Pathfinder 2E Embedding Level Into The Narrative

[Campbell]

It's not really about choosing wisely. A goblin is still a very credible fit to a 5th level fighter in Fifth Edition. It has a pretty decent chance to hit you (about the same as when you were first level) and a decent damage roll will take a decent chunk of your health. It has little chance of beating you on its own, but three of those little suckers could give you a very bad day if things go south. A typical fighter might have about 44 hit points. It is very possible if the fighter has some poor rolls or does not have initiative that those little buggers could shave off like 20 off that. That does not feel like scenery to me.

More importantly you have a significant chance of missing and they have a significant chance of hitting. This has barely shifting from first level. Their hits still very much do meaningful damage. The feel of this in play is very different. I am not saying it is like wrong. It is just different and there are good reasons to prefer either approach.

So goblin warriors are not intended to be all that individually threatening even at first level in Pathfinder 2. They are dangerous, but significantly weaker than a first level character. They are Creature -1. If things go south they can inflict significant damage (particularly on a hit), but 4 goblins are a moderate encounter for a party of four. A fighter already hits one on a roll of 7. That 5th level fighter has 7 levels on this suckers in a 20 level game. To me that difference should feel huge.

At the end of the day I do not think there is a meaningful way to get the best of both worlds. In game design you have to set priorities and deal with meaningful trade offs. The two games are about very different sorts of fiction and the mechanics reflect that in a meaningful way. There is nothing wrong with preferring one over the other.

I am not trying to make an argument here. I just wanted to talk about some features of a game I like that I thought were cool.

 

[pemerton]

I would not describe the variation between monsters as refinements. Many monsters vary dramatically from the expected baseline in ways that capture how the monster should feel.

<snip>

A lot of monsters break the rules. The baseline is the starting point, but alterations are made against the baseline to achieve ludo narrative harmony.

I feel like the monster design process is definitely based on the feel and narrative role of the monster.

<snip>

That being said it is very much based on the final result. There is no process for defining the monster's stats, skills, and abilities. When designing a monster you decide how tough you want it to be based on existing bench marks and make adjustments to get the right feel, sometimes some pretty drastic ones. There are no rules for creature types, hit dice, ability score generation or the like. You just give the monster the things you think it needs.

This all reminds me quite a bit of 4e D&D, although from what you're saying the variations at a given level might be more extreme than in 4e.

In 4e to get rough parity between a PC and a creature you need an elite of the PC's level. From what you're saying a PF "standard" is thus the analogue of a 4e elite.

Can you say a little more about what distinguishes PF gameplay (combat or otherwise) from 4e gameplay?

Quite simply, the rules within the book, the raw mechanics, are a tactical math game that facilitates telling stories on top.

<snip>

it is also reasonable for fans to expect that the core math will be secondary to the narrative ideas.

<snip>

the lack of traction between the mechanics and the story is strongly embodied in what you posted.

I don't really follow these claims.

@Campbell is taking it for granted that the game will be resolved by reference to the rules - and primarily the mechanics and the maths. The "story" is thus the outcome of that resolution process. The maths is designed to support and generate those narrative ideas. This is what Campbell meant when he said that it is very much based on the final result. And I think this overall design orientation is what he is referring to as "ludo-narrative harmony".

 

[BryonD]

That 5th level fighter has 7 levels on this suckers in a 20 level game. To me that difference should feel huge.

-1 to 20 is 22 levels. Just saying.....

Anyway, 5th level fighters chew through stock goblins in PF1E and pretty much any version of D&D. How many goblins become a threat may slide from edition to edition, but the concept is pretty much already there. So that has not be changed, much less improved.

But (again, as you yourself point out in the words that you choose) the key point for 2E is "has seven levels on this suckers". The key is NOT "is a badass swordsman", is NOT "can cast fireball", is NOT "is a wiry nimble rogue with cool tricks". The key is "has seven levels" PERIOD.

In 1E I could swing a scenario where the wizard is stranded with no gear, no spellbook and suddenly that guy with "seven levels" is running looking for a solution to this new challenge. But in 2E he will have that seven levels. And that is all we need to know.

It doesn't create a narrative scenario and then try to get the scenario right. It puts the math on tight brackets and locks the game down and then simply presumes that the players will only tell stories which comply with the presumed default.

 

[Campbell]

There is meaningful progression outside of levels. Each class has a set of proficiency progressions that absolutely impact play. The Fighter class is the only class who becomes Legendary with weapons. Ability Scores progress. You get magic weapons and armor. You get skill increases that determine what you are good at and how good you are it. You gain class feats and skill feats that allow you to do things you could not do before. Level is a starting point, but there is a wealth of diversity and variation from it.

Level absolutely has narrative significance. It is a measure of your power and place in the world. Being a 5th level Fighter should mean something. That is not all your character is. It's part of it though.

Numbers do not create narrative. Human beings sitting around a table create narrative. The numbers are there to help us conceptualize the fiction, resolve narrative uncertainty at the table, and help us to feel what our characters are feeling. The value of any game can only meaningfully be felt at the table. The process of how those numbers are built does not matter to me. What matters is if my fighter feels like it should in play. Does it feel different than the Barbarian? Does it feel different than the wizard? Does it feel different than a fighter who picks different feats and skills? How does fighting this monster feel?

I can tell you that so far in play I feel like I am playing my character more than I ever did under First Edition. One of the things they did when they designed this game that I really appreciate is that they named everything. Fighters are expert in all weapons feels a lot better than a cascade of numbers to me. Feats that require master proficiency in a skill feel a lot better than 10 ranks. Skill increases feel better than skill points. Class feats that provide new actions feel like learning techniques. Using them in play feels more like choices my character would make.

 

[5ekyu]

It's not really about choosing wisely. A goblin is still a very credible fit to a 5th level fighter in Fifth Edition. It has a pretty decent chance to hit you (about the same as when you were first level) and a decent damage roll will take a decent chunk of your health. It has little chance of beating you on its own, but three of those little suckers could give you a very bad day if things go south. A typical fighter might have about 44 hit points. It is very possible if the fighter has some poor rolls or does not have initiative that those little buggers could shave off like 20 off that. That does not feel like scenery to me.

More importantly you have a significant chance of missing and they have a significant chance of hitting. This has barely shifting from first level. Their hits still very much do meaningful damage. The feel of this in play is very different. I am not saying it is like wrong. It is just different and there are good reasons to prefer either approach.

So goblin warriors are not intended to be all that individually threatening even at first level in Pathfinder 2. They are dangerous, but significantly weaker than a first level character. They are Creature -1. If things go south they can inflict significant damage (particularly on a hit), but 4 goblins are a moderate encounter for a party of four. A fighter already hits one on a roll of 7. That 5th level fighter has 7 levels on this suckers in a 20 level game. To me that difference should feel huge.

At the end of the day I do not think there is a meaningful way to get the best of both worlds. In game design you have to set priorities and deal with meaningful trade offs. The two games are about very different sorts of fiction and the mechanics reflect that in a meaningful way. There is nothing wrong with preferring one over the other.

I am not trying to make an argument here. I just wanted to talk about some features of a game I like that I thought were cool.

Again, whichever flavor of ice cream you like is great, for you. That's why I try to stay away from feelings to stick with outcomes.

As in... against a group of 5th level charscters without setting to make it go otherwise, goblins wont be a threat. The key to tier-2 is much greater ability to handle multitudes of lesser mooks. In no small part, that works because 5e is built to be a team game.

Now, once you add in setup specific shifts - solo PC, three on one, with initiative and poor solo PC rolls - now you move into that territory 5e CR says you should count those goblins. Even then, its likely still a win unless the 5th warrior makes really bad choices.

That is a huge difference from say 1st level, where there was actual risk.

The feeling of growth is there.

If instead at 5th with all those situational advantages added in its still a squash lopsided hardly noticed - well, frankly, I can imagine quite a few who would not see that as a sign of rewarding growth or fun because pretty much it doesn't matter what you do.

BAMF doesnt come from outrunning house plants,

But then, that is subjective.

But it does seem that in thus regard there might be a major difference with PF2 enabling more non-team solo-orirnted blowout style play.

 

[Campbell]

Playing or running any game is subjective aesthetic experience. We are actively creating a shared narrative that we experience as we create it. We do not experience the completed tale at that table. How we do so matters. How it feels at the table is incredibly important. It colors the decisions we make and informs how we experience the narrative. At the end of the day most fantasy roleplaying games are built to tell broadly similar types of stories. What differs is that subjective experience of play, how we experience these stories.

There really is not an objective way to evaluate a roleplaying game. That does not mean we cannot discuss and evaluate the subjective experience of play. It just means we should look at it more in the way we might evaluate a television show. We know different people are looking for different experiences so we can say this game provides this sort of experience, but that isn't what I am looking for. We can say how we feel when we play the game and analyze why the mechanics might lead to that experience. We can look at who the potential audience might be. We might point out mechanics that do not jive with the general experience of the game.

The issue with only looking at the outcome is that the outcome is not how we experience it. It's not how we experience a television show or a movie and those things are not as personal, interactive, and collaborative as a roleplaying game. We experience it in motion and should evaluate in motion. It's difficult to do so, but I think it is worthwhile.

Role playing games are exactly like ice cream flavors. It's not that there are usually good games and bad games. It's that some games are better suited to certain purposes and tastes.

From what I gather @BryonD wants a game that is fun to think about away from the table where you design things based on what they are. Pathfinder Second Edition is not really that sort of game. It is a game designed based on how things should feel at the table. When designing a fighter or a gnome or the hell knight armiger archetype the designers started with the play experience in mind. How is this supposed to feel? What kinds of decisions will players make? What themes should reflect? Does this make a player feel like a hell knight in training?

 

[5ekyu]

Ok then.

Playing or running any game is subjective aesthetic experience. We are actively creating a shared narrative that we experience as we create it. We do not experience the completed tale at that table. How we do so matters. How it feels at the table is incredibly important. It colors the decisions we make and informs how we experience the narrative. At the end of the day most fantasy roleplaying games are built to tell broadly similar types of stories. What differs is that subjective experience of play, how we experience these stories.

There really is not an objective way to evaluate a roleplaying game. That does not mean we cannot discuss and evaluate the subjective experience of play. It just means we should look at it more in the way we might evaluate a television show. We know different people are looking for different experiences so we can say this game provides this sort of experience, but that isn't what I am looking for. We can say how we feel when we play the game and analyze why the mechanics might lead to that experience. We can look at who the potential audience might be. We might point out mechanics that do not jive with the general experience of the game.

The issue with only looking at the outcome is that the outcome is not how we experience it. It's not how we experience a television show or a movie and those things are not as personal, interactive, and collaborative as a roleplaying game. We experience it in motion and should evaluate in motion. It's difficult to do so, but I think it is worthwhile.

Role playing games are exactly like ice cream flavors. It's not that there are usually good games and bad games. It's that some games are better suited to certain purposes and tastes.

From what I gather @BryonD wants a game that is fun to think about away from the table where you design things based on what they are. Pathfinder Second Edition is not really that sort of game. It is a game designed based on how things should feel at the table. When designing a fighter or a gnome or the hell knight armiger archetype the designers started with the play experience in mind. How is this supposed to feel? What kinds of decisions will players make? What themes should reflect? Does this make a player feel like a hell knight in training?

 

[Campbell]

@pemerton

The design technology is pretty similar, but the play experience is vastly different. The narrative of combat is almost the opposite of Fourth Edition. Stylistically it reminds me more of Howard's Conan or the anime "Berserk!". In film school they covered cinematic realism where you really focus in on mundane details in a hyper stylized way. The game focuses in on things like drawing your weapon, shifting hands, raising your shield all with specific costs in the action economy.

Combat is fast and furious. A monster of your level with similar themes will have pretty similar numbers. So a humanoid warrior will have numbers that are pretty close to a fighter and an enemy spell caster will look a lot like a wizard. One of the design goals was the ability to use NPCs built like PCs and have the encounter building guidelines work. Both monsters and player characters do fairly high damage compared to their hit points. Critical hits do double damage. In play this means combat feels like you are trying to murder each other as quickly and efficiently as possible. These themes are reinforced by things like a fighter feat that grants bonus damage for attacking someone who is restrained or otherwise compromised or another one where you attack and grab someone at the same time. Owlbears can disembowel characters. Both monsters and player characters can drop quick. It's rare to see a fight where a player character does not go down. In the last session we played my Barbarian dropped 3 times in 4 fights, including twice in the final encounter against this really nasty flesh weaver.

The game uses a death save mechanic, but it is a bit harsher than other iterations. It's a flat check (just a d20 roll) with a DC equal to 10 + Dying value. You start at Dying 1 if a regular hit brought you down. You start at Dying 2 if a critical hit brought you down. Critical Success on the check reduces this value by 2. Success reduces it by 1. Failure raises it by 1. Critical Failure raises it by 2. At Dying 4 you die. Healing will bring you back in the fight, but every time you go from Dying to ready to fight you increase your Wounded value. When you go down you add your Wounded Value to your Dying value. You can use a Hero Point to clear these. Going down multiple times in the same fight is scary.

This is not a heroic rally game. It's a scrap for every advantage to kill the monsters now game.

Outside of combat the game is basically a mix of B/X and Apocalypse World. There are a set of defined activities with different results based degree of success that usually take about 10 minutes and have explicit results. It's pretty much like B/X exploration turns. This can be played a bit fast and loose if need be. Many things like Searching, Avoid Notice, and Recall Knowledge use secret checks made behind the GM screen to preserve a fog of war although the text mentions you can choose to roll these in the open. It suggests talking to the players about it.

There's a pretty big focus on exploration, time management, combat recovery, and other operational details like encumbrance. It is definitely designed with dungeon crawling in mind. However, like Apocalypse World it uses concentric design.

Monster and class design are largely based on themes. There are no roles for classes or monsters. Individual classes can be built to fit a variety of roles or combinations there of. There are basically three types of resource scheduling : daily spell slots, focus spells, and at will abilities. Focus spells are a combination daily/encounter resource. You can gain a pool of up to 3 focus points, but can generally only regain one after an encounter. They are also explicitly supernatural. Spell casters get spell slots, at will cantrips, and focus spells. Champions and some monks gain focus spells. All other martial classes are basically at will.

Both combat and non-combat have been balanced through careful curation rather than resource scheduling. There is a defined niche for each skill and defined abilities for the martial classes. In their area of focus they are generally untouchable. Basically they made at will awesome. Spell casters tend to different things rather than do the things martial characters do better. There has also been curation of the spell lists so they are specialized and spells are a lot less automatic. There is more uncertainty all around.

So far everything feels really grounded in the fiction. The characters all have unique abilities that fit the themes of their classes. My barbarian feels angry to play. The ranger feels like a hunter. The champion feels like a divinely inspired warrior.

 

[pemerton]

@Campbell - thanks for the reply. I don't have much of a grasp on what is distinctive about PF1, but what you describe sounds much more focused and tight in design than 3E D&D. (Which is what dominates my mental image of PF1.)

It sounds like an interesting system, although maybe not for me!

 

[dave2008]

In the last session we played my Barbarian dropped 3 times in 4 fights, including twice in the final encounter against this really nasty flesh weaver.

This concerns me from a player and DM perspective. If this is true:
1) As a DM I don't like the idea that I can drop a character 3 times in 4 combats and they aren't dead.
2) As a player, I don't want to be dropped 3 times in 4 combats!

I imagine there are methods to play it differently, but it seems the play style you like (and what PF2e gives) is not what I am looking for. That being said, I'm still going to give it a go.