Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Campbell]

I actually consider Pathfinder 2e pretty progressive as far as most mainstream role playing game texts is considered. There is general sense for the most part that the rules should be followed and a healthy respect for following the fiction. No where in the text does it suggest overriding the rules or changing the fiction for the stake of the story. The advice for setting DCs is entirely from the context of the fiction. It also returns time and time again to the idea that the game belongs to the whole group. There are allowances for GM judgement calls, but the examples are always as an advocate for the fiction. I'm a big believer in GM judgement applied in a disciplined way. Although there are continued calls to "the story" the text clarifies that the story is about the player characters and the choices they make. It also makes overtures to several indie techniques like lines and veils, setting stakes, and failing forward. There is also no mention whatsoever about fudging dice rolls.

It also generally does a good job of clarifying that it's talking about how to play Pathfinder, not role playing games in general. There's really only one section I find problematic. Here it is:

What Is a Roleplaying Game?


A roleplaying game is an interactive story where one player, the Game Master (GM), sets the scene and presents challenges, while other players take the roles of player characters (PCs) and attempt to overcome those challenges. Danger comes in the form of monsters, devious traps, and the machinations of adversarial agents, but Pathfinder also provides political schemes, puzzles, interpersonal drama, and much, much more.

The game is typically played in a group of four to seven players, with one of those players serving as the group’s Game Master. The GM prepares, presents, and presides over the game’s world and story, posing challenges and playing adversaries, allies, and bystanders alike. As each scene leads into the next, each player contributes to the story, responding to situations according to the personality and abilities of their character.

Dice rolls, combined with preassigned statistics, add an element of chance and determine whether characters succeed or fail at actions they attempt.

I have no objections to this as a description of playing Pathfinder. In fact it sounds like a game I could be interested in playing or running. This is not a knock on Pathfinder as a game. Where it falls down is as a description of all roleplaying games. As an example Monsterhearts and Masks are definitively not concerned with overcoming challenges. Like you advocate for your character and we play to find out what happens, but your goal as a player is to play with integrity and passion. Overcoming gamist challenges and skilled play is not really the objective.

This can be seen clearly in their experience systems. In Masks you mark potential for failing a roll, opening up to a team mate, for exposing a weakness or vulnerability, and for going along when provoked by a team mate. There are other conditions, but you get the idea. In Pathfinder you get experience for defeating monsters, winning social conflicts, and achieving objectives. I was actually impressed with all the non combat awards, but fundamentally you got rewarded for winning. That's good. Pathfinder is a game about overcoming challenges, but not all roleplaying games are.

Basically what I'm saying is that you don't really need to define what a roleplaying game is. You can just define what your game is. I think it's actively helpful to do so because you can clarify exactly how your game is played with less carryover baggage. This is what Masks does. It's actually what Pathfinder does for the most part - just not in that one section, but is far as mainstream texts go it's pretty good in this regard. Far better than most.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - a thoughtful post about PF2. I'll suggest, at least half-seriously, that you write a brief review! I think your take will shed some interesting light that many other reviews will not.

I think the idea of overcoming challenges is rather complex, or at least multi-faceted, in the RPG context. In what I suspect might turn into a long-ish post, I'll try and work through four examples I know well from experience.

4e D&D clearly involves the PCs confronting challenges; and, as players, one central goal is to overcome them. It says so right on the tin: the world needs heroes. And heroes overcome challenges and thereby make things better in the world. It's the GM's job to frame the challenges. At least as I have played 4e the players have quite a role to play in establishing the fictional context and components for the GM in framing those challenges, by the way they build their PCs and thereby hook them into the cosmological conflicts of the setting. In the actual play, it's the trying to overcome that takes precedence - in combat working through your character's mechanical possibilities, in combat and moreso in non-combat looking for ways to engage and leverage the fiction. You can get a lot of fun game in before you find out whether or not you actually succeeded in overcoming; and you get XP for trying (in skill challenges, and for the foes you bested in a combat even if you lost it overall) and not just for succeeding. This is a significant contrast with AD&D.

The maths of 4e tend to make PC success the norm. I therefore think it's not strongly gamist in the classic D&D sense. There is a tactical optimisation element in combat; but at least as I've experienced it a lot of the pleasure is in finding out how the victory transpires, what this reveals about the characters, what the costs are, as well as a lot of fun fantasy colour.

Burning Wheel involves the PCs confronting challenges or obstacles, because they are fighting for what they believe. The game incentivises trying through a combination of its fate point award rules (which are triggered by playing to your character's goals/personality rather than by winning) and its advancement rules (which require taking on impossible obstacles as well as possible one) and its approach to failure (which is one of the earlier articulations of "fail forward" ie failure is by reference to intention, not task, and so propels the story forward by setting up new obstacles).

The maths of BW make failure commonplace. For this reason, among others, it's very gritty compared to 4e. There is undoubtedly a lot of scope in BW for skilled play - the player in my group who plays a super-tactical sorcerer in 4e is, in BW, the best at scripting both for Duel of Wits and Fight! (BW's social and melee resolution frameworks) and is very good at optimising his chekcs to get PC advancement without too much PC setback. But at least for me both as GM and player what I enjoy is the story and character dimension. I find at a system that it really lets the character come to life in play.

Prince Valiant is at its heart about playing knights. Mostly when we play Prince Valiant in our group its 3 players, all knights (one started as a squire but got knighted in play). There is another member of the group who occasionally joins us for Prince Valiant and plays a wandering entertainer, but the action is still oriented around knightly deeds with the entertainer a companion of theirs. There are undoubtedly challenges in the sense of jousts to be fought, maidens to be rescued, boars to be hunted, etc but the emphasis of play is on participating in these challenges in a knightly fashion, not winning them. The PCs in my game have probably lost as many jousts as they've fought but that hasn't stopped them advancing (a lot of XP - called Fame in the system - are earned for participation and others are eanred for performing valiant or noteworthy deeds; that doesn't requre winning).

There is really no gamist aspect to Prince Valiant. It is mechanically very simple and is all about making choices for your PC and finding out what happens. Even though failure is quite common it is not at all gritty because the consequences of failure tend not to be severe either in the fiction or the system, and you don't fail to be a good knight just because you lost a joust or two!

Finally Classic Traveller. This doesn't really involve challenges at all. The PCs aren't heroes, aren't knights, and aren't fighting for what they believe. As we play it, it's about taking on missions from patrons who - given the PCs' histories and skill-sets - have a reason to seek them out. It's also about accounting and buying and selling so as to try and meet the upkeep costs on your spaceship. It can get gritty, but not with the same emotional intensity as Burning Wheel. Of course there are obstacles in the way of the PCs getting what they want - that's pretty much the mininum for any sort of story - but they aren't what play is about. And there's little room for skilled play in Traveller of the sort that figures in BW and 4e, simply because of how the mechanics work - you're just declaring actions and hoping to roll well while adding a bonus that you have no control over (PC gen is largely random and PC growth during play is close to nil).

When I look at the PF2 text Campbell quoted - A roleplaying game is an interactive story where one player, the Game Master (GM), sets the scene and presents challenges, while other players take the roles of player characters (PCs) and attempt to overcome those challenges. Danger comes in the form of monsters, devious traps, and the machinations of adversarial agents, but Pathfinder also provides political schemes, puzzles, interpersonal drama, and much, much more - that seems to me to actually describe Prince Valiant rather well, and also 4e D&D, even though those two systems produce very different play experiences. From this I infer that while no doubt true of PF2 it doesn't take us very far in understanding what the PF2 play experience will be. I'd start with how common is loss?, and what are the consequences for loss? as questions whose answers can vary wildly across RPGs and the answers to which will help tell us a bit more about how PF2 plays.

 

[GrahamWills]

>Overall, when I run a game, I require all my players to prioritize making the game fun for everyone above anyone else. A play style that says "if my character would do that I will do it even if it makes the game less fun for other people" would be counter to the social contract I expect.

This is presupposing a story plot or antagonist that the players are expected and required to team up to defeat. Yes, in that style of play, this can be a problem because this style emphasizes team over individual. But, if there is no prepared story and the game follows the action, then the paladin refusing doesn't derail the game, the game is now about what happens next.

Are you responding to a different post by mistake? I am talking about respecting other players and you seem to be responding about fully pre-plotted stories. There's no question about de-railing anything; you're dragging plot in to a conversation that it wasn't part of.

For the canonical paladin example, the problem is that very often no-one except the paladin player want the game to be about what happens next. It's a selfish move by the player that says "and now the game is about me, my character's desires and his inner self". The point is that you are changing the game in a way that prioritizes what you think is fun at the expense of everyone else. Its why players who say "that's what my character would do" vie with rules-lawyers as the most disliked form of player a GM has to handle. I'd honestly prefer to run for someone who cheats occasionally rather than someone who is not willing to have their character do something "out of character" to make the game fun for all.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, to be fair, it's an introduction to a F20 game. I know it's frustrating that it seems many F20 players aren't even aware of other styles of play, but I'm not sure that a one page introduction to PF2 is the place to get into all the rpging techniques out there. The truth is that the majority of players are going to be happy sticking to a more traditional style. I feel players that want more will hopefully look around and find Story Now, diceless games, Burning Wheel philosophies, etc. It's not really in Paizo's best interest to encourage players away from typical F20 play. You can do your style of putting pressure on the character in F20, but it's going to be a more awkward fit?

Stupid question: what does 'F20' mean here?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are you responding to a different post by mistake? I am talking about respecting other players and you seem to be responding about fully pre-plotted stories. There's no question about de-railing anything; you're dragging plot in to a conversation that it wasn't part of.

For the canonical paladin example, the problem is that very often no-one except the paladin player want the game to be about what happens next. It's a selfish move by the player that says "and now the game is about me, my character's desires and his inner self". The point is that you are changing the game in a way that prioritizes what you think is fun at the expense of everyone else. Its why players who say "that's what my character would do" vie with rules-lawyers as the most disliked form of player a GM has to handle. I'd honestly prefer to run for someone who cheats occasionally rather than someone who is not willing to have their character do something "out of character" to make the game fun for all.

Yes, the reply was intentional. If you are playing a game where there is a) no expectation of what comes next except that it will follow current play and b) paladin's recalcitrance drives the story somewhere in an unappreciated direction, your problem is far more fundamental than playstyle -- you have a fundamental mismatch of what game everyone is playing and need to address that outsude of play. I assumed you weren't talking about this and so addressed a difference in a), as that will cause a similar problem.

If you intended to discuss how mismatched expectations will cause bad play, okay, but that's true of any style so it's not a valid criticism.

 

[Arilyn]

Stupid question: what does 'F20' mean here?

Not a stupid question. It's a term I picked up from Robin Laws' and Ken Hites' podcast. Refers to fantasy games coming off D&D which use d20. It's a good term that I latched on to, and have been using without thinking that it's probably not that wide spread.

Look at me using jargon. Usually I'm the one that's confused.So proud.

 

[Campbell]

Are you responding to a different post by mistake? I am talking about respecting other players and you seem to be responding about fully pre-plotted stories. There's no question about de-railing anything; you're dragging plot in to a conversation that it wasn't part of.

For the canonical paladin example, the problem is that very often no-one except the paladin player want the game to be about what happens next. It's a selfish move by the player that says "and now the game is about me, my character's desires and his inner self". The point is that you are changing the game in a way that prioritizes what you think is fun at the expense of everyone else. Its why players who say "that's what my character would do" vie with rules-lawyers as the most disliked form of player a GM has to handle. I'd honestly prefer to run for someone who cheats occasionally rather than someone who is not willing to have their character do something "out of character" to make the game fun for all.

From the start I have approached this discussion with the assumption of an overwhelming unity of purpose. The central conceit is that this is what we have all agreed to do. We have created a powerful set of expectations. This is the fun the group wants to have. If that is not the case we need to discuss if this is the game we want to play. Maybe we'll play something else. Maybe we'll go our separate ways and find games that suit us. Playing Passionately is something to do together. It really does not meaningfully work if we do not have strong collaborative partnerships and a shared commitment. That's why being fans of each others characters is so important because to go where we need to go we need to know we will not abandon each other. Otherwise it's not fun.

In general I'm done with games where there is no unity of purpose. Whatever the aims of play I want us to embrace them wholeheartedly. Like if we're after gamist play including a strong focus on skilled play of the fiction let's do that. We can work together and celebrate each others triumphs and talk about them later. It's not my bag, but if we're going to be story advocates let's do that hard too. Let's play off each other and create grand arcs. If it's about the GM's story than let's play into it. Again not my bag, but the important part is let's have clear expectations and enjoy one another's play. I just have to know what we're all about. I've been in games where everyone is trying to have their own individual fun and nobody pays attention when other people are contributing. It sucks. It sucks so much harder than playing a game that is not ideal for me. I need dance partners.

Look that paladin's player may be trying to Play Passionately on his own and that is totally not appropriate if clear expectations have been set to the contrary, but the same is true of a Monsterhearts player or GM who tries to take control of the story while the rest of us are committed to playing to find out. Both are clear violations of the social contract. Here's the thing: the impulse behind both isn't like wrong or selfish in isolation. The selfish part is trying to play a completely different game than we've agreed to. It's like if we agreed to play euchre and a player starts placing bets and talking crap about the great hand they have. Let's not shame the desire. Just the behavior.

I would like to note that I have also seen this sort of recalcitrant behavior in games like Apocalypse World where a player latches on and won't let go. In my experience this sort of behavior is not evidence of wanting to play to find out, but rather holding really hard onto a character concept rather than approaching play with curiosity and emotional vulnerability. When another player has their character interact with yours you are supposed to really consider the impact. In my experience its indicative of wanting to control how the game will play out. This can be fine when it occurs in the context of a collaborative group who will negotiate this things, but that is not what we are doing when we Play Passionately.

I am willing to discuss this further if we can really consider what the other person is saying.

 

[aramis erak]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - all ficion in the world is created without models in the sense you are insisting upon, except for a certain subset of the fiction created by RPGers.

Certain authors are notorious for having laid out the world in excruciating detail before putting pen to paper about the story itself. I would argue that, given their age at time of writing, neither Tolkien nor CS Lewis were RPGers, but both noted their worlds are modeled first, then written. Doc Smith clearly has more ideas than make it into Lensman, things that retain internal sense, but are not actually detailed out in the novels, and has a deep seated sense of how it worked. Verne was notorious for his attentions to minute (and manufacturable) detail; his radium driven Nautilus is astonishingly excellent as a prediction of the technology. And HG Wells was a gamer, albeit a miniatures wargamer, not an RPGer, but his writings have the same level of world creation as any RPG-fiction writer.

Hell, I'd love to see what HG would have done with an RPG... as his Little Wars is a delightful read, and not a bad game at all.

A player should not be prioritizing their character above all us. What they should be prioritizing is following the fiction, playing to find out, and being a fan of all the main characters (PCs).

In your playstyle, perhaps.

In Burning Wheel, playing to push your character's goals over those of other characters is explicitly part of the intent. And why the game has a "any conflict needs a roll" rule within it.

Alien, the preview "Cinematic Starter Kit" explicitly has hidden agendas for the PCs.

You're being rather noisesomely chauvinistic about your play style over all others.

My preferred style is no in-party violence, and only limited in party conflict. I want players to engage both with their character and the story...

But there are many styles of play that, in the right groups, work.

Maybe I’m not fully understanding what you’re saying....but this is why I describe it as a tail wagging the dog situation. Game stats are meant to reflect story elements, not define them.

The character building process in quite a few games begins with generating game stats, not story elements.
Old school D&D, for one.
Traveller... the backstory even is generated mechanically in CT, MT, TNE, T4, T20, and T5....
R Talsorian Games' Cyberpunk (2013/2020) and Mekton (I, II, Z) have random backstory generation and random attribute generation (albeit roll them all, then place).

Many groups, the story arises out of play, not out of some prior fictional stricture. The character often arises out of the stats and the play, rather than the other direction. GM as operating system for an open world, rather than GM as story pusher.

Some people can't handle random generation conceptually. Others can't handle non-random conceptually, tho' that's a bit less common. Most can handle either, but prefer one or the other.

Ideally, the game arises out of a combination of the group-members' desires and their interactions with the rules at a level comfortable for all involved.

 

[aramis erak]

Interesting. My immediate understanding for cooperative mechanics were resources such as Spells (Bless, Cure Wounds, Featherfall, Haste...etc), Bardic Inspiration, Flanking, Help action, Paladin Auras...etc

Those are a limited form. I'd call them direct cooperation measures...

But there are more indirect methods...

AMSH had an option for a group Karma Pool, which all players could donate to and draw from as needed.

The One Ring has the fellowship pool, generated at start of adventure/story, which one can draw from if no one objects; if more than half the group objects, drawing from it generates a point of shadow.

These are passive cooperation methods; they require no effort at time of use by the others to justify.

Then, there are options like in Modiphius 2d20 where you give up your later action to help someone on their action.

And in Fria Ligan's Alien (and Tales from the Loop, and Mutant Year Zero) when the group has to overcome something, the group picks ONE person to roll, based upon who has the best chances, but then the others provide help, and the group is to abide by the one roll.

In Burning Wheel, helping someone binds one to the results... be they good or bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In your playstyle, perhaps.

In Burning Wheel, playing to push your character's goals over those of other characters is explicitly part of the intent. And why the game has a "any conflict needs a roll" rule within it.

Alien, the preview "Cinematic Starter Kit" explicitly has hidden agendas for the PCs.

You're being rather noisesomely chauvinistic about your play style over all others.

My preferred style is no in-party violence, and only limited in party conflict. I want players to engage both with their character and the story...

But there are many styles of play that, in the right groups, work.

What bothers me about this part of your post is that it's seeking injury so that it can respond with insult. [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has been explicit that he's discussing how his preferred playstyle works, has taken pains to contrast to other styles without demeaning them, and was, in the part you quoted, directly responding to question about his preferred playstyle. You had to be looking to be offended, here. Expressing enthusiasm for and answering questions about how one might like to play should be seen as a good thing, not something to prompt you into pulling out the dictionary to say "foul, unpleasant, and excessive prejudice," especially when a casual read disproves such a statement.

Also, and I say this with obvious irony given my routine typos, it's noisome.