Hot take: get rid of the "balanced party" paradigm

[Lanefan]

Well, the first is an example of what I was talking about, and of course the pilot and gunner are both useful; I was using it as an example of second gunner not being useful on a ship with one gun.

Or each time there's a reason to be using the gun you just assume they're taking it in shifts and roll to see who happens to be on the gun at that moment. Ditto with piloting - the same person isn't going to be at the helm 24 hours a day thus having two or even three pilots on board* might be a useful thing.

* - which is how we do it in our D&D game where our adventuring company has its own zeppelin-like airship: not everyone in the company knows how to fly it so when we're on a journey in it specific people take shifts as pilot, and if-when piloting suddenly becomes relevant (e.g. we're subjected to aerial attack) we just roll to see who's at the helm right now.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't say they wouldn't have a ship. I said they couldn't buy one. Scouts, lab ships, merchant ships and I think one I'm forgetting were potential rewards for mustering quite early.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or each time there's a reason to be using the gun you just assume they're taking it in shifts and roll to see who happens to be on the gun at that moment. Ditto with piloting - the same person isn't going to be at the helm 24 hours a day thus having two or even three pilots on board* might be a useful thing.

Its pretty unlikely during a combat anyone will be in their bunk, however, and original Trav rounds were 15 seconds a shot. Surprise attacks in space are difficult, and require special circumstances.

 

[dragoner]

Trav is kinda open to interpretation, we used to do the "scout ship" was an 800ton merc frigate, and bop around unexplored space, exploring random worlds. I have replicated it in Makara's Sea, and left it open so as to be replayable. It can even be played solo.

 

[Lanefan]

Its pretty unlikely during a combat anyone will be in their bunk, however, and original Trav rounds were 15 seconds a shot. Surprise attacks in space are difficult, and require special circumstances.

I was referring to the point at which something unexpected happens, e.g. if a ship appears out of hyperspace right next to them. If they have time to see the combat (or its potential) coming then they can sort out between themselves who gets the gun this time, who's on the helm, who's doing comms, and who has to be the lookout.

It'd be the same for sea-sailing ships - if you can see a hostile ship coming from a distance then you've got loads of time to get people awake and alert and where they want/need to be, but if you're caught off guard by a whale (or submarine!) surfacing alongside you then you're stuck with whoever happens to be wherever at the moment, including that some might be asleep.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was referring to the point at which something unexpected happens, e.g. if a ship appears out of hyperspace right next to them.

If that happens once in a campaign its incredibly unlikely, at least in Traveler. If it happens twice, the GM has decided he like surprise attacks in a way the setting assumptions don't.

If they have time to see the combat (or its potential) coming then they can sort out between themselves who gets the gun this time, who's on the helm, who's doing comms, and who has to be the lookout.

And often, that's a problem. That's why heavy redundancy is usually contraindicated.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm not sure there's that many games where there isn't some function to split those sort things up; they may be split up differently or some specific ones not exist, but the only cases where I can see that not being true are ones where there's little group activity and purpose at all, and that's pretty clearly a minority of RPGs; even in the more indie end of things its not that common.

I was thinking of some video games that tried it in an extreme way, Guild Wars 2 has a very interesting history of being kind of rudderless when they unmoored themselves from the Tank-DpS-Healer paradigm.

That said, this sort of thing is also one big reason I like PF2e more than 5e, 5e rewards roles less in optimized play and generally require less cooperation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was thinking of some video games that tried it in an extreme way, Guild Wars 2 has a very interesting history of being kind of rudderless when they unmoored themselves from the Tank-DpS-Healer paradigm.

That said, this sort of thing is also one big reason I like PF2e more than 5e, 5e rewards roles less in optimized play and generally require less cooperation.

Two things:

1. Even with those, that's about combat roles. There are a lot of non-combat roles that I suspect even 5e doesn't provide the ability for every character to cover.

2. And of course its demand for teamwork is something some people actively dislike in PF2e. Some groups are simply not that cohesive.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Two things:

1. Even with those, that's about combat roles. There are a lot of non-combat roles that I suspect even 5e doesn't provide the ability for every character to cover.

2. And of course its demand for teamwork is something some people actively dislike in PF2e. Some groups are simply not that cohesive.

I was responding primarily to OP, who gave the example of healing, which is a combat oriented role, I really like being able to play a healer and having the game back that up as a necessary strategy as opposed to a waste of time.

While some people dislike the demand for teamwork in pf2e, I wouldn't really see it as obligatory to prioritize them over people who like roles, I also think that the are/aren't distinction is kind of problematic here-- it's something you choose to do, not something you are or aren't.

There's no group on the planet that can't have a conversation about coverage, and admittedly, if you as a table actively don't want to, it's much more trivial to accommodate that than it would be to accommodate the reverse in a game that functionally doesn't have roles, because building in the need for roles is much harder than eliminating it.

 

[payn]

I was responding primarily to OP, who gave the example of healing, which is a combat oriented role, I really like being able to play a healer and having the game back that up as a necessary strategy as opposed to a waste of time.

While some people dislike the demand for teamwork in pf2e, I wouldn't really see it as obligatory to prioritize them over people who like to create a role, I also think that the are/aren't distinction is kind of problematic here-- it's something you choose to do, not something you are or aren't.

There's no group on the planet that can't have a conversation about coverage, and admittedly, if you as a table actively don't want to, it's much more trivial to accommodate that than it would be to accommodate the reverse in a game that functionally doesn't have roles, because building in the need for roles is much harder than eliminating it.

I really dont believe this. I think there are far more casual players that really dont get/desire the tactical role work as a team aspect. I mean, above the simplest aspects of do more damage to the enemies than they can do to the party. Its up to the players how much they want to optimize to do that. D&D traditionally has been dial up, instead of dial down. It drove a lot of folks from 4E and they smell it all over PF2 making them no-gos.