: PF2 is a combat-oriented game system and the people playing it tend to respond to that design whether they realize it or not. If you are interested in the topic, I recommend checking out discussion on emergent behavior and mechanism design. Cool stuff.

There are many different types of tabletop games with different mechanical strengths and weaknesses. Not enjoying one style of game doesn't mean they only want video game combat sims. It might just mean that they, or you, could potentially be playing a game that isn't quite right for what you want.

Its a feedback loop. If the GM or one of the players take the time to describe their character and actions in a little bit more detail, then the others will likely respond in kind, and more role playing will happen. The reverse is true. If you keep saying I roll a 15 and hit for 5 damage, then less role playing happens.

Its up to you. Play the game how you want. Put as much role playing into it as you want. The descriptions are there for you to work off, if that interests you. Some days people just want to smash things. Some people want a cool story. Some people just want to have fun. Some people want to be the most efficient mechanically. Its all good enjoy your game and your fellow gamers.

[Watery Soup]

Gortle wrote:

Its a feedback loop. If the GM or one of the players take the time to describe their character and actions in a little bit more detail, then the others will likely respond in kind, and more role playing will happen. The reverse is true. If you keep saying I roll a 15 and hit for 5 damage, then less role playing happens.

Its up to you. Play the game how you want. Put as much role playing into it as you want. The descriptions are there for you to work off, if that interests you. Some days people just want to smash things. Some people want a cool story. Some people just want to have fun. Some people want to be the most efficient mechanically. Its all good enjoy your game and your fellow gamers.

I think this is where the distinction of PFS vs non-PFS really comes in, or more accurately, "proper subset of a large player pool" vs "any subset of a smaller player pool".

In a close-knit group (home game, or even PFS lodges with a small player pool where the same people show up every week), you're going to take more time to roleplay and other things that have long-term, but not necessarily short-term, benefits.

In a large player pool, it's really hard to justify taking the time out to delve into backstory or metaplot, knowing that a character will almost never play with the same group again, and may never even play with their current teammates again.

To be clear, I understand it, but I'm not saying I like it. I actually kind of dislike it. But Paizo is a for-profit business so aside from trying to change the demand, I can't do much to affect the supply.

Paizo does try to integrate their PFS scenarios a little, encouraging players to bring the same characters to similarly-themed games by giving out bonuses for having played previous scenarios. But the double edge is that too far in that direction presents a barrier for new players.

But, yeah, outside of PFS, it's whatever works. My kids thought the plot of The Slithering was too complex *facepalm* so I made it even more smashy and grabby than it already was.

[Thomas5251212]

Calybos1 wrote:

We're not trying to "win the game," because combat isn't the game. We're trying to minimize the play time wasted on combat so we can focus on the parts we actually enjoy: interacting with NPCs, negotiating with factions, investigating mysteries, exploring unknown territories, making bad jokes, discovering clues, coming up with clever ideas, and roleplaying. Combat is getting in the way of that, and we want it to stop taking up so much of our game time.

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

I'm going to say something I normally avoid: PF2e may not be the game for you. A game that has spent a lot of time making sure combat is engaging and meaningful is not a good choice for people who consider combat an impediment to the parts of the game they actually enjoy.

[Thomas5251212]

That said, as others have mentioned if that's where you want to go with it, you're more likely to get a result you want by talking to the GM adjusting his end than anything you can do adjusting your end.