You are an adult with strong experience in board and ttrp games. As I said before, you probably think this level's about you. But it isn't. It's about my kid's junior high role playing club, which has a massive 40+ kid membership and organizes 8-10 tables of low-level play every Wednesday. Those are Paizo's 2030 customers, the people who will buy their content long after you and I stop. As a direct competitor to that other game PF2E is, yes, going after the "played once, or haven't yet played but interested" market. Not just folks like you or I with decades of experience and a 'seen it, done that' equilibrium towards tpks. Paizo does make lots of content for us. But not 100% of it. Having the early level content to be for folks like that club rather than folks like you or I simply makes a lot of sense. At least, to me.
But not necessarily to Paizo. We need to get information about their marketing goals, which population they target and such.
Paizo's 2030 customers can come from the other game. There's no need for Paizo to teach TTRPGs themselves, they can even entirely ignore kids (I must admit, I have hard time seeing how I could sell PF2 to kids).Neither Ford nor Mercedes sell bikes and still they manage to sell their cars.
You've got some folks saying make L1 encounters survivable without knowing all the tactics (i.e. allows for incremental learning).
There's factually no link between incremental learning curve and L1 survivability. You are reaching a conclusion based on a ton of untold assumptions.
(I must admit, I have hard time seeing how I could sell PF2 to kids).By introducing the complex rules set incrementally. Which is kinda the whole point here, right? You've got some folks saying make L1 encounters survivable without knowing all the tactics (i.e. allows for incremental learning) and others saying no no make it tactically full-game-on right from the start (no increments; know everything all at once or you're dead). Because (at least in one opinion) 'it's good to weed out the folks who can't handle it', though I suspect the more common reason for wanting full-on L1 encounters is 'because as an experienced player, I too want to enjoy those L1-5 APs...and I don't want to have to upgrade them.'
I was able to teach my kid Terraforming Mars at age 8. But I didn't do that by forcing him to know every detailed rule in the very first run through. The first run through used some of the rules. Then the second used more. Then by the third time, he got it all. So now we play tons of games together. Had I insisted on the full rules set and just focused on whomping on his a$$ that first game, I doubt we'd be playing complex board games together today as much as we do. There is good long term fun value in giving beginners a low slope learning curve.
It's just kids. While adults have a lot more experience to lean on and are "smarter" than kids, adults also have a lot competing for their time and attention to. Not everyone wants to start on hard mode when they're new to a game.
It's better to have a game with consistent challenges (moderate encounters all being roughly equal difficulty at all levels) than to have a change mid way through the game as you level (unless you choose to go from moderate to severe or extreme encounters). But the important part is making that choice, and not having bad math give you a different experience at levels 1 and 2.
It's better to have a game with consistent challenges
Why?
From a simple search on the Internet it looks like we learn faster when we are challenged. I don't know if it's true or not (Google is not omniscient) but I know for sure it applies to me.
So challenging first levels may actually be a very conscious choice to quickly get beginners up to par and avoid massive discrepancies in game mastery between players.
I know a lot of games who adopt this difficulty curve, with challenging early game, easy mid game and very hard end game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's better to have a game with consistent challengesWhy?
So a GM actually understands the level of challenge they're sending to the players.
So a GM actually understand the level of challenge they're sending to the players.
You mean that the GM has less things to learn. Because it's a question of experience, not something you can't control ever.
I also think there's a bit of exaggeration. Level +2 solo bosses are not that deadly at level 1, I've been through many such encounters without any character death. The only ones that are really deadly are level +3 solo bosses which are qualified as "Severe- or extreme-threat boss" and I'm not sure I've ever faced one at level 1.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is of course bringing up a lot of personally feelings in our community, and while it is always good to be yourself and feel safe enough to do so, please also remember not to insult others to get your point across. Lots of comments removed in this thread. Remember to disagree while also being civil, everyone.
Because Trip H tends to post as though his opinion is absolute and irrefutable when it is their personal preference.
Stating something is bad game design as though we all can just see it and agree is a statement I'm not seeing. It's not something anyone has brought up much in the decades I've played.
Objective statements are always made by actors of subjective opinion, so when I claim "the low Lvl HP & HP growth math is bad game design" that is similar to someone looking at a newly remodeled bathroom and saying "that is a badly built shower."
I can point to objective observations for evidence, such as there being hardened grout smeared across the surface of tiles, but it is *always* possible to plug one's ears and shout "opinion, not fact!" as you keep doing. No list of factual observations can nullify such a "counterargument."
Then Trip H is stating percentages based on some calculation I'm not seeing given how different the hit point totals are for different classes across all levels. So what class is Trip H basing this on? A 10 hit point martial, an 8 hit point class, a 6 hit point caster? What is this percentage based on?
This is an especially silly thing to type when the thread is still there, and when this math was spelled out as a direct reply to you, rofl.
When you try imply that I'm making up numbers, maybe check first? I don't know if it's worse if you didn't read it/forgot, or if you are pretending you didn't, and hoping to not get called out on that.
And I don't know what you want. Less damage from the monsters? Fourty hit points at first level so you never have to worry about getting crushed?
Example HP gain on that example Alch level up:
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP
L9 --> L10: 105 -- +11 --> 116 | + 10.4% max HP
L14 --> L15: 174 --> +12 --> 186 | + 6.9% max HP
L19 --> L20: 234 --> +12 --> 246 | + 5.1% max HP[...blah blah blah...]
This comes from the pathbuilder sheet for my Stolen Fate Alchemist, just opened it and clicked the level up & down while noting the HP real quick.
And yes, I will 100% stand by the claim that the % HP boost gained on level up changing by a factor of 7x is a unit of "objectively bad math." I take that factual 7x observation, and argue that this math is responsible for a lot of the commonly observed issues talked about all over pf2 discussions. This one math equation adds a huge amount of ambiguity as to what the difficulty of a PL +1 encounter means, as there is an inconsistent increase depending on which specific L we are talking about.
Among other negative consequences, with this math going on, Paizo cannot possibly make an accurate statement about how difficult a PL +1/2/etc is in the general case, lol. They would have to make a variable chart or give up and say: ~"it depends (a lot) on which level."
.
Looking at system math like this is how you find a systemic (and therefore editable) cause to "blame" for player-facing observations / outcomes.
Such as the (math) observation of single 1A Strike crit being able to drop a huge % of PCs at L1, but by L12, it requires a scenario like an HP 6 squishy to crit fail a 2A Chain Lightning to then have a 50/50 chance of one-shot.
The gap in lethality there is enormous.
The steady "decline of PC fragility" as levels go up perfectly matches this smooth decline of % HP growth. "Suspicious" associations like that are the things that game designers are supposed to notice, then investigate if the relationship is perhaps causal, and then take steps to make changes for improvement.
.
You can keep trying to bold-name call me out, it's not going to help, lol.
If you keep making dismissive "prove it" accusations, I'll keep bringing the numbers and calling that bluff.
I'll also keep ending with a reminder that you have completely failed to (attempt to) defend your own opinion on the matter with substantive claims.
As I've directly asked you before, in what way is the gameplay improved by having math with common full-->downs? How would you convince a stranger to play that game A versus game B that was different only in it's lack of full-->downs?
* Low strategy play: Inability to reliably survive a turn diminishes one's ability to form & execute plans involving the next turn.
* Fuzzy feedback(the OP topic): When raw luck during initiative can determine which side experiences a full-->down event, the ability to perceive strategic info is diminished. This is the "good tactics become indistinguishable from good luck, and bad tactics become indistinguishable from bad luck" issue.
* GM player-favored "cheating": GMs who do not desire to kill a PC in that moment will be incentivized, conditioned, and "taught to" find opportunities to twist events to prevent this mathematic over-lethality from killing PCs. Rephrased: GMs are taught by this math to protect the players from the system's consequences.
* Power gaming: After witnessing full-->downs, players are *much* more likely to power game in response. This means things like neglecting "fun" feats & archetypes and more prioritizing those they see as numerically powerful.
* Damage-focused play: High %HP damage means that all forms of non-damage effects struggle to be relevant.
* Degenerate strategies: After witnessing full-->downs, players are much more likely to use exploitative tactics the system was not designed to tolerate. Such as an Alchemist feeding the whole party a Numbing Tonic before the door kick, or PCs getting TMItem for similar maximal prebuff purposes.
* Narrative & play derailment: When PCs die, the whole narrative jerks to a halt to address this. Either the party will need to abandon their current objective to sell items and get a resurrection, or the session continues while a player is outright sidelined from playing and creating a new PC. This also can cause severe issues with time-sensitive AP/campaign considerations. A dead PC & party retreat during a hostage rescue means that said hostages likely "should" perish, even if one was plot-critical.
I can easily repost my list of cons created/enhanced by that math, but am still waiting to hear a single positive counter claim from you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a GM actually understand the level of challenge they're sending to the players.You mean that the GM has less things to learn. Because it's a question of experience, not something you can't control ever.
A GM shouldn't have to learn that the system doesn't work the same at low levels as it does at high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers of play being different is the default rather than the exception in TTRPGs. It also isn't typically taught in video games except for things with major focus shifts like Civilization.
For the most part this can be expressed in a side bar, if it isn't already.
*Lethality and Tiers of Play*
As characters and the challenges they face increase in level, the relative challenge and risk will shift as both players and their opponents gain access to new levels of abilities. The first few levels - when player characters have fewer hit points and defensive tools - may be more lethal, so consider dialing back more difficult challenges, such as those 2 or more levels higher than the party. As players progress they will pick up new skills and tools which give them more opportunities to bounce back from a bad roll, so you can more freely lean into deadlier threats - just make sure you don't lean too hard!
Etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in a game with my kid right now. Guess what approach we're using. Guess whether it's been working or not. That's anecdote, but I'm a bit surprised you're so negative on the thought that someone who has used such an approach in a wide variety of board and card games and yes ttrpgs must be wrong about it. Of course you can think you're right and I'm wrong. But you asked someone who does it what worked for them, and I gave you my answer.
Using a lower threat for players who don't know tactics is still challenging to them, because they don't know tactics. In fact, that's the way you keep the encounter challenge steady across the learning curve. Example: let's say you're running a written encounter, but for some reason you choose to remove all PC powers to buff themselves and debuff the enemy. But you want your modified encounter to be no more difficult to beat than the written one. You don't want it tougher - or easier! You just want it simpler. Do you keep all other enemy stats the same? Or do you lower them to account for the lack of PC abilities to buff themselves/debuff the enemy? The latter, yes? Well, that's the situation for beginners. You get the same encounter difficulty out of lower statistics, until they learn tactics.
I just want to expand on this discussion a bit, because I think it hits on an important point.
Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games. That's how I was taught chess as a kid; play a game with pawns, then add pieces. That's how Gloomhaven JotL works: start with the basics of playing cards to move and attack, staple on more mechanics as you progress. Really, that's even how the PF2E beginner box tries to structure itself—as pointing to and teaching one part of the mechanics at a time. It's just more difficult to enforce a mechanical progression in a freeform game like PF2E, since you can intend to teach one thing but have people try to overcome your tutorial via different means. I very much agree with the point being made here by Easl.
I think some stuff Deriven is getting at, though—maybe not exactly what Deriven is saying, but some important points in the vicinity—are worth noting. To me, those points are:
1) A lot of games can be difficult to tutorialize in this piecewise manner. The rules might not build onto each other in a meaningful way, or the rules might blend together in extremely interdependent ways, making them harder to pull apart. Play might also be more messy or unstructured, as well, and that too makes a game harder to tutorialize. I think it's fair to say both apply to crunchier tabletops. A lot of the more persnickety rules of PF2E resist tutorialization and just need to be learned as relevant, and anyone who's run the beginner box knows that players want to exercise agency in ways that undermine the tutorial. Tutorialization does, as someone else (I think Superbidi?) pointed out, require a certain amount of railroading and simplification—and PF2E does resist both in actual play.
2) Tactics only matter insofar as the game needs you to use them to succeed and punishes you if you don't. Without the game pushing back on the players for poor tactics—possibly by killing them—they're given few incentives to interact with the game systems. A player can and will continue to strike three times and end turn if that's working. The gameplay itself doesn't have many levers other than player downs and kills to get people to re-evaluate their choices.
I just want to expand on this discussion a bit, because I think it hits on an important point.
Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games. ... Really, that's even how the PF2E beginner box tries to structure itself—as pointing to and teaching one part of the mechanics at a time.
I would second this.
It is the job of Entry level scenarios like the Beginner Box to teach the game mechanics to new players. Not the job of Player Core.
A GM shouldn't have to learn that the system doesn't work the same at low levels as it does at high levels.
Again, why?
The fact that low, mid and high level experience is different is in my opinion a conscious design choice. At low level, you really have the feeling of playing a peasant with a greatsword considering how fights are fast, deadly and random. I think it's the expected low level experience.
I'm in a game with my kid right now. Guess what approach we're using.
You haven't understood my previous post. Difficulty is not related to learning curve: If you increase or decrease the game difficulty you don't change the learning curve.
I was just stating that you were conflating 2 unrelated notions.Tiers of play being different is the default rather than the exception in TTRPGs.
That. So common that there isn't even a sidebar.
Games with consistency between the early game and the end game don't give at all the feeling of playing a peasant who rises to godhood. It's just all samey (I don't say it's bad, just that it's not Pathfinder at all).
Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games.
But I don't expect the adventure to do that. The beginner box, why not. But most importantly the GM. I personally don't GM beginners the same way I GM experienced players: I help them more, give them advice in real time, I sometimes remove some punishing mechanics (like critical failures on Trip/Grapple) to encourage them using the abilities, and so on.
Having low level adventures structure in such a way that they always spend time teaching concepts will feel like playing the same tutorial all over again: An awful experience for experienced players.