| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player of mine who has been kind of upset with some of the meta in the playerbase. I'll explain what I mean by discussing what has been going on in my Kingmaker group that's currently still forming.
Basically, one of the players (Player A) is thinking about doing barbarian, champion, or cleric (potentially Warpriest). Another one of my players (Player B) is looking to build a spell sub mentalist wizard. For a minute, that's all the players I had, but I found a couple more in a LFG page online (it's an online game anyway, so I didn't mind). One of the players I had added (Player C) said he was looking to play either a wizard or a sorcerer. The second player I added (Player D) was simply looking to round out the party after hearing what everyone else was looking to play. Earlier today, Player D said he would be looking to do bard, oracle, druid, or cleric, and mentioned that sorcerers can do a lot, but if Player C didn't play Phoenix Sorcerer, he would stick with one of those four options.
Player B then messages me privately saying that this was one of the things he wanted to avoid in this game, that there would be something the party would have to do in character creation to be a "good" team. He had said he liked when Player A said that having blind spots as a team would make things more difficult but that it can be fun to fail things (and I agree with this sentiment, although none of the other players have commented on this remark). He (B) concluded with "So the mentality of play this subclass of sorcerer and we should be good rubs me the wrong way" and I can't help but see where he's coming from. Players A and B are both pretty versed in D&D5E, to give an idea of their frame of mind.
We were talking about healing as a group and the topic of who gets access to what healing came up, revealing that arcane casters don't have access to healing but occult, divine, and primal casters do through Heal and Soothe. But outside of that, there's also healing potions. Player D then chimes in saying that potions are very action taxing in combat but are great out of combat. Player B also mentioned concerns about this comment to me. I explained that potentially, the mentality could come from the fact that healing potions take an Interact action to take out and then a manipulate action to drink and only restore 1d8 HP whereas Lay on Hands is one action for 6 HP, Heal costs 1 action for 1d8 HP (or 2 actions for 1d8+8 HP), and Soothe costs 2 actions for 1d10+4 HP. He then asks why not change the rule of drinking a healing potion requiring an Interact action to take it out first, to which I replied that I don't have a compelling reason to change the combat rules as I feel they work robustly.
To conclude this post and pose a question to the reader, what should I do about this? Why is the playerbase so bent on making a completely viable party? Would it break the game to house rule that drinking potions don't require an Interact action first?
A lot of people also forget that Heal & Soothe use Spell-slots. Which is a resource that PCs need to manage but I have yet to see anyone use healing potions on mass outside of like once a campaign unless you have an Alchemist to mass produce healing potions. They seem underwhelming for their boon. Most of the time though once a caster is out of spell slots the adventuring day is over and it is time for camp becaus3e most caster players won't have fun when they have hardly any resources left.
They also don't want to step on other people Niches, which is a big thing also, you don't want to be in bad situations with no answers can be literally this "Ruin the fun." when there is no answer to a question at hand by any player.
Potions being 1 action won't break stuff.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player B should play what they want to, and you should set an expectation that they not worry about other players planning around them to fill other party roles, for MANY players (myself included) filling out roles on a team, claiming the territory of having a certain party job is fun and it's not really B's business if someone else feels it's important for the team to have one, if it just means the other person is going to play it themselves. It's not something B should feel entitled to control in other words.
Let A, C, D, pick as they like between themselves with knowledge of B's set-decision.
A lot of people also forget that Heal & Soothe use Spell-slots. Which is a resource that PCs need to manage but I have yet to see anyone use healing potions on mass outside of like once a campaign unless you have an Alchemist to mass produce healing potions.
We're playing Kingmaker and in the Aldori mansion, there are a lot of healing potions just lying around. Plus the option of just buying them (as Kingmaker overloads on wealth early game).
Player B should play what they want to, and you should set an expectation that they not worry about other players planning around them to fill other party roles, for MANY players (myself included) filling out roles on a team, claiming the territory of having a certain party job is fun and it's not really B's business if someone else feels it's important for the team to have one, if it just means the other person is going to play it themselves. It's not something B should feel entitled to control in other words.
The question isn't necessarily about the other players filling roles, it's about why it's so important to fill those roles in the first place and why the game can't be altered around a "non-standard" party comp
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier today, Player D said he would be looking to do bard, oracle, druid, or cleric, and mentioned that sorcerers can do a lot, but if Player C didn't play Phoenix Sorcerer, he would stick with one of those four options.
Well, I do this a lot so this doesn't bother me. Sometimes I have four things I want to play, and other times I have no idea what I want to play. An easy way to decide is "what is no one else doing?" That can come from a mindset of trying to optimize the party, or from a mindset of simply wanting to have a niche to yourself.
Player B then messages me privately saying that this was one of the things he wanted to avoid in this game, that there would be something the party would have to do in character creation to be a "good" team.
I mean, PF2 is a game that by design rewards parties that have ways to work well together. Likewise, it has certain expectations of what a party can do, and while some of those can be worked around, some of them will result in a bad time if you run things as written without some significant GM help.
Like, I'm running Strength of Thousands right now in a group where no one is good at any Charisma skills. This has caused problems for the PCs that they need to work around and some of the problems it causes can be amusing (and also annoying), but the adventure is still doable witht his problem.
OTOH, if you have no one in the group with any reasonable way to restore HP between combat, you're just not functional as a group and the GM is going to have to make major changes to make it work or someone is going to need to get some kind of downtime healing. It's not really optional for a functional group.
He (B) concluded with "So the mentality of play this subclass of sorcerer and we should be good rubs me the wrong way" and I can't help but see where he's coming from. Players A and B are both pretty versed in D&D5E, to give an idea of their frame of mind.
So, is the reason D asked about Phoenix Sorcerer because they really think its the "best", or because it has built in healing and that means they'll not worry about having that? Because frankly as a GM, it's perfectly reasonable for someone in the party to ask "does anyone have any in combat healing?"
We were talking about healing as a group and the topic of who gets access to what healing came up, revealing that arcane casters don't have access to healing but occult, divine, and primal casters do through Heal and Soothe. But outside of that, there's also healing potions. Player D then chimes in saying that potions are very action taxing in combat but are great out of combat.
D is correct, of course (especially if people are using 2h weapons or a shield and don't have free hands). Potions are also expensive and unless you have a pretty reliable source of them like an Alchemist, you can't rely on them in a combat heavy campaign as your primary healing.
Player B also mentioned concerns about this comment to me. I explained that potentially, the mentality could come from the fact that healing potions take an Interact action to take out and then a manipulate action to drink and only restore 1d8 HP whereas Lay on Hands is one action for 6 HP, Heal costs 1 action for 1d8 HP (or 2 actions for 1d8+8 HP), and Soothe costs 2 actions for 1d10+4 HP. He then asks why not change the rule of drinking a healing potion requiring an Interact action to take it out first, to which I replied that I don't have a compelling reason to change the combat rules as I feel they work robustly.
To conclude this post and pose a question to the reader, what should I do about this? Why is the playerbase so bent on making a completely viable party? Would it break the game to house rule that drinking potions don't require an Interact action first?
I'm gonna be honest: B sounds like someone who has it in their head that "optimizing is bad" and thus actively wants to avoid it, even if it makes a party that doesn't work effectively... while also realizing that's a problem and thus wants house rules to fix the problem created by that.
This is a mindset that definitely exists among some 5e players and they can get some real culture shock when they go into a different game where you absolutely can lose fights if you deliberately make a party that doesn't function well. They sound awfully annoying to me, complaining this much before a campaign has even started.
Look - B should play what they want. There's nothing wrong with that. But B is upset because D wants to fill in a empty and possibly necessary niche, and that's just silly, as D also gets to play what they want.
I'd only consider house ruling potions like this if for some reason literally no one in this party will take any healing and they're going to need it, but it won't really solve the problem since chugging potions to replace things like Lay on Hands and Battle Medicine is too expensive to be sustainable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people also forget that Heal & Soothe use Spell-slots. Which is a resource that PCs need to manage but I have yet to see anyone use healing potions on mass outside of like once a campaign unless you have an Alchemist to mass produce healing potions.We're playing Kingmaker and in the Aldori mansion, there are a lot of healing potions just lying around. Plus the option of just buying them (as Kingmaker overloads on wealth early game).
That doesn't last, heh. I'm in a Kingmaker game where we just hit level 6 and we're poor. Most of us don't have +1 armor yet. I don't know if we missed a lot of stuff or what, but the heady days oof "there's enough healing potions lying around" are long gone, especially when stuff is routinely critting for 40 damage a hit. The healing potions at this level are not keeping up with that.
The question isn't necessarily about the other players filling roles, it's about why it's so important to fill those roles in the first place and why the game can't be altered around a "non-standard" party comp
If that's where its coming from, then it's not really about anyone else at all except the GM. Do you want to alter things to make a group that lacks basic adventuring capability work? Because if so, you can do that. You should probably tell the other players what you're changing, but you absolutely can do it.
I think the only reason to is if you have a group of players that are just allergic to doing certain things (like everyone actively refuses to take any healing ability so they can't be drafted as "the healer"), then you may need to step in. But that isn't the case here: D is clearly willing to play a character that will bring these skills.
Thus there isn't really a problem here except B seems to not want D to do that while also wanting you to change the game to fix the problems caused by preventing D from doing that, which frankly to me is more of an attitude problem from B than anything else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question isn't necessarily about the other players filling roles, it's about why it's so important to fill those roles in the first place and why the game can't be altered around a "non-standard" party comp
The game is entirely playable with a party of 4 fighters- if those fighter players coordinate so they can handle all of the important stuff (someone takes the medic archetype, someone handles social skills, etc.) The point is less "the game requires you to have someone who can pick locks and be sneaky" and more "it's beneficial if someone can do that."
Players are going to want to cover all of the potential liabilities because "being stuck on the wrong side of the locked door" is nobody's idea of fun.
You can have a party where no one takes any healing options at all, it could just take days to regain HP and days with multiple encounters will be lethal without very, very careful planning. That can be a fun gritty play style, but everyone needs to be on board and it means adjusting a lot as a GM.
I find some players newer to PF2 don’t realize how often their characters are going to get hit and crit, and even go down. Many then respond by going completely overboard the other way and then want everyone having multiple healing options, some times to the detriment of doing damage and finishing the encounter. Players’ perspectives change over time and that is good and natural.
The big issue here is players at the same table having very different expectations for the pace of encounters and the need to optimize action usage in combat. As a GM, you have a ton of control over whether enemies optimize actions or not, and that can be a much better way of handling things than house ruling how potions work. Like an enemy could try to disarm an injured PC and demand surrender instead of stabbing to kill, as they are trying to get a ransom from someone. Or a potential TPK can be averted by the giant spider deciding to drag off one unconscious PC instead of standing around to fight.
Just to clarify things, Player B has no problem with D playing what he wants to play. And if what he wants to play fills a niche or completes the party comp, fine. His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it would depend on how hard you plan to be as a DM. If you can let the players know you plan to focus more on making the game entertaining and accommodating less coordinated group, then maybe they will be ok.
I know the lack of coordination would concern me if I did not know the DM was going to run the game in a more manageable fashion. Some DMs run very hard games and an uncoordinated group is a recipe for a TPK.
If the DM is fairly clear they are not out to kill everyone with a more forgiving or relaxed DM style, then a player concerned about getting wasted multiple times due to a weak party build can feel better and join the game with full knowledge this is not a campaign built for deadly play.
Different DMs have different styles. Some players are very accustomed to hard games, so they feel apprehensive jointing badly built groups unless they know the DM is focused on making the game playable and entertaining for less coordinated groups that would normally have trouble with difficult encounters.
On the topic of "non-standard" party comps, what would happen/how would I as a GM have to adapt if a party doesn't have any Dex-focused characters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let the traps hurt them. Let the fights against dragons be tough, but also be aware that much higher level enemies with good reflex based attacks are going to really hurt the party and have plans for alternative ways of resolving those encounters, (like an enemy taking a solid bribe to not kill everyone, etc)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify things, Player B has no problem with D playing what he wants to play. And if what he wants to play fills a niche or completes the party comp, fine. His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing."
See... B does seem to be stepping into the bad/wrong fun side of discussions. I could see it more if player D was telling other people to choose different options, complaining about having to play support or something similar, but you haven't indicated as such.
PF2e is balanced enough that a meta minded player won't upset party balance or play style. Let alone a support character. Not a dig at 5e (I still run 5e) but it isn't 5e.
If there are concerns about whether player D will roleplay well or create an interesting character, that is a different kettle of fish. But not really related to filling gaps meta wise (one of my current players loves playing support and is mechanic minded so he looks to that first and then comes up with a compelling character idea tweaking it as he goes. Another player from the past only ever played guide builds with meme personalities that ended up basically being themself... but that was an issue with the player and no amount of forced suboptimal play would make them create interesting characters)
As for potions, I wouldn't allow no interact usage. It is a part of how the game works and interactions with flat checks, reactions like reactive strike and turn planning keep it interesting imo. It also becomes pretty boring and powerful as the game continues if it is allowed to spread to other potions and consumables, and immersion breaking if it doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify things, Player B has no problem with D playing what he wants to play. And if what he wants to play fills a niche or completes the party comp, fine. His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing."
This seems more a situation where both players are going to have to adjust to have a good time at the same table.
Player B can be more accepting that for player D the fun doesn't come from playing a character for the same reasons player B.Maybe for player D the fun comes from being useful for their team even at the expense of being any specific class concept.
This cuts both ways. Player D can be more understanding that player B will not have fun if other players are too worried about being good that they begin to encroach on player Bs choices.
Player B will have more fun if everyone is just playing to have fun and not just playing to win.
No one is wrong here. Neither B or D have bad expectations.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first thing to check is if D is not overdoing it on the party composition. I mean, it's possible - B seems to feel so. But B might be over-sensitive.
It can sometimes be difficult for someone who knows about and cares about good teamwork and synergy, not to push that onto other players who don't want to worry about it. So make sure D isn't imposing.
But if D is not overdoing it, then B needs to calm down and accept that they don't both have to enjoy the exact same things about the game.
---
Another way of coming at it is asking:
- Should the adventures be adjusted to fit the group?
- Should the group adapt based on the challenges in the adventures?
B sounds like they favor the first statement, D more like the second one. Neither of them is wrong.
It wouldn't make sense to rigidly stick to a (published) adventure if it's not really fitting the tastes of your group. The ultimate goal of the game is to have fun, not to get a diploma.
However, there's also a lot of people who enjoy the idea of "we beat that adventure fair and square!". The adventure-as-is is a challenge to beat, and if you "water it down" because the group is totally unsuitable for it, makes the game less fun for this challenge-minded player.
Again, neither of these people is wrong. The goal is to have fun and they're both legitimate things to enjoy.
---
This whole discussion reminds me the concept of "eight kinds of fun". It's very interesting to see just how many different things there are in the game that people might really enjoy. Gives you a wider perspective on why one player wants something different than the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e is a very interesting game. It's a TTRPG where the party roles exists and are rewarded but they aren't mandatory.
Even a full single class parties works well in PF2 (maybe a full wizards and arcane witches/sorcerers can have a pretty hard time due the both lack of defensive and healing powers but they can go in some way or just try to explode everything before get hit) if you will be well prepared and take care during encounters.
But as well pointed by many as the same way that PF2 allows any player to play as he/she/it wants without need to worry (too much) about other players build choices allowing everyone able to have fun as they want. The game also allows a player to have fun filling a hole in the party capacities that no other player had take yet having their own protagonism time to shine (or comically and unexpectedly fail miserably when everyone expects this PC to save the day) where others are unprepared.
There's fun into save the day as well there's fun into dealing with difficulties where no one is well prepared for. What's there is no fun is when some player tries to dictate or aggressively pressure how the other players had to play their own characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of "non-standard" party comps, what would happen/how would I as a GM have to adapt if a party doesn't have any Dex-focused characters?
Don't have any situations where it's mandatory to disarm a trap/pick a lock/sneak up on something. That's it.
It's perfectly fine if these are the *better* way to do it and your group has to work around their lack of those skills by doing something else like breaking the lock (and thus making a lot of noise) or having to come in via deception instead of stealth (or just by kicking the door in)... or they can get those skills anyway, either by just dealing with the limited DEX or via other means (Inventor Archetype can let you pick locks/disarm traps with Crafting, for example).
This is normal encounter design anyway, since you never want something that only has one solution where the players just get stuck if they can't do it that way, but you'll just have to make sure that you're doing it. Otherwise nothing else needs to change. They'll have some fights that will hurt due to generally lower reflex saves, but other fights that will be easier because they'll have other things to compensate.
I expect in an AP like Kingmaker you won't actually have to do much of anything.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify things, Player B has no problem with D playing what he wants to play. And if what he wants to play fills a niche or completes the party comp, fine. His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing."
Except that the second half of this contradicts the first half: B DOES have a problem with what D wants to play and is being judgmental about the mindset behind it.
Look: B is the one throwing the red flags here, not D. B is already complaining about other players before the game has even started while D hasn't done anything wrong. B is trying to tell someone else how to play. B is trying to get house rules in before having played at all.
B very clearly wants everyone to play the same way B wants to play and doesn't like that someone else isn't doing that. That's the real problem you have to deal with.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the players are doing is recommended by the rules. As long as no build choices are being forced on anyone, there is absolutely nothing with this sort of teamwork.
Groups of players often create characters whose skills and abilities complement each other mechanically—for example, ensuring your party includes a healer, a combat-oriented character, a stealthy character, and someone with command over magic—so you may wish to discuss options with your group before deciding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Belated Edit: I forgot a word.
What the players are doing is recommended by the rules. As long as no build choices are being forced on anyone, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of teamwork.
Groups of players often create characters whose skills and abilities complement each other mechanically—for example, ensuring your party includes a healer, a combat-oriented character, a stealthy character, and someone with command over magic—so you may wish to discuss options with your group before deciding.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who was a Player B in 5e but became a Player D for PF2, I'd like to try to reframe what D was saying/doing in a way that B might find more agreeable:
When somebody waits to pick last so they can plug compositional holes, it's usually because they want to be helpful to the party while also allowing everyone else to play whatever they want. This is good because they get the challenge of making a character that covers the right bases (fun!) while the rest of the party gets to make their dream characters (also fun!). Therefore, the hole-plugger is a force multiplier for the intuitive builders, as they make sure the game doesn't punish anyone for playing what they want to play.
As for the healing potions comment, the point isn't that healing potions suck. Rather, the point is that potions will lead to a different attitude and playstyle towards healing: players will be more self-sufficient as they can all heal themselves, but they'll have to time that healing carefully. This will make certain fights more challenging, but rarely impossible.
As for you, the GM, compensating for unbalanced parties isn't actually that difficult once you find all the struggle spots, but expect some rough patches as those spots make themselves known. You'll also want to talk to your players about whether they want to try to play through those struggles via creative tactics and problem-solving, or whether you should do your best to smooth them out on your end. Some people like the extra challenge, others find it annoying. Both are valid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it the other way since everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective.
If Player D is actually imposing on Player Bs choices because Player D does not think those choices are good enough or that those choices are selfish is Player D not doing something wrong?
Not just in character creation but even in gameplay, turn by turn, leveling up. youve never played with anyone that thinks they know how to play the game right and if your not doing it that way your playing it wrong? This is what player B seems to be worried about. I wouldnt invalidate that concern as Player B being difficult and a complainer trying to force the game to go their way.
There are a lot of assumptions about intentions of these players but we dont actually know. And yes I threw out an assumption but not because I think thats happening, I put it there because I think player B may be worried that it is the direction player D is going.
There is nothing wrong for the table to talk about these expectations before they start. Player B bringing up that concern is just as ok as player D saying what they prefer.
Player A's comment about blind spots being fine not getting a response may mean the table is not comfortable talking about it. Getting comfortable saying what kind of game they are all at the table for is the way forward.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Player D is actually imposing on Player Bs choices because Player D does not think those choices are good enough or that those choices are selfish is Player D not doing something wrong?
If that's happening, yeah, but there's nothing in the OP about that. Do you have some additional information other people don't?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that's happening, yeah, but there's nothing in the OP about that. Do you have some additional information other people don't?
If Player D is actually imposing on Player Bs choices because Player D does not think those choices are good enough or that those choices are selfish is Player D not doing something wrong?
That is my point. Too many assumptions about player B and D.
They should just talk about expectations at the table. maybe its not the right table for everyone there.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Player B's concerns with being told they're playing badly, I think that's valid (kudos to Bluemagetim for looking out for them). Bossing other players around is always uncool.
However, I don't think that's what's happening here? Instead, I think B is afraid that the "fun" way to play and the "right" way to play are too different, and is trying to protect themselves from knowing too much so as to not ruin the freedom they have to play how they want.
Speculation and projection ahead because I Used to Be That Guy.
For some people, meta knowledge can become kind of a cognito-hazard. Once you know your build sucks, you can't unlearn that knowledge, and thus have to bear the burden of knowing there was a "better" option every time you choose to lean into your flavor/fantasy instead. Same thing with moment-to-moment actions: if you care about being good at the game, it can be hard to play bad on purpose. It's also just a bummer to have to fight an uphill battle because you and the devs disagree on how your character is supposed to work. Just trying to exist in the space feels fundamentally oppositional. It sucks.
Now, the solution could be to just not care. Like, unless you're playing with Derevin Firelion, you probably don't have to optimize to have a good time. The average homebrew campaign or pre-written adventure is forgiving enough that the entire party can honestly be a bit s+*!, and the gap between "ideal" play and just winging it is narrow enough that one can generally afford to bumble. GMs can adjust, it's fine...
... Except it isn't, right? Not when this is a team game, so your own bad choices negatively affect the rest of the squad. Not when you can't turn off your competitive instincts and thus hate looking bad next to the guy who knows what he's doing. Not when your cool idea doesn't work because the devs hate fun or whatever. Not when you know the GM is going easy on everyone specifically because you can't compete. As much as you might try to stop giving a s&%* and just have fun, there are so many things dragging you back into caring about the meta. It's miserable! Even getting a taste of it is miserable! So, ignorance might actually be your only line of defense against having a bad time!
In other words, fear of performance pressure and incompatible expectations makes you scared to learn the meta. And it's kinda valid? Like, a lot of the b%!+&ing about illusion of choice and martial supremacy comes from discovering those expectations and consciously feeling that pressure for the first time. A YouTuber recently quit running PF2 because he felt he had to become an expert with the system in order to have any fun with it, which was just too much work to be worth his time. It may be that Player B wants to avoid all that anxiety, and is worried that Player D just talking about the meta will be enough to set it off.
So, how do you get over that? For me, two things really helped me develop and maintain a certain degree of chill. The first is pretty obvious: remember not to take the pretend elf game so g#*!%#n seriously. Like, we're all playing this just to kill time, right? None of this matters beyond entertainment value and social bonding, so I don't need to beat myself up over missing out on a hypothetical 15% damage increase. Derevin is not going to break into my house and force me to stop playing an alchemist, and my group likes having me and my funny elixirs around.
The second thing was letting go of my expectations and meeting the game where it's at. I don't need to be scared of knowing how things work. In fact, a little extra knowledge about the ups and downs of alchemists might actually make managing my jank-ass character easier! At least if I know my to-hit's a bit s~+~, I can play around it, right? Besides, the game is the way it is because somebody else thought it would be more fun that way, and getting to know someone else's tastes is always kind of interesting, even if I don't ultimately agree.
But that's, like, assuming a whole lot about Player B's psyche. Maybe they just find mechanical discussions tedious and don't want all the meta wank to get in the way of good character roleplay, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing."
I'm someone who literally can't just make a character out of the air unless the suns and stars align on the 5th constellation when the year is a prime number so I really feel for D here. This has indeed been a point where my friends have gotten frustrated with me because forcing me to make something up from nothing will have me spending the full 2 hours of session zero to only at best maybe getting a class name written down and even then still be unsure. [As a side, I've also taken to randomisers as well, which my friends had further frowned upon thinking I could not get attached to a character that was 'given' to me. They're wrong.]
To help with this, I often enjoy filling in what I think the team might need help with, maybe with ties to another character, otherwise I resort to recreating an old character I played in the past. The former isn't a meta thing at all, at least not what I imagine the negative connotations of meta being attached here is. I think of it as like... I like playing support characters. To me, supporting can also mean filling in what I think might help the group (a meaty frontliner, an aoe damage dealer, a buffer, a healer, a face..). I just find it fun. And I'm the opposite of a super meta following person, whatever I make often tends to be 'sub meta' because sure, I'll make an aoe damage dealer to help round out the group. I'm still gonna pump charisma up despite that not being a key ability score and give him the Dandy archetype because it's fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will confess while I sometimes just want to get a chance to play a certain role, I'll admit, I've had so many concepts it isn't hard for myself to end up offering to be Player D, and fill a role that will help the party the most. Not because I will simply mathematically figure out what will give us the best, but by doing a little spreading out of our resource among different quadrants you diversify and strengthen the party. I also love to, if possible come up with reasons for me to have tie in's to other party members, if they are willing. I don't expect it of others, but enjoy coming up with links with a player or two if I get volunteers. This sometimes opens possibilities to have starting synergies with them as well. I am most likely to volunteer to be a player like D in games that I know less of the people, thus feel like a guest, and am willing to 'work' for the opportunity of being involved to play.
Really all the discussion seems to be mostly talking about player expectations, but as an example, the question about using a potion. If you want to 'give' a little bit on this, but put guard-rails on it. You can create a special necklace that can hold one potion, that you can fit one potion into. And that potion is already near your face, may have an easy or magic way to open and thus allow that one potion to be worn (available without requiring an action to pull out) so that it can be drank with only one action.
This means you aren't just 'changing the rules' to make all potion use easier, but you basically allow one prepped potion to be more easily used, to allow the characters to rely on them a little easier.
Probably as mentioned it would be good to make sure people's expectations are understood. And maybe if they were, maybe people would understand the reasons people choose what they have and have suggested what they have, and perhaps might come to understand it might not be as bad a core reason as someone might be assuming it is.
... Except it isn't, right? Not when this is a team game, so your own bad choices negatively affect the rest of the squad. Not when you can't turn off your competitive instincts and thus hate looking bad next to the guy who knows what he's doing. Not when your cool idea doesn't work because the devs hate fun or whatever. Not when you know the GM is going easy on everyone specifically because you can't compete. As much as you might try to stop giving a s~&@ and just have fun, there are so many things dragging you back into caring about the meta. It's miserable! Even getting a taste of it is miserable! So, ignorance might actually be your only line of defense against having a bad time!
Consider my problem. One player has been too busy to level up her character to 3rd level. Thus, she will be playing a 2nd-level character alongside six 3rd-level characters. I expect this to reduce her fun.
Furthermore, part of the reason she is too busy is she is driving another player to a medical appointment today. They have not yet arrived back and the weekly game starts in 10 minutes. Delaying the game will be a disappointment to me, but that is life. Helping others in real life is more important than a game.
I have adjusted the encounters for the oversized party, but no encounter is more dangerous than a Moderate-Threat encounter, so we can work with one PC underperforming at 2nd level.
On the third hand, we are playing Kindled Magic in the Strength of Thousands adventure path in which the PCs are students at the prestigious Magaambya Academy in the Mwangi Expanse. They are having fun roleplaying as students rather than adventurers, so bungling in an adventure is delightful comedy to them.
I will post more after the game session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on whats been posted,player B is expectingother players and the game rules to change to suit their vision of fun.
There may be more to it, but we are not privy to that.
Meta is part of allmost all TTrpg gameplay.
By asking that the potion rules be changed, player B was asking for the world to change to accomdate the player characters.
What is more meta than that?
If you really dont want meta to enter into the game, will you be ok when another PC steals from your PC becuse "that's just what my character would do"?
What if I show up to a zombi filled dungeoncrawl with a character who is optimized for social interactions and only spells with the Mental tag?
We can play that out strait,no meta, but will it be fun?
Highly doubtful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, since it's a viewpoint I haven't seen anyone else specifically express yet here, I'd also point out (as a GM who actively encourages players to simply play whatever they want and not worry about gaps in composition, and am willing to deal with the consequences of that) that PF2e is not a game that caters well to player B's positions or desires. In essence, while players have learned much better what exactly works and doesn't, PF2e was created with a "meta" in mind from the very beginning by the creators of the game. While it (theoretically) gives limitless freedom while coloring within these lines, there are fundamental assumptions about the system and play within it that groups are expected to abide by. The fact that the math of the game was tightened to a high degree also means that there are specific factors that are generally assumed to be true in establishing difficulty and making the game work.
Getting fundamental runes off-curve will cause the encounter-building rules to not operate properly, breaking one of the features that many people find highly-desirable about the system.
Not maximizing Key Ability Score (in the vast majority of cases) will be a significant mistake that will affect difficulty.
Not having a source of consistent healing to use between encounters (not necessarily in-combat healing) will generally be a bigger problem than a lot of other gaps, which is why any character can fill this role with Medicine.
To a lesser extent, being a skill generalist (taking many skills up to Trained instead of focusing on advancing three skills to Expert, Master, and Legendary that don't overlap with other party members) will make things harder.
None of these factors are absolutely required, and you can break every rule I listed and still have fun, but it will require either increasingly favorable variance, an acceptance of a very deadly game, or additional work on the part of the GM to account for the "soft rules" being broken. I just think that from the ground up, PF2e is not designed with a philosophy or mentality that support the kind of experience player B seems to be describing as desirable. Still, I could be misreading the situation. There are different "degrees" of following or adhering to a meta, and I'm not privy to the exact details of the discussion; just trying to throw out a set of thoughts that may have been a blind spot.
Just to clarify things, Player B has no problem with D playing what he wants to play. And if what he wants to play fills a niche or completes the party comp, fine. His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing."
Does player B have a low Key stat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 2 cp:
From the context provided, player B sounds like they might be a "high maintenance" gamer. One that pushes the rest of the group to cater to their preferences instead of acting in a more collaborative/cooperative manner. This may require the GM to have a one-on-one discussion about expectations and that all the players deserve consideration, not just one.
On the PF2 system, people coming from other TTRPGs often have growing pains; in some cases, pretty significant ones. PF2's tight math makes it extremely difficult to make "bad" characters (mechanically) unless someone deliberately tries to do so. As long as a character starts with 16+ in their "most important" ability score (which is often the same as the key score for their class, but might not be for certain concepts), they will usually be "good enough" to be "viable." On the other hand, the mentioned tight math in PF2 means that the hyper-optimized "build" isn't that much more "powerful" than the "viable" one.
The biggest change with how PF2 works compared to many other systems is that the "build" (as long as it meets the fairly low "viable" bar) is less important than the specific tactics and teamwork of the entire group during each encounter in play. Players in PF2 usually can't "win" by creating "powerful" characters that can "beat" encounters using the same choice of action over and over, but need to develop multiple "combos" with the other PCs for different scenarios. The "best" tactics or combos will change from encounter to encounter based on the monster/NPC strengths and weaknesses; it is usually better to avoid the opponent's strengths instead of trying to "beat them at their game."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Today's game session went well. The missing players (my wife and our housemate) arrived home at 6pm exactly, so we lost only 15 minutes. The 2nd-level PC leveled up her numbers to 3rd level quickly, even though she still has not selected her 3rd-level feats and 2nd-rank spells. She rolled a natural 20 on a Nature check to identify a foe and learned about an unusual weakness on the creature that the party was able to cleverly exploit with their cantrips, so she definitely carried her weight today.
However, the session also revealed a gap in the PCs' abilities. They encountered an NPC who needed emergency medical aid with trained Medicine for Treat Poison. The seven-member party had plenty of hit-point healing with occult casters knowing Soothe and primal casters knowing Heal and a champion with Lay on Hands, but only the bard/druid Jinx Fuun was trained in Medicine. Jinx Fuun had also learned the spell Cleanse Affliction, but someone else had to Treat Poison while she cast that. Fortunately, the patient himself had Crystal Healing so he was able to treat himself once sufficiently recovered to an earlier stage of affliction. All the non-Medicine party members could do was cast Guidance on the characters doing the Treat Poison checks and give the patient a +1 item bonus with a minor elixir of life.
The lesson from this is that even a party that seems to have important bases covered still will have gaps that require creativity to handle by other methods. Go for versatility and fun, because the game will contain needs that the metagame did not expect.
TBH i'd probably just use goal leveling or level her up at the same rate even granted her nonparticipation. It's a cooperative game, no real biggie (at least with the folks I've played with). Though ironically my kid is showing signs of being a huge stickler about exactly this issue. So I guess I can't really argue with the counterpoint that the acceptability of such an approach is dependent on your players lol.Consider my problem. One player has been too busy to level up her character to 3rd level. Thus, she will be playing a 2nd-level character alongside six 3rd-level characters. I expect this to reduce her fun.
Furthermore, part of the reason she is too busy is she is driving another player to a medical appointment today. They have not yet arrived back and the weekly game starts in 10 minutes. Delaying the game will be a disappointment to me, but that is life. Helping others in real life is more important than a game.
I do tell all party members to level up at the same time. I decided that every PC will earn the same experience points even when absent. Life will interfere with game participation, and I don't want that to interfere with the fun of character development.
Rather, the problem is that though the character Stargazer was supposed to be 3rd level like the rest of the party, the player had no time to figure out what feats and spells Stargazer would take at 3rd level. And she likes to read and reread all the feats before picking one. She had not touched her character sheet.
Rather, the problem is that though the character Stargazer was supposed to be 3rd level like the rest of the party, the player had no time to figure out what feats and spells Stargazer would take at 3rd level. And she likes to read and reread all the feats before picking one. She had not touched her character sheet.
I'd suggest something that helps with the construction of giant towers of stone, or avoids crashing down into the desert sand.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective.
I think Bluemagetim hit at exactly what bothers me about this whole discussion. The Issue is that players B and D think differently about how a party should be composed. Neither is really right or wrong - each is the good guy in their viewpoint. I personally agree with both views. I’d like to see fewer “somebody must” situations, but I definitely feel it’s sensible to fill gaps in party roles.
What the players are doing is recommended by the rules. As long as no build choices are being forced on anyone, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of teamwork.
Groups of players often create characters whose skills and abilities complement each other mechanically—for example, ensuring your party includes a healer, a combat-oriented character, a stealthy character, and someone with command over magic—so you may wish to discuss options with your group before deciding.
I may be nitpicking here, but “Groups of players often…” is not the same as “Groups of players should (or are recommended to…”
The rules don’t say there’s only one way to play. I think players B and D should discuss with each other whether or not they can come to a compromise that works for both of them. It seems some people here are expecting that D would expect each player to optimize their characters for their “roles,” but D could just as readily be looking at a rudimentary coverage of the “basics.”
If B is trying to avoid optimization, then, in my opinion, the GM should check with the other party members (seemingly D in particular) if their intent is an optimized party or simply a “well-rounded” party. If an optimized party is what 3/4 players want, then B may be better off in a different party. If not, then this is a smaller issue than it is being made out to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
everyone else seems to see things from a player D is right player B is wrong perspective.I think Bluemagetim hit at exactly what bothers me about this whole discussion. The Issue is that players B and D think differently about how a party should be composed. Neither is really right or wrong - each is the good guy in their viewpoint.Except it's wrong. Only one of the players tries to force others to do something (and for really stupid reasons). And it's not D. So yes, B is absolutely wrong.
Unless of course OP omitted something and we aren't presented with the full picture. But it would be on the OP in that case.
The OP actually did not provide the kind of information we would need to know this. Its not the OP's fault for only having the info they have. But too many assumptions and insertions of intent have been attributed to either player and we just dont know that information. It leads to advice that likely will not apply to the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP actually did not provide the kind of information we would need to know this.Except it's wrong. Only one of the players tries to force others to do something (and for really stupid reasons). And it's not D. So yes, B is absolutely wrong.
Unless of course OP omitted something and we aren't presented with the full picture. But it would be on the OP in that case.
I think it did...mostly.
D wants to party plan.
B doesn't want anyone to party plan.
C wants to play a wizard or sorcerer, and is considering several options.
D opined that if C picked a phoenix sorcerer, D's choices would be wide open. But if C didn't, D had four potential ideas in mind.
B didn't like what he perceived as D pressuring C to take a phoenix sorcerer.To which I say:
1. B doesn't have to party plan if they don't want to, but if C and D want to coordinate their class choices, that's their business.
2. D's conversation with C did not sound to me like it was pressuring. "If you play X, I'll probably play Y or Z" sounds like pretty normal pre-game discussion to me. As long as it's not D pressuring C, it's fine.
3. If D IS pressuring C and I simply missed that subtext, D should not do that. But both B and the GM should hesitate before stepping in, because...
4. Unless there's an age, power, or experience difference, B should probably let C and D take care of their own conversation. IOW, even if D is pressuring C, that's kinda C's business to deal with, not B's. In modern parlance: B should not take C's agency away.
5. There is such a thing as overthinking it. One solution may be: A, B, C, D, generate your characters already and let's get playing.
B doesn't want anyone to party plan. Was it this or was it that B doesnt want metagaming (the idea that preset "good" builds are the only ones that are acceptable and playing "good" is the only way to play) to take over personal agency in making characters and playing the game? It seems B doesnt like the idea of that way of approaching the game at the table. This is why I said the table might not be for everyone, they should talk it out and see if they are willing to sit at the same table.
We dont know what B is actually thinking and we dont know what D is actually thinking but they can talk as a group and figure it out pretty quick.| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like "I don't want anybody to party plan" is sort of an unreasonable assumption, unless it's coming specifically from the GM as part of the premise of the game.
Like the normal thing to do when you'd in D's position as the last person in the game is to figure out what other people are playing so that you're not redundant. We're already looking at a party with potentially 2 Wizards and nobody wants to be the third Wizard there.
The other observation D has is also fairly universal that "it's good to have someone who can heal" because players are generally invested in not having their characters to die regularly.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
B doesn't want anyone to party plan. Was it this or was it that B doesnt want metagaming (the idea that preset "good" builds are the only ones that are acceptable and playing "good" is the only way to play) to take over personal agency in making characters and playing the game?...The OP actually did not provide the kind of information we would need to know this.Except it's wrong. Only one of the players tries to force others to do something (and for really stupid reasons). And it's not D. So yes, B is absolutely wrong.
Unless of course OP omitted something and we aren't presented with the full picture. But it would be on the OP in that case.
I think it did...mostly.
D wants to party plan.
B doesn't want anyone to party plan.
C wants to play a wizard or sorcerer, and is considering several options.
D opined that if C picked a phoenix sorcerer, D's choices would be wide open. But if C didn't, D had four potential ideas in mind.
B didn't like what he perceived as D pressuring C to take a phoenix sorcerer.To which I say:
1. B doesn't have to party plan if they don't want to, but if C and D want to coordinate their class choices, that's their business.
2. D's conversation with C did not sound to me like it was pressuring. "If you play X, I'll probably play Y or Z" sounds like pretty normal pre-game discussion to me. As long as it's not D pressuring C, it's fine.
3. If D IS pressuring C and I simply missed that subtext, D should not do that. But both B and the GM should hesitate before stepping in, because...
4. Unless there's an age, power, or experience difference, B should probably let C and D take care of their own conversation. IOW, even if D is pressuring C, that's kinda C's business to deal with, not B's. In modern parlance: B should not take C's agency away.
5. There is such a thing as overthinking it. One solution may be: A, B, C, D, generate your characters already and let's get playing.
B is in no way entitled to decide that, in D's case, metagaming is taking over personal agency.
If D has fun, why should B care ?
It feels like a variant of the Stormwind Fallacy with an extremist roleplayer castigating all those they see as rollplayers.