Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

pemerton · Jul 11, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
getting judgmental about not just systems, but people.

Well let's turn it around. Why is it so important to you that you have played narrativsit? Are you making a judgement?

I don't play many boardgames other than backgammon (which I love). But modern boardgames, with their need for clever and calculated play, are things I'm not very good at. My personal discount curve is too steep (probably in all areas of my life, and certainly in these games). So I don't play them much. For similar reasons, as I already posted in this thread, gamist RPGing - at least in the classic dungeoneering mode - is not my thing. Wargaming, or older boardgames like Titan, are not my thing.

If narrativism isn't your thing, that's no big deal for anyone but your biographer. Conversely if narrativsim is your thing then (whether here or in some other thread) tell us about it! Whereas at the moment you seem to be arguing, completely in the abstract, that there's no such thing as narrativist play because the GM can always control everything that matter in any system provided s/he is skilled enouogh.

Tony Vargas said:
So why are you convinced I haven't experienced Narrativist play, and will only accept pulling a little illusionism in /certain systems/ as evidence one could pull some narrtivist wool over the players eyes?

Convinced is too strong. But where is the actual account? How did it work? How did a player make an action declaration, have that resolved using the open resolution system typical of narrativst-oriented systems, have their intention for their action realised in play, and yet this all have been pre-authored by the GM?

Tony Vargas said:
The definition of narrativism seems arbitrarily narrow, as if to exclude games that clearly intend collective storytelling as their thing.

What games are you talking about? V:tM doesn't intend collective storytelling; nor do the DL modules. They present a pre-authored story and give the GM the job of curating it and conducting the players through it.

Narrativism is characterised so as to describe a play experience that The Forge people were especially interested in. It's a real thing - I can report from play experience - and the contrast with play experiences in V:tM, CoC, post-DL AP-style D&D, etc is real.

If you or anyone else finds the distinction uninteresting, well that's your prerogative - some people might find the difference between (say) dadaism, cubism and surrealism uninteresting and lump it all together as early 20th century modern art. That's fine, but obviously the fact that they don't find those differences inteesting isn't going to sway those who are senstivie to them.

Tony Vargas · Jul 11, 2019

pemerton said:
Well let's turn it around. Why is it so important to you that you have played narrativsit? Are you making a judgement?

Let's turn around using a theory that claims not to be exclusionary and judgmental, to exclude my perspective from discussion, and instead make it about why I don't want to be judged & excluded?

Seriously?

At that point you've confirmed that the purpose of GNS is to divide, excluded, and judge other divisions inferior to your preferred one.

pemerton said:
If you or anyone else finds the distinction uninteresting, well that's your prerogative

I don't find it uninteresting, I find it false, pernicious, and elitist.

As what it claims to be on the surface, a description of an aspect of how people play RPGs, 'narrativism' would be fine. RPGs produce stories, the players & DM likely all contribute to the development of that story, to varying degrees, depending, I'd think from decades of experience, primarily, on the attitudes & aptitudes of each individual, encouraged or roadblocked by system features (intentional or otherwise) depending on the system, but never to an absolute degree.

But, in the way it's actually used, as a monolithic division of RPGs and the people who play them into exclusive warring camps, it's corrosive.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 11, 2019

Jer said:
What I don't get is combining that with a scale of 5 levels of proficiency - it feels like two mechanics that solve the same kind of problem in two different ways have been combined together. It also seems like it would lose some of the elegance that adding +level to things gets you. Though maybe it plays differently than it reads.

It's two different problems. The level bonus addresses the issue of epic heroes being better than novice ones. The proficiency bonus addresses the issue of individual distinction within heroes of the same caliber.

What I don't get is why they need both proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, since those both address the issue of distinction within a tier. It would make more sense to use either one or the other.

CapnZapp · Jul 11, 2019

Saelorn said:
What I don't get is why they need both proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, since those both address the issue of distinction within a tier. It would make more sense to use either one or the other.

Nature vs nurture. Trained vs natural

The Crimson Binome · Jul 11, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Nature vs nurture. Trained vs natural

I'm not saying that you couldn't make the distinction, if you really wanted to. I'm saying that, if you do make the distinction, and you include separate modifiers for each, then they are redundant for the task of distinguishing a character's competence within a given level.

A simpler alternative would be to only use the proficiency bonus, say that it represents some combination of natural talent and learned skill, and only use that one bonus (in addition to the level bonus). It would prevent issues where (for example) the cleric is more perceptive than the ranger, when their Wisdom gap is greater than their proficiency gap. It would also solve the annoying old problem where the only way to truly specialize was to have both the maximum ability modifier and the maximum skill bonus.

CapnZapp · Jul 11, 2019

Sure. I won't deny Pathfinder is likely to overengineer things much like 5E underengineered them.

I was merely pointing out "competence" does not need to be a monolithic number. Having distinct and separate facets of competence is not inherently redundant or surplus, is all.

darjr · Jul 12, 2019

Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?

Anyone?

zztong · Jul 12, 2019

darjr said:
Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?

I could see a future system drawing on the three-action approach for some inspiration.

Mistwell · Jul 12, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Is Pathfinder 2 the 2016 Ghostbusters Reboot, or is the original Pathfinder more of a colonialist narrative, like the original Star Wars trilogy?

Discuss!

Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 12, 2019

darjr said:
Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?

Anyone?

I don't know that PF2 really has any unique rules. The action economy is very reminiscent of old Shadowrun (and I'm sure many other systems), and the everything-as-feats approach has been done to death in countless heartbreakers throughout the last two decades.