Similarities 4E PF2?

Jer · Jul 17, 2019

Saelorn said:
Strong control over the math implies (to me) that they are again looking to balance the game at the encounter level, rather than across an entire day (or an entire adventure).

Mathematical game balance can only be achieved at the encounter level. Because in order to be able to come up with metrics you can "balance" you need to be able to know the resources available to the players when they come into an encounter. The more variable the possible resources they have as they enter the encounter, the harder it is going to be to reliably determine encounter balance.

In 3e they thought they could balance encounters across the entire day and came up with the whole CR measure to do it. They were wrong - CR never worked the way it was supposed to for a whole lot of reasons. In 4e they moved to have player resources be somewhat predictable per encounter rather than per day and that worked - you could actually balance encounters in 4e mathematically (and once you fixed the damage and hp math for monsters, the combats were even exciting).

But people didn't like it, so for 5e they've gone back to the AD&D approach to balance - handwave it and count on DMs to figure out how to make it work. They threw in some encounter balancing tables as a nod to 3e fans expecting that guidance, but imo they're as related to encounter balance as using HD to determine threat danger in AD&D was - a good rule of thumb as a starting point, but don't be surprised if it actually turns out to be a tpk or a cakewalk.

I suspect that the PF dev's are still in the place where they think they can achieve mathematical balance. But they still have a lot of per day resources in ther, so I'm curious to see how the encounter building part goes over the long term. If they figured out how to crack that nut I'll be impressed.

Parmandur · Jul 17, 2019

Jer said:
But it's nothing like 4e, which kept 3e's action economy intact.

Funny, I feel it's the exact opposite of 4e's approach. Making everything a feat feels very much like a 3e way of approaching game design to me.

The action economy "feeling like 4E" is what I've heard: can't speak to it directly. Feel can be a tricky thing, slippery and hard to pin down.

Feats are very 3.x, but forcing everything in PC progression into a Feat, such as AoO...that starts feeling like the AEDU powers wall of text.

Tony Vargas · Jul 17, 2019

Jer said:
Mathematical game balance can only be achieved at the encounter level. Because in order to be able to come up with metrics you can "balance" you need to be able to know the resources available to the players when they come into an encounter. The more variable the possible resources they have as they enter the encounter, the harder it is going to be to reliably determine encounter balance.

"Balanced at the Encounter" just means "pacing doesn't matter." Even 4e didn't go there, though the closely-related 7th ed of Gamma World did, and it worked pretty well, actually.

Any indication PF2 wants to go there?

Jer · Jul 17, 2019

Parmandur said:
Feats are very 3.x, but forcing everything in PC progression into a Feat, such as AoO...that starts feeling like the AEDU powers wall of text.

I guess like you say "feel can be a tricky thing". To me the brilliance of the power approach was how it standardized the mechanics while making sure each class has a distinct feel. Pathfinder 2 feats still look like the jumbled mess of mechanics I expect from 3e feats without the elegance of the powers framework

Tony Vargas said:
"Balanced at the Encounter" just means "pacing doesn't matter." Even 4e didn't go there, though the closely-related 7th ed of Gamma World did, and it worked pretty well, actually.

Any indication PF2 wants to go there?

GW 7e remains one of my favorite implementations of a class/level system. If 13th Age didn't exist, I would likely have reskinned it into the lightweight version of 4e I was wanting by the end of 4e's shelf life.

And I may be wrong but from what I've seen so far, PF2 is still very much aligned with 3e views of game balance.

CapnZapp · Jul 17, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
"Balanced at the Encounter" just means "pacing doesn't matter."

The worst of all worlds is when the ruleset pretends it offers challenge and therefore excitement, when in reality it gives the players a thousand and one tools to completely control the frequency of recharging* and therefore the level of challenge, with just a single exception: time constraints.
*) simplistic naive countermeasures such as wandering monsters are so pathetically easy to get around it isn't even funny. Discussions on Rope Trick and how to defeat it just make me nauseous - I'm not playing D&D to have the PCs get stupidly-powerful resting tools, and then focus on how to make them NOT stupidly powerful. That's like handing out Hats of Mind-Blank to evil NPCs because Detect Evil was too good. It's cretinous and I have no patience for it.

In other words, as soon as you tire of the very tired "the princess will be eaten in three days, please hurry" trope, you're sold out of luck.

Competent players quickly learn to use the vast arsenal given to player characters to make sure they get to decide when to take rests, and no native and simplistic adventure design can stop them.

In fact, when veteran players realize that the time pressure is a sham in 9 out of 10 official modules (many of which does not even bother to detail what happens if the heroes actually arrive too late), they can completely chicken race the story: "I bet the bad guys will not even heat the kettle until we come a-knocking, so let's hang back in town so we're super fresh before we head out. And if I'm wrong, so what? There will be more princesses to save. Point is the game is at its most fun when we're fully recharged, so let's refuse to get rushed into combat early".

In other words, any attempt at balancing the game on a large scale than the individual encounter absolutely must control healing and other recharging. (Examples: you can't rest until you've completed N encounters; or simply you can't rest at all except using a magic mana font) Since that's apparently completely unacceptable to the D&D community, the conclusion is inescapable:

"Balanced at the Encounter" is the only balancing that actually works.

It doesn't mean "pacing doesn't matter" in the sense "pacing isn't important" or "pacing is unsupported". It means it in the sense pacing is unrelated to encounter balance, which is the correct approach.

It still allows DMs to create strings of easy encounters when they want them. It still allows the PCs to rest, only it gives the DM the tools to create an encounter that will be challenging (and therefore fun) despite any efforts of veteran players to wriggle out of that challenge.

Aldarc · Jul 17, 2019

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], that's certainly true, which is one reason why many other RPGs out there are more conscientious about time pressure mechanics. E.g., running out of light/torches in Torchbearer, countdown clocks in Blades in the Dark, and randomized countdown rolls in Index Card RPG.

The countdown clocks in Blades, in particular, is pretty genius. Everytime the PCs go into downtime mode to recover, the countdown clocks for their surrounding factions will continue ticking. Not just one, but all of them. Eventually they will trigger, with or without the PCs addressing it, changing the game states. The world around the players advances regardless of their resting. Ignore these things at your own peril, and the situation will boil.

Parmandur · Jul 17, 2019

Jer said:
I guess like you say "feel can be a tricky thing". To me the brilliance of the power approach was how it standardized the mechanics while making sure each class has a distinct feel. Pathfinder 2 feats still look like the jumbled mess of mechanics I expect from 3e feats without the elegance of the powers framework

Granted that the PF2 system might not work as well mathematically as the 4E approach, I would describe the powers set-up as aesthetically a "jumbled mess of mechanics," with page upon page of redundant and bland abilities: much like my read of the PF2 playtest book. I was interested in the PC generation based on their early descriptions, but found the approach in the playtest to be extremely tedious in practice.

Tony Vargas · Jul 17, 2019

Parmandur said:
Granted that the PF2 system might not work as well mathematically as the 4E approach, I would describe the powers set-up as aesthetically a "jumbled mess of mechanics,"

Odd, why would you describe something as the exact opposite of what it was? Powers were very structured in presentation, and the mechanics had fairly clear/exact jargon definitions. Anything but jumbled or messy. Indeed, the aesthetic, if it could even be called that, was more 'technical manual' than anything else - which is great for understanding or looking up what you need, but less than inspiring.

my read of the PF2 playtest book. I was interested in the PC generation based on their early descriptions, but found the approach in the playtest to be extremely tedious in practice. page upon page of redundant and bland abilities

Well, it was a playtest document, I'd expect the final version will be winnowed of redundancy, and or spiced up quite a bit.

Also, redundancy might not be fair. It's not necessary redundant to have two classes both have an option that, say deals 1d12 damage, just because they use the same die. Even if the /flavor/ is quite different, it's not redundant. (Though, if there's no flavor text, as 'bland' implies...)

Parmandur · Jul 17, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Odd, why would you describe something as the exact opposite of what it was? Powers were very structured in presentation, and the mechanics had fairly clear/exact jargon definitions. Anything but jumbled or messy. Indeed, the aesthetic, if it could even be called that, was more 'technical manual' than anything else - which is great for understanding or looking up what you need, but less than inspiring.

Well, it was a playtest document, I'd expect the final version will be winnowed of redundancy, and or spiced up quite a bit.

Also, redundancy might not be fair. It's not necessary redundant to have two classes both have an option that, say deals 1d12 damage, just because they use the same die. Even if the /flavor/ is quite different, it's not redundant. (Though, if there's no flavor text, as 'bland' implies...)

Well, I don't really read technical manuals for any reason at all, and definitely not for fun (poetry or philosophical treatises are more my jam). Presentation and aesthetics matter: the 5E spell system is not neccessarily less complex than the 4E powers system, and is probably more complicated in certain key ways. However, the way the information is presented in 5E allows for me to keep most of it in my head without referencing anything, through the power of natural language rather than jargon, no matter how consistent or accurate the jargon may be. The power of abstraction, such as Sorcerers and Wizards using the same fireball, also rewards memorization, knowing that it will be applicable in other cases. The smorgasbord of PF2 Feats (Skill Feats, General Feats, Ancestry Feats, Class Feats...dear God, y'all) are not as redundant, but the large array of small possibilities is a bit much.

PF2, similar to 4E, uses a consistent keyword based jargon, and presents the information in a similar technical manual fashion (we now have leaks that confirm this has not changed in the final product). This does not float my boat, but YMMV.

Tony Vargas · Jul 17, 2019

Parmandur said:
Well, I don't really read technical manuals for any reason at all, and definitely not for fun (poetry or philosophical treatises are more my jam). Presentation and aesthetics matter

Yep, understandable. Storyteller sold a /lot/ of books in the 90s, and they were, especially for rulebooks, pretty good cover-to-cover reads, but good luck finding a specific thing you vaguely remembered reading in one of them. Serious point-build systems, Hero, GURPS, could sometimes go the exact opposite, especially in presenting their core mechanics, very dry stuff.

the 5E spell system is not neccessarily less complex than the 4E powers system, and is probably more complicated in certain key ways

Both more complex and presented in a less clear way, yes. But the less clear way is /natural language/, which is more comfortable to read, even if, having read it two or three times, you're still not clear on the intent.

It was a design decision made up-front and shared from the Next playtest on - and generally well-received.

Which just shows to go you, human nature.

Maybe PF2 will manage /both/ form & function, both comfortable/entertaining presentation /and/ clarity/precision, organization & a good index.

PF2, similar to 4E, uses a consistent keyword based jargon, and presents the information in a similar technical manual fashion (we now have leaks that confirm this has not changed in the final product). This does not float my boat, but YMMV.

I prefer my rules in clear, concise, efficient presentation that's easy to find & understand the thing I need at the moment, yeah, sounds good.
I'd like the setting information that makes a good cover-to-cover read in an entirely separate book, thanks.

IMX, though, I need entirely separate /games/ to get both. ;(