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

[Thomas Shey]

I generally agree. There is a level of teamwork that's fairly casual - the rogue gets sneak attack if attacking someone his teammate is attacking so the teammate wades into the fight, everyone benefits on attacks if the monk stuns the target, cleric hits his combat teammates up with bless, the sorcerer hastes the fighter, etc. D&D has always had some of those elements and parties can thrive on them. And then there's eking out every +1 because the target is elite or a level/CR up on us or nudging the target 1 or 2 squares to the left so someone can exploit it.
I'm OK with the former. I find the latter tedious. So, I'm not about to pick up PF2 again any time soon.

Just a note: PF2e is not nearly down the rabbit-hole to that degree. In most cases its a case of taking advantage of a situation to do more damage, impose a condition, or perhaps rob an opponent of an action.

 

[aramis erak]

Can you clarify what LFQW is an acronym for? (I just think I missed the original post where that was spelled out: or I forgot in my old age )

Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard.
The idea that the fighter's combat power is a linear function, while the wizard's is an exponential growth.

Balance is a myth. A buzzword.

Disagree. There are several different kinds of balance...
Equally capable of damage on target.
Equal number of options to take in combat.
Equal duration against stadard foe.
Equal character generation points.
Equally important to story

The DM is going to do what they are going to do.
Make your PC how you want, any DM worth their salt will adjust.

I get so sick and tired of the one-true-way-ism...

If the GM has a specific tone in mind, it's fine to restrict character gen options.

If the group has decided they want a set group of types (EG: 2 Ftr/Barb, 1 Wiz, 1 Thief, 1 Cleric) and one of the players insists upon using the optional Timelord class (Dragon #65), I would have no compunction at all showing them the door.

Either way falls under AD&D Rule 0.

 

[KYRON45]

I get so sick and tired of the one-true-way-ism...

The fact that every PC is different and every DM is different makes this the opposite of a truism.
I always advocate for everyone to play the game the way they like.
Your opinion is different than mine and I'm ok.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it's true that PF2 works best when players approach it with "roles", specialisation, synergy and cooperation in mind. So what? Why would that make it a bad game? Even suppose most actual and potential RPGers aren't that keen on that sort of approach to play, so what? People are allowed to design and publish RPGs that not everyone is enthusiastic about.

I'm still not sold that most RPGs don't have roles.

RPGs that are about "problem-solving", based around "beating" a GM's scenario, will tend to have roles of some sort - especially where the scenarios are built around a standard structure or framework. Dungeons, mysteries/investigations, special ops-y stuff, etc all fit into this category, to a greater or less degree.

But not all RPGs are designed for this sort of play. And at least one that is - Agon 2e - doesn't rely on roles.

 

[Thomas Shey]

RPGs that are about "problem-solving", based around "beating" a GM's scenario, will tend to have roles of some sort - especially where the scenarios are built around a standard structure or framework. Dungeons, mysteries/investigations, special ops-y stuff, etc all fit into this category, to a greater or less degree.

But not all RPGs are designed for this sort of play. And at least one that is - Agon 2e - doesn't rely on roles.

Note I did not say "all". I said "most". That was not an accident of phrasing; best evidence I have its correct (and I'm not even including D&D proper in that estimate).