...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 makingThe 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.
What B can decide is if they want to be at that table. Same for D.
What B can decide is if they want to be at that table. Same for D.Always true. I hope OP can find a way through where that doesn't happen though. I can't see this issue as worth giving up playing a game over. Build your characters, say "thanks for the suggestion but no thanks!" to kibitzing if you don't want it or "good ideas! How about..." if you do, and have fun playing together.
my guess is there is no real issue.
B probably didn't like the thought of a player who is a certain way they imagine based first impressions.D probably was just coming into the group and thought they would accommodate everyone by seeing what they chose and complimenting them with their choice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a session zero problem, and it sounds like there is a fundamental disconnect between Player B and Player D.
- Player D wants to fit into the party and contribute whatever it is that the party needs. They are trying to work on long-term success from the first step in chargen.
- Player B doesn't want to think about what the rest of the party is bringing to the table, and doesn't want anyone else to think about that either. They dislike what D is doing, at least in part because they *want* the possibility that the fit will be poor and the PCs will have to try to scramble to make it work. They like the idea of beign thrown into a situation you're not suited for with misfit tools and having to cobble together solutions. It is possible that they are opposed to additional kinds of optimization past that.
So, let us assume, for the moment, that these differences are intractable. Player B telling Player D that they're not allowed to party optimize isn't going to fly. They don't have the authority to enforce that The only way for them to actually get the thing they're wanting is to only let people into the group who are cool with doing things that way and/or by direct GM fiat. Assume, then, that Player B is also entirely unwilling to play in a group where this kind of party optimization occurs.
Given that, which of those two options do you want? Which of these two will you favor? Do you want a party where it's possible that everything is totally unbalanced and the PCs have to figure out how to deal, or would you prefer one where the players figure out how to fill party roles along some predetermined meta even as they're writing their backstories, so that the new members of the party that show up are conveniently of the right classes to serve the party needs?
Once you've figured that out for yourself, go talk with the player you do not favor. Lay down to them the fact that this is the kind of game that you, as the GM, are running, and they can either adapt or find a new game. Alternately, if you don't want to be quite that autocratic, you can bring the two of them together for a mediated discussion, express your own position on the matter, and then see if the two of them can work out something that works for them based on that.
It does not matter who is right. It only matters who is left.
| 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."
Remember the OP clarified.
B is not saying that D has to not take B or C or As choices into consideration.B is not saying there should be no party planning.
B is more or less saying do what you want but dont do it because you think you have to for the party to survive.
Just make the character you want to make and dont worry about making a choice and the party missing out on a particular role. We will get by. if we dont have great healing options we will figure it out as we go. (not because B doesn't want a healer but because B would rather people play the class they actually want to play. this does not mean that if player D chooses a healer that B is going to be upset.)
This is not imposing anything. They just dont want D to feel obligated to make this or that and not get to play what they want. It also looks like the idea that someone has to be particular subclasses cause those are "good" rubs them the wrong way as well.
Some here jumped into the idea that B is forcing the whole party to pick without considering what anyone else is at all. That doesn't look to the the sentiment.
| 3 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.
I want to be the third wizard in this party, and form the party planning committee for planning parties composed of a committee of wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
B is more or less saying do what you want but dont do it because you think you have to for the party to survive.To which, were I "D", I'd reply: "okay thanks for the input. Now C, have you decided whether you're taking that phoenix sorcerer or not?"
Because it's not really B's prerogative to tell me, D, what to consider or not-consider as I make my class choice.This is not imposing anything. They just dont want D to feel obligated to make this or that and not get to play what they want.In the OP description, D does not sound like he's feeling obligated to do anything. At least, not to me.
Your missing an important point.
C has not said they were planning to make or even considering a phoenix sorcerer.As a side phoenix is uncommon in the first place. Did D even consider if the GM was including that uncommon bloodline in this game?
|
| 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 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.”Again, the only 'compromise' here is B minding their own business. And maybe once, suggesting some course of action and be willing to take instant 'no' for an answer.
If B is trying to avoid optimization, thenthey are welcome to avoid it for their own character. Unless the game and campaign doesn't support that and they break the game for others. And it doesn't work the other way around, the case is not symmetrical: 'optimized' characters doesn't break the game for unoptimized ones in PF2, it's not pf1 for example.
Seriously, what have non-optimizing players done to you to make you this way?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling that the discussion has shifted from how best to handle player B and D, and more into discussing how to handle a fictional version of the players with their specific points drawn to the extreme degree of either end.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To some extent I think the answer for this table might be to politely tell D that things might not work out. I think the mismatch is more fundamental with the whole.
Like even in the topic, the OP is not saying "how can I resolve these player's disputes" but "Why are certain players so hellbent on being meta"... the GM has already taken a side and defaulted to a hostile reaction to D, even though as far as we know D hasn't actually done anything except be worried about a lack of healing.
The fact that that's the starting point for the whole conversation makes me concerned that this will never really work out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling that the discussion has shifted from how best to handle player B and D, and more into discussing how to handle a fictional version of the players with their specific points drawn to the extreme degree of either end.
Yeah thats exactly whats happening.
Assumption filled interpretations have snowballed.
> rewards specializing over generalization
Just a quick note before I go to bed, I have run a LOT of PF2e since it launched. And I cannot disagree with this more, PF2e punishes specialist builds quite a lot and thanks to the way it's math works really rewards people for branching out.
Not to say people have to, but they will generally be more powerful for doing so.
> I mentioned once that, shouldn't the GM be able to balance for a team composition. D's defense was that, "the encounter calculators don't account for bad party comp
I mean, I wouldn't recommend a new/learning GM having to do the work, but the easy answer is just run easier combats. If the party struggles with severe, run moderate. That is one of the wonderful aspects of a working encounter system.
Oh and just to put your mind at ease somewhat. PF2e is far from the TPK machine that people make it out to be, as a rule I tend to see players dying most when they are stuck on optimisation concepts from PF1e/5e.
But I have run a party in which every PC was a primary spellcaster, one where some PCs forwent fundamental runes to differing degrees to invest in more interesting active use magical items. And another where the cleric had a strength penalty and no dex, as such played with -6 to -9 less AC than the fighter (which means they could get crit very easily)... and it all worked out fine.
There are ways to build a non functional party/PC... but it is quite difficult.
|
Okay, this is actually a lot more than I thought would be sparked by this post. Hi everyone, I'm player B, OP told me about the forum post and I thought I'd check things, and try to clarify the situation.
For context, I am trying to learn how to play pathfinder and OP is helping me understand the game. We've run a solo run of KM before this, and I barely got out of the first encounter even after it was balanced for one character. I expressed to OP that maybe we should try to get a group together so that I can try learning in a group and OP wouldn't have to balance down so much.
My original intention was for us to get a group of new players together because I know that experienced players have a "defined" way of playing the game. I wanted to learn the game at a pace I'm comfortable with and I figured playing with new players would allow for all of us to do that at the same time. Also allowing for all of us to just play comfortably and without worrying about the more advanced things.
Getting a group together was going too slowly, so by the time we had player A and C, we had already picked out our characters long before player D came in. For some additional context, when I played the solo game, I didn't really feel anything when playing my character and the roleplaying side started to lack because my character was just a blank state, damage output machine. So this time around, I made more fleshed out characters, the trade being their "optimization" for flavor. I planned out my Wizard, a magical item merchant, who was not really a combatant but I did find some good debuff, control, and utility spells that I felt fit the flavor while still providing something to the team. I also made a backup Ranger character, but that one is a bit more normalized.
Player A was still deciding between their Barbarian, Champion, or Warpriest, and player C was set on Sorcerer or Wizard, leaning Sorcerer as that is a class they were more familiar with. Eventually, I told OP to just grab a 4th player, as they had expressed...
Thank you for this.
It's much clearer and D definitely sounds like the pushing one here.
Now, this may stem from bad experience. Early APs were indeed tuned too high.
And PF2 does have some not always obvious requirements that will make the GM and players's life more complicated if they are not met.
The first is that encounters' budget assumes all PCs are at full health when the fight begins. Going around this is feasible but not that easy to master.
The second is that every PC should have their attack stat at max or 1 below max at most.
The third one is that PCs should use collaboration tactics to make fights easier to win.
Now, playing with higher level PCs will make encounters less dangerous without having to change them, which should cover the last 2 cases.
But it is not to everyone's taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this is actually a lot more than I thought would be sparked by this post. Hi everyone, I'm player B, OP told me about the forum post and I thought I'd check things, and try to clarify the situation.
For context, I am trying to learn how to play pathfinder and OP is helping me understand the game. We've run a solo run of KM before this, and I barely got out of the first encounter even after it was balanced for one character. I expressed to OP that maybe we should try to get a group together so that I can try learning in a group and OP wouldn't have to balance down so much.
My original intention was for us to get a group of new players together because I know that experienced players have a "defined" way of playing the game. I wanted to learn the game at a pace I'm comfortable with and I figured playing with new players would allow for all of us to do that at the same time. Also allowing for all of us to just play comfortably and without worrying about the more advanced things.
Getting a group together was going too slowly, so by the time we had player A and C, we had already picked out our characters long before player D came in. For some additional context, when I played the solo game, I didn't really feel anything when playing my character and the roleplaying side started to lack because my character was just a blank state, damage output machine. So this time around, I made more fleshed out characters, the trade being their "optimization" for flavor. I planned out my Wizard, a magical item merchant, who was not really a combatant but I did find some good debuff, control, and utility spells that I felt fit the flavor while still providing something to the team. I also made a backup Ranger character, but that one is a bit more normalized.
Player A was still deciding between their Barbarian, Champion, or Warpriest, and player C was set on Sorcerer or Wizard, leaning Sorcerer as that is a class they were more familiar with. Eventually, I told OP to just grab a 4th player, as they had expressed...
I think that I understood your situation.
You 3 are new in PF2 and wanted to explore the game system more freely but you needed one more player to complete the party and take an extra and more experienced player in PF2e. And this player when saw your build start to worry about the party composition and begin to give optimization suggestions based in its own experience and this begins to influence the party members plans.
That said. This maybe a bit frustrating to you but there's nothing wrong in a experienced player into do this. Each player will follow or not the tips if want. While noone is being forced everything is all right even if this breaks your new player desire to explore the system as a newbie.
That said there's too much excessive worry from Player D about the party survivability and optimization. It's fact that PF2e is pretty dangerous in earlier levels (specially in the firsts AP books like AoA) but the problema isn't about players builds and choices but tactical.
PF2e is a game that rewards players that play together during encounters and that penalizes players that think that they are super-heroes an act recklessly. But this has nothing about characters build and choices. What may happen is some obvious things like "oh no one take any class that have healing so to compensate we will have to take Battle Medicine or some buy some-potions/elixirs for emergency" and usually this enough to have a gg.
So the player D tips aren't bad and those who want to follow these tips can do but noone really need to worry about it and can play as they want. Because the most important thing about PF2e risks the Player D failed to say is you need to play as a team not that you need a healer, a tanker, a skill monket and a damage dealer. You just need to fight together remember that all you need to win and survive and help each other otherwise the PF2e rules and monsters probably will be brutal with you.
So things like flank, trip, grab, don't go throught the middle of enemy forces alone, use the field in favor of the group get and share enemy information, control the turn order is way more important to your survival than what do you will do in your build. So just try to play thinking "what I can do to help us to win this battle" and avoid things like "I will do this to shine" or you really risk to take unexpected TPK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think to add to this is that this is something RoboMNRK and I have been seeing in the Pathfinder playerbase as a whole, that the "only" or "best" way to play the game is to have an optimized/good party comp. Part of what I was trying to do with this thread was to discuss this specific situation, but I was also using it sort of as an example to talk about the player base at large.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> rewards specializing over generalization
Just a quick note before I go to bed, I have run a LOT of PF2e since it launched. And I cannot disagree with this more, PF2e punishes specialist builds quite a lot and thanks to the way it's math works really rewards people for branching out.
Not to say people have to, but they will generally be more powerful for doing so.
I agree with The Gleeful Grognard. Specialization was a Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition paradigm that was imported into Pathfinder 1st Edition for compatibility. Nevertheless, though PF1 supported specialization, it also opened up alternatives through teamwork and versatility. PF2 closed down specialization in order to permit its tight math, so that the combat power of an nth-level player character is predictable.
The issue comes up repeatedly. We currently have an argument going in Classes that use "Magic", why they feel different and should.
> I mentioned once that, shouldn't the GM be able to balance for a team composition. D's defense was that, "the encounter calculators don't account for bad party comp
The tight math prevents building bad characters. The party could have gigantic blind spots if every PC specialized in the same thing, but a party of generalists--and that is the default in PF2--can adapt.
For example, having healing in the party is necessary for long adventuring days. But the party could learn to return home often for bed rest (a boring solution), buy healing potions, or ask one party member to train in Medicine for the Treat Wounds ability. Treat Wounds takes 10 minutes, so having turn-speed healing, such as spells or potions, is great for emergencies when a critical hit knocks a party member unconscious, but a party can manage without it.
As for the GM balancing encounters for a team composition, that typically means avoiding the encounters that the team is bad at. That reduces the surprise in the game and makes the challenges less interesting.
And the GM cannot make adjustments that break the plot of the adventure path. Let me use the classic Rise of the Runelords adventure path as an example. It starts out with fighting goblins. The plot is mainly about stopping a gigantic raid from the goblins. But the party finds an abandoned Lamashtu temple with not just goblins in it, but also an imp. Fighting an imp is different from fighting goblins: imps can fly and turn invisible. Melee martial characters have trouble fighting imps. Could the GM remove the temple and its imp? No, it is important to the plot, because Lamashtu cultist are goading on the goblins. Can the Lamashtu cultists be removed from the plot? No, because in the next module cultists are the main antagonists.
My own technique it to give the party a sample of their weakness before the weakness becomes significant. Maybe in the next module they will have to fight Manticores (creature 6). So I throw a smaller flying creature, such as Griffon (creature 4). They don't know that the griffon is a forewarning, but in fighting the griffon they learn tactics to fight all flying creatures. And the catch the hint that flying creatures will be in future encounters. Perhaps they buy gear, such as enchanted bows, or learn new feats, such as Raging Thrower, to be better at fighting flying creatures. And then they encounter the manticores.
Note that correcting the weakness does not mean retiring a character to change character classes. Gear and feats are enough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think to add to this is that this is something RoboMNRK and I have been seeing in the Pathfinder playerbase as a whole, that the "only" or "best" way to play the game is to have an optimized/good party comp. Part of what I was trying to do with this thread was to discuss this specific situation, but I was also using it sort of as an example to talk about the player base at large.
citybound4st must have been reading old posts to think that that is the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playerbase as a whole. That view is held by most Pathfinder 1st Edition players. My players figured out teamwork back during PF1 and did even better in combat that the recommended optimized builds. When I tried to explain this in PF1 forums, my stories fell on deaf ears. When we changed over to PF2 games, my players kept up the teamwork tactics and kept winning against tough encouters. I became mystified at the posts in 2019 and early 2020 complaining that combat in PF2 is really hard. Some PCs were being knocked unconscious in Moderate-Threat encounters.
Gradually over the years, PF2 players learned that min-maxing into lone-wolf builds does not work in PF2. To win against difficult odds, the players need teamwork. YuriP's post above explains it well.
A role-based party of damage-dealer, tank, healer, and multipurpose spellcaster makes for easy teamwork because everyone already has a role in the team. This is good for players who are clueless about teamwork.
However, the players can start with the characters they want to play and invent a style of teamwork that is effective for them. This is harder, because the player characters have to declare to each other which duties they are willing to accept. Maybe only the barbarian is willing to study Medicine for Treat Wounds, which is non-intuitive for a brutal damage-dealer. Rather the player wants to play the barbarian as very tribal, and tribal medicine fits his theme. Amusingly, the best way to communicate these intentions to each other is through good roleplaying. In my opinion, that makes the game more fun.
I think to add to this is that this is something RoboMNRK and I have been seeing in the Pathfinder playerbase as a whole, that the "only" or "best" way to play the game is to have an optimized/good party comp. Part of what I was trying to do with this thread was to discuss this specific situation, but I was also using it sort of as an example to talk about the player base at large.citybound4st must have been reading old posts to think that that is the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playerbase as a whole. That view is held by most Pathfinder 1st Edition players.
We've mostly been seeing it from people on the Pathfinder 2E subreddit.
| 1 person 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 capabilites which are necessary are:
Some form of healing between combats. So either the medicine skill, or some healing ability. Prefereably one that can refresh every ten minutes. Only one person needs to do this.
Some ability to do damage. Because some combat is expected - or you are playing the wrong game - and no defence is perfect in this game. Probably everyone should at least have a basic Strike but as long as some it can work.
That is it. No roles are necessary. Yes some combinations will work much better together, but you can do whatever you want and be relatively fine.
One thing you will never see is this forum agreeing. So give up on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think to add to this is that this is something RoboMNRK and I have been seeing in the Pathfinder playerbase as a whole, that the "only" or "best" way to play the game is to have an optimized/good party comp. Part of what I was trying to do with this thread was to discuss this specific situation, but I was also using it sort of as an example to talk about the player base at large.
The player base is larger than this forum as the devs do remind us from time to time.
Mold this game into the experience your group wants to have. Get into your campaign and experiment with things, hit walls, find your solutions as you go. You will have more fun that way when you discover for yourselves what your party needs and what tactics help you get through things.As a GM you dont have to pull punches for this to work. Instead forshadow things to come and give opportunities for downtime so the party can plan, prepare, and adjust.
If they are getting the amount of loot and can buy things at their level from shops then they will have the opportunities to prepare for whatever comes their way. And if none of them want to be healers let them hire a medic NPC that can become story important and be there for them to patch them up in downtime.
Heck its kingmaker right? Give them a sidequest to recruit or save someone with this skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I like to try to thread the needle on these types of party comp/optimization discussions, especially when pulling together a group of strangers is to ask the following two situations:
1) Describe to me how your party could set up your perfect turn for you
2) Describe to me how you can setup your party members for a perfect turn, if your go-to isn't viable in an encounter.
I've been finding that this framing avoids pre-supposing any particular roles/classes, but does highlight the importance of teamwork and of the give-and-take. It also highlights the need to be flexible and not locked in to only one strategy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is a harder game than 5e or PF1 that rewards teamwork and good tactics. This basic premise is a universally agreed upon fact. You can have different opinions on how fun it is to be rewarded vs make bad decisions and be punished. But the basic premise holds true, and players aren't wrong for wanting to lean into it. I'd go as far as to say if you don't want to be tactical and crunchy, then maybe you don't want a game as tactical and crunchy as Pathfinder.
Robo, you say you want to learn Pathfinder, but it doesn't actually feel like that's the case. The meta is part of the game, and if you don't learn the meta you don't understand the game. Once you understand the meta you can then reject whatever components you don't like. But you won't learn anything by refusing to engage with it or getting upset when another player brings it up. It is built in. Example: The second easiest debuff to apply (frightened) ticks down at the end of a creature's turn, which means to leverage it you often need your whole team to account for it and delay their turns accordingly. If you act just before the enemy, their frightened 1 condition goes away before any of youe team can capitalize, eliminating 75% of the condition's benefit.
This is one of many examples of how the game this game rewards a level of tactical optimization in a way 5e doesn't. And unlike PF1, an AP's default difficult level is high enough to make fights into real slogs if you don't play well. I'm not just talking about character death or TPKs. I'm talking about 2 or 3 instances of a PC Being knock out in every significant combat. Is it that hard to understand why someone would enjoy getting to act on their turn more than just making a death save? Or why their teammate would prefer not to spend their turn healing that downed player?
And yes, a GM can adjust things to make it easier and create more breathing room for tactically poor decisions. Yours is willing to. But again, are you actually learning Pathfinder at that point, or a heavily modified version of it? Do you expect every other GM to do it for you? Because I wouldn't. Usually, the most I'll do for players with poor tactics is give them one level above the AP's written milestone. If a player started asking me to change the number of actions to drink potions before they'd ever even played the game? Huge red flag. They are asking the GM, who already carries the heaviest burden to make the game happen, to do even more work so the player doesn't have to. If this player was already my friend, I'd have a serious expectations talk with them. If I wasn't already invested in them, I'd politely suggest they find a new table if not a new game system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow I am shocked by these last two responses.
RoboMNRK and citybound4st I think it best you try to play the kind of game your table is looking to have. I think that takes talking about it. Exploring a new system and failing forward as you mentioned from the outset can be a fun experience. Ignore anything here that claims you are not being sincere. You came for advice because you saw a problem.
All they offer you is the finger pointed at you and telling you your mindset is wrong. Apparently they've played this game so long they have forgotten what it is like to come into the game fresh. Its like the kid good at mario bros who cant let you learn the game when its your turn to play and keeps trying to grab back the controller.
My advice is not to change encounter difficulty to make it easier without healing or make home rules to make taking potions easier. Just let the PCs hire the roles they dont want to be in game when they find they cant go on without that skillset. Players can also pick up archtypes as they level to incorporate some healing if they dont want to hire out for it.
Worst case the party wipes. Another option is to have everyone make two characters. The first one is the character everyone wants to play without concern for losing. The second set is a team that Player D helps you put together. If the first party wipes you can try it player Ds way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The meta is part of the game, and if you don't learn the meta you don't understand the game.
I'm bouncing on that because I don't have the same meaning for meta and it may affect the way people read your post.
For me, the meta is not about the game itself. It's about what people consider "the most optimized" way of playing the game. It's in general a collection of builds and tactics that should be followed for maximum efficiency.
Stating that you need out of combat healing in PF2 is not meta, it's just a basic rule of the game. On the other hand, stating that the best healing is to have multiple secondary healers is meta, especially if you end up discouraging someone of playing a Cleric because it would not be "meta".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH all I meant by meta is what player D is trying to do. Account for your teammates and try to build a party that works well together, and then act accordingly in play. You can always not do that and a have a fun time playing the game. But if your GM is nerfing everything to make that fun, or applying lots of house rules, you're not learning the game. You're learning a nerfed, house ruled game. If you try and apply what you've learned at any table that runs the game unaltered, you'll be in for a significant shock.
Incidentally, I've run plenty of PF2 tables for people who weren't interested in learning the game or how to play it successfully. They are in it for the roleplay, the narrative, or just the hang. That's fine. But they don't claim learning the game as a central motivation either.
Worst case the party wipes.
I'd actually argue the worst case isn't the party wiping, which is at least interesting. The worse case is all the demoralizing encounters that happen before the final fight. PF2 makes it pretty hard to die but easy to get knocked down, and I'd personally argue that never getting to play my character because they are incapacitated is less fun than said character dying and getting to bring in a new one.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've mostly been seeing it from people on the Pathfinder 2E subreddit.I think to add to this is that this is something RoboMNRK and I have been seeing in the Pathfinder playerbase as a whole, that the "only" or "best" way to play the game is to have an optimized/good party comp. Part of what I was trying to do with this thread was to discuss this specific situation, but I was also using it sort of as an example to talk about the player base at large.citybound4st must have been reading old posts to think that that is the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playerbase as a whole. That view is held by most Pathfinder 1st Edition players.
I remember seeing a lot of fiery discussions on these here boards about how best to optimize a build, which TBH dealt in minute differences in the results.
People who like optimizing will defend their opinion passionately, even if the result of the optimization is only better by a rather small margin.
It is one of the beauties of PF2, as opposed to PF1, that a PC built mostly for fun and flavor can perfectly adventure with an optimized build PC and the player will still enjoy the game.
Wow I am shocked by these last two responses.I am shocked you are shocked!
Supposedly these messages are now "hot takes" in the TTRPG space:
- Full quotes help establish context important to internet discussion.
- Helping inexperienced players play and learn the game by sharing your experience is a good thing.
- Do not assume the GM will 'fix it in post' by changing fundamental game balance/encounter design/underlying rules. This drains time and resources away from them investing in other real fun things that can manifest themselves in the game given the same time/effort investment into preparation (often a limited resource).
- The game enables you to do what you want but there is a higher probability that you will have more fun as beginners if you don't try and go counter to the underlying game design in your first AP.Better watch out Blue... after complaining about these hot takes (especially bullet 2) you turned around and started providing your experienced player mindset and advice at the expense of our presumably wrong midset/advice! How dare you grab that controller and start telling people how to play mario bros! Mario is always trying to have his spaghetti and eat it too!
its one thing to advise people to play the game they want to play and suggest they talk about it as a group and another to demand proof from them that what they are asking advice on actually happened isn't it?
|
This... sounds silly to me.
B is upset at the "meta mindset" of Player D
Player D who has not asked anyone to play anything specific, NOR made any complaint about not getting to play what they want, and in fact seems to feel they have a lot of choice to make.
I feel Player B should mind his business and let everyone play what they want, even if it is "meta".
And I wouldn't house rule the potions either.
As a GM, I usually try to avoid modifying a pre-written adventure to cater to the players, as I feel it undermines their choices. If everything they pick is not just viable but the best possible choice, then why choose anything?
Though I actually ran into the opposite problem last week in my brother's campaign. When he realized I had disintegrate, he quietly added a wall of force behind a puzzle to keep me from using disintegrate to skip the puzzle. When I used my one disintegrate casting on an enemy instead, he kept the wall of force there anyway, so we had to spend a lot of resources to bypass an obstacle that only existed because I picked disintegrate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have really only been keeping up on reading the responses in this forum, and to be honest....
It feels like a lot of y'all would hate on someone playing a game like Breath of Wild differently to how the creators of the game intended it to be played.
Where's the room for creativity? Isn't this supposed to be a role-playing game and not a "let's see what stats we can put together to best beat the boss" game?
The main reason I come to Pathfinder, to TTRPGs in general, is for the collective and collaborative storytelling aspect. The rules, combat, and dice are just there to help that. If I wanted to play something that was so rigid in how you could do things regarding the rules, then I might as well go play a video game. Heck, the adventure path I mentioned that I was going to run has been made into a video game (and one of my new players has actually played it before, but that's neither here nor there).
Someone brought up the eight pillars of fun, and several other people brought up how they like to have fun at their tables. I'm not going to tell people how they should have fun when attempting to roll weirdly shaped pieces of plastic with numbers on them onto a table while playing adult make-believe.
This thread is completely full of people assuming what I said or what player B or D said, or what was intended by anyone involved, and there's a saying about what happens when you assume. Perhaps I (or Robo) didn't give you enough context for you to understand fully what was going on. Perhaps we didn't feel that context was needed to grasp the situation, and perhaps it may be because nothing else was happening in the situation.
Anyway, I thought I might leave my thoughts here. I'm gonna refrain from saying more as I'm starting to get a little heated about a random conversation online which doesn't really have any bearing on my life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that the twin observations of:
- The party should able to cover a lot of different things.
- It's good, especially if someone can heal.
Is really a "meta game" sort of thinking. Like generally in a game of this sort you will end up in a situation where you have to talk to someone, have to be sneaky, have to figure out something, have to beat someone up, and have to recover from the beating you took in return. It's not a terrible idea to think through "what do we do in this sort of situation."
It is certainly possible for the GM to adjust the game to accommodate any particular combination of players and characters, but every alteration to the basic structure is creating more work for the GM so you don't really want to stack that sort of thing as high as it can go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like a lot of y'all would hate on someone playing a game like Breath of Wild differently to how the creators of the game intended it to be played.
Take a breath. No one is saying you can't be creative, or hating on you for what you're doing. Most people are just offering different perspectives or talking about some of the system's underlying math. Of course those aren't hard and fast rules, and of course you can change things to better suit your table.
Also maybe take a step back and look at what you're saying here again in the context of the mindset you approached your fourth player with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like a lot of y'all would hate on someone playing a game like Breath of Wild differently to how the creators of the game intended it to be played.Take a breath. No one is saying you can't be creative, or hating on you for what you're doing. Most people are just offering different perspectives or talking about some of the system's underlying math. Of course those aren't hard and fast rules, and of course you can change things to better suit your table.
Also maybe take a step back and look at what you're saying here again in the context of the mindset you approached your fourth player with.
There was some serious dogpiling on one of his players mixed in there too. That wasn't right.
I would feel the same way if I were them,
I have really only been keeping up on reading the responses in this forum, and to be honest....
It feels like a lot of y'all would hate on someone playing a game like Breath of Wild differently to how the creators of the game intended it to be played.
Where's the room for creativity? Isn't this supposed to be a role-playing game and not a "let's see what stats we can put together to best beat the boss" game?
The main reason I come to Pathfinder, to TTRPGs in general, is for the collective and collaborative storytelling aspect. The rules, combat, and dice are just there to help that. If I wanted to play something that was so rigid in how you could do things regarding the rules, then I might as well go play a video game. Heck, the adventure path I mentioned that I was going to run has been made into a video game (and one of my new players has actually played it before, but that's neither here nor there).
Someone brought up the eight pillars of fun, and several other people brought up how they like to have fun at their tables. I'm not going to tell people how they should have fun when attempting to roll weirdly shaped pieces of plastic with numbers on them onto a table while playing adult make-believe.
This thread is completely full of people assuming what I said or what player B or D said, or what was intended by anyone involved, and there's a saying about what happens when you assume. Perhaps I (or Robo) didn't give you enough context for you to understand fully what was going on. Perhaps we didn't feel that context was needed to grasp the situation, and perhaps it may be because nothing else was happening in the situation.
Anyway, I thought I might leave my thoughts here. I'm gonna refrain from saying more as I'm starting to get a little heated about a random conversation online which doesn't really have any bearing on my life.
Reading this just continues to make me think that the unique characteristics and benefits that Pathfinder 2e presents vs. other tabletop roleplaying games aren't well-suited to you or your table. I don't think that's a terrible thing if it's true, and I don't know that it's true for a fact. I hope that you and your players end up having a blast playing whatever you choose, and if you have that blast playing PF2e, I think that's great. Realistically, though, I think that Pathfinder 2e is heavily gamified when compared/contrasted with many other d20 games. One of the main draws of the game for many is considered to be how much less effort it requires to GM when adhering closely to the rules, because such an emphasis was placed on maintaining very tight game balance while providing a variety of options for each character. You don't need to use PF2e this way if it doesn't suit your tastes; you can do anything with it that pleases you. It's your table, after all. But there may be systems that will provide what you want with fewer alterations or adjustments to suit tastes.
It makes me curious what elements of Pathfinder 2e specifically drew you to the system over other comparable options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like if I'm in player D's shoes here I look at what's accounted for:
Player A is looking at Barbarian, Champion, or Cleric. Cool, two frontliners, one which needs healing and one which provides it, or a caster who can handle wisdom skills (including medicine)
Player B is looking at Wizard. Cool, certainly not my favorite class, but it's a fine one to have in the party.
Player C is where I start to get worried because they said Wizard or Sorcerer. I think the party would be a lot better off if they went sorcerer, since that's both someone who can cover CHA skills and you can pick a spell tradition not represented by A or B. I might express something to this effect by talking about my favorite Occult, Primal, or Divine sorcerer options.
If C goes sorcerer then I have a lot of options. If A doesn't want to play a frontliner, I should play one. If A wants to play a Barbarian, I should consider someone who can be comfortable near danger like a Cleric, Druid, or Oracle If A wants to be a Champion, I might want to play a rogue to cover all the skill gaps in the party since I'd have a gang-up buddy who can take some of the heat off of me with their Champion's Reaction.
The party I don't really want to be in is the "Two wizards and a Cleric" party since I'm going to be solely responsible for keeping the backline clean."
One thing I might think about is that if B is brand new to Pathfinder 2e, it's possible that Wizard is not the best choice since the PF2 Wizard is not weak, per se, but it requires a lot more systems mastery to play well than most other classes since it's not the powerhouse it is in other D20 games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like B and Op did not appreciate the influence D was having on the other players.
Given this is group was set up with B's desires in mind, that's fine.
Still, from the information provided nothing D did seems out of line with normal expectations.
Asking that the encounters and rules be adjusted to suit your desired playstyle is very,very meta, and not a norm I am familiar with.
Suggesting character choices that are in line with the expectations of the designers is really not out of the ordinary.
I dont think one nesisarily needs to play a ttrpgame as "intended" to learn it, any more than you must cook exactly to a recipe to learn that.
I do think that playing the rules and encounters as written will help you understand the underlying intentions.
I play a lot of games with kids who barely know the rules.
Letting them play the character they want to play the way they want to play it, wothout pulling punches is a great way to teach through natral consequences.
One player who grew up at my table knows how to optimize and that he prefers a not very challengeing game.
If we are at the same table, one of us is going to be disappointed with the gameplay,but that's ok.
Player B is adult enough to be on this forum, and can decide what they want to learn and how they want to learn it, for themselves.
I hope A,B,C,D and OP can enjoy a game together.
As a GM, I usually try to avoid modifying a pre-written adventure to cater to the players, as I feel it undermines their choices. If everything they pick is not just viable but the best possible choice, then why choose anything?
I do the opposite. Perhaps we are using different definitions of "cater."
cater intransitive verb1: to provide a supply of food - cater for a large party
2: to supply what is required or desired - catering to middle-class tastes
Let me give some examples behind a spoiler mask.
I added one little detail to the story that would let the players change the plot. I had some refugees from the war meet the party. They told the party that an Ironfang army was marching northward toward Radya's Hollow.
The players put their current mission on hold and raced to Radya's Hollow. They fought the army that would have conquered Radya's Hollow. I set it up as a Beyond-Extreme Threat, but they had terrain advantage with an exit plan (the proper way to handle such challenges) and they won. Radya's Hollow was saved.
I catered to the players by giving them a choice that would be important to them.
Later in Ironfang Invasion at the beginning of Prisoners of the Blight the party would have a 70-mile jump from the dwarven city of Kraggodan to the Fangwood Forest. That 70 miles would be through territory held by the Ironfang Legion. My players wanted to roleplay that journey. They had had no interaction with the Ironfang Legion for a week and a half, and they were worried that the legion would have conquered more territory without the party's opposition. Thus, I wrote additional encounters for them to free villagers from forced labor as war captives on their journey.
Due to this catering to my players, they gained extra experience points, so I had to adjust the encounters in Prisoners of the Blight to a higher level. The CR 18 final boss leveled up at 20th level.
Perhaps by catering, SuperParkourio meant nerfing an encounter if the party would be vulnerable to it. For example, the party could be heading toward a high-level medusa while not prepared to deal with petrification (see Balancing a Seventeenth-Level Medusa for details). All I did was forewarn them that a medusa had been in the area, but she was presumed departed since scrying had failed to spot her.
When the medusa ambushed them, they got creative. Petrifying requires two failed saves by the victim, and after the first failed gaze the party champion used Champion's Sacrifice to divert the second gaze to herself, so that two PCs were slowed, but neither was petrified. The Hasted rogue was able to bluff that he was not slowed by the medusa's first gaze. All those failures while under heavy attack spooked the medusa, so she teleported away. The party left that area and prepared for the medusa before returning the next morning. The party druid prepared Stone to Flesh and the dwarf wizard wh represented Kraggodan also prepared Stone to Flesh.
The main reason I come to Pathfinder, to TTRPGs in general, is for the collective and collaborative storytelling aspect.
Me too. I want to see the story my players create in difficult situations and in friendly situations.
Where's the room for creativity? Isn't this supposed to be a role-playing game and not a "let's see what stats we can put together to best beat the boss" game?
I like to keep the rules unchanged because that gives a solid foundation for creative play. The rules are the Lego building blocks from which we build the actions in an encounter. The creativity is in finding new ways to use the building blocks.
Sometimes I invent house rules for particular situations to encourage more player involvement. In Assault on Longshadow the PCs had to persuade the mayor of Longshadow that the threat of the Ironfang Legion was serious. We had two PCs out of seven who were good at Diplomacy, but I wanted everyone to have a say. So I said that each PC could tell a story about one of their encounters with the Ironfang Legion and instead of rolling Diplomacy, they could roll a skill that they used in the encounter. The players challenged themselves to never repeat a skill, so we had Diplomacy checks with Athletics and Stealth and Nature, etc. But that divergence from the rules didn't change the building blocks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a houserule to try and meet both sides of the "potion debate" halfway?
Interacting to draw and drink a potion can be a single action (instead of two) if the "pourer" and "drinker" (in case it's two different people) is/are currently not being actively threatened by any hostiles.
=)