Combating My Own Boredom as a Player

[Wolfpack48]

How invested is the GM in combat as a central activity? We've played games where actively finding ways around combat (and getting experience awarded for it) was a lot of fun. I'm wondering if a Call of Cthulhu game might be a nice change of pace.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

IME when players operate as a close-knit team, everyone has fun. With ANY system

While this is true, some systems make it much easier than others. For example, when I ran and AD&D campaign, combat was pretty brief because there's not a ton of opportunity to work together so the teamwork factor was low. Mostly "clear that space; fireball incoming" or "shoot the caster" sort of stuff. The fun of playing AD&D was more in the non-combat side.

Playing and running 3.0 / 3.5 had even less teamwork, as martials and casters were effectively playing separate systems. You caster is deciding whether time stop, a delayed meteor swarm and a summons or two would be better than polymorphing self + familiar into nine-headed hydras, and the fighter is deciding how much power attack to use. For me, it's the worst D&D version for feeling like you are part of a team. Combat took a while and was very much individual-oriented.

4E had some flaws, but it's hard to argue that it didn't hit a high point of tactical team play. Players would set conditions on opponents for team-mates to use; reposition enemies so the mage could burst attack a group (nothing an elemental caster liked more than a fighter with 'Come and Get It'); give them free moves to get to safer or more threatening conditions; mark enemies to make casters safer, create difficult terrain to make a better front-line defense. So many options for teaming up.

I still enjoy playing 4E (rarely) and PF2 (much more often) for this reason. Lots of combat options and fights are very different depending on who is on your team. The 5E I played feels much more akin to AD&D -- you do your thing when your turn comes around, then wait to see if you get hit. Repeat. For those styles of games combat does feel more boring, as the OP suggests.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that my main issue is that the PF2 system isn't interesting enough to me to last a year, covering the first 6 levels of play. The tactical play isn't enough, and probably no system could be.
When we do skill checks, it's just everybody rolling until one of the players gets a high enough roll. It doesn't really matter who our characters are or what they do in the investigation.
Everything feels like autopilot.

Honestly, that sounds like you'd have that with any game with significant mechanical engagement, honestly; if anything PF2e gives you more options there than a lot of games.

I realize from your past comments that you're limited by the desires of other players around you, but I wonder if you might be better off personally with a more narrative oriented game, where the mechanics are only generally (rather than specifically and in detail) connected with the narrative, where you can describe what you're doing in a lot of different ways as long as it stays within the broad resolution of the system (some PbtA games come to mind here).

 

[Thomas Shey]

IME when players operate as a close-knit team, everyone has fun. With ANY system

Eh. Some people just aren't interested in that much engagement with what everyone else is doing. You don't have to like that, but its a reality.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How invested is the GM in combat as a central activity? We've played games where actively finding ways around combat (and getting experience awarded for it) was a lot of fun. I'm wondering if a Call of Cthulhu game might be a nice change of pace.

I think the key if you're going to do that is pick a game system that isn't focused around combat fairly in the first place.

 

[Retreater]

How invested is the GM in combat as a central activity? We've played games where actively finding ways around combat (and getting experience awarded for it) was a lot of fun. I'm wondering if a Call of Cthulhu game might be a nice change of pace.

We had a 2-week break from PF2 to play Call of Cthulhu a couple months ago. I really enjoyed it.

 

[The Soloist]

We had a 2-week break from PF2 to play Call of Cthulhu a couple months ago. I really enjoyed it.

Good for you. We alternate GM duty after 3-6 sessions. No long-term campaigns. Just one or two connected adventures, then we switch to another GM that proposes a different RPG. Best group and the best way to operate I had in 45 years.

 

[CleverNickName]

Best group and the best way to operate I had in 45 years.

I love it when that happens...when the group and the game and the schedules all just "click."

 

[payn]

I love it when that happens...when the group and the game and the schedules all just "click."

Aint that the truth. Im sure folks are tired of hearing me reminisce about my PF1 group from '09 until covid...

 

[The Firebird]

I think that my main issue is that the PF2 system isn't interesting enough to me to last a year, covering the first 6 levels of play. The tactical play isn't enough, and probably no system could be.
When we do skill checks, it's just everybody rolling until one of the players gets a high enough roll. It doesn't really matter who our characters are or what they do in the investigation.
Everything feels like autopilot.

I agree, I had this feeling a lot with crunchy systems. There just isn't enough variety. It gets worse if you're playing with folks who take a while to make up their mind. I played a VTT Lancer game once. I got about one turn in every hour. It took a minute or two to decide what I was going to do next round, then...waiting.

The best solution is to find a different group with players who all really want that level of crunch and can play a quick game with it, or to find a different system. There are a lot of different directions: OSR if you want to stick with D&D, more narrative systems like Blades in the Dark or PbtA if you want something more narrative. Either of those will play faster and give you more agency as a player.