Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[BryonD]

I've never understood how the specific rules make one think the game isn't the same game, at it's core. I don't get edition wars, for example.

The mechanics may be different (better or worse for sure), but at it's core, you can play your character pretty much with the same fiction in any RPG (within the context of the gameworld you are playing in).

so, any argument that relies on "I don't feel the math and fiction don't line up" seems odd to me.

I accept that. You may be looking for a different experience in the game than me.

But, for me the math and the fiction DON'T line up well at all.
The "fiction" is certainly the same, because the players bring that to the table. How the mechanics reflect that fiction into cause and effect is what the system of choice brings to the table.

I have the privilege of demanding that my game of choice base the mechanics on the narrative qualities of the characters and objects in play.

A puny egghead wizard in an antimagic zone with a well armed orc should be a bad situation.
If the math says that the wizard gets a huge bonus against the orc because "levels", so the wizard goes punching the orc in the nose and dancing around the sword swings like a kung fu movie.
You may point out that I've created a contrived extreme that would never happen in game. And you would be right. But the problem is that they math remains just as wrong when it is a level 4 wizard doing typical things in a typical encounter with a typical level 4 minotaur. The dominant variable is not class, weapon, narrative description of character training, armor, or anything inside the story. The dominant variable is "level".
And that is "wrong" for delivering the experiences that I find to be fun.

Yes, the math is generally going to work out the same(ish) for many events. (Though it certainly gets a lot wrong all the time). But that rationalization works just as well for playing a completely systemless game. Just sit around a table with a general agreement of character descriptions and have everyone roll a D20 when they try to do something. High is good. Done. If you aren't onboard with the idea that some editions do some things better than others and it might matter then you really can't make a case that any system is truly better than that either.

I absolutely love RPGs. And to me they are all about BEING those individuals in their circumstances and the mechanics should be a complete slave to describing what they really are. Players telling a story despite the mechanics is not the same as mechanics that listen to the narrative and make every effort to reflect appropriate range of outcomes to that unique interaction.

I can describe an awesome narrative dagger duel. And then resolve the mechanic: pawn takes pawn. Do you dispute that I can tell a great story here? Of course I can do that. Does it make the mechanic a remotely quality representation of an actual interaction? Of course not. But if we take your complaint at face value then seeing chess as less than 5E for role playing would simply be edition warring.

 

[Zaukrie]

I acknowledged different rule sets do things better than other sets. And we are probably closer to agreement than disagreement.

But chess isn't as close to DnD as PF is. That's contrived, imo. And, there are RPGs where you don't roll five at all, and just describe what is happening. D20 games, imo, can tell the same story, using any rule set. The details of the story will be different, and that matters, but the story is the same, and that's the part of edition wars I don't get. Heck, many of the WotC adventures for 5e come from previous editions.....

But now we are heading off topic, my bad....

 

[BryonD]

I acknowledged different rule sets do things better than other sets. And we are probably closer to agreement than disagreement.

But chess isn't as close to DnD as PF is. That's contrived, imo. And, there are RPGs where you don't roll five at all, and just describe what is happening. D20 games, imo, can tell the same story, using any rule set. The details of the story will be different, and that matters, but the story is the same, and that's the part of edition wars I don't get. Heck, many of the WotC adventures for 5e come from previous editions.....

But now we are heading off topic, my bad....

OK. In context of this reply I'm not sure how your prior response really says anything to me.

Yes, the STORY is the same. I want a system that mechanically engages that story.
Chess isn't as close to DnD as PF. That was the point. But there is a scale and saying different RPGs land at different points on that scale is reasonable and it takes more than waving your hands and saying "edition war" to rebut the distinctions.

 

[Zaukrie]

OK. In context of this reply I'm not sure how your prior response really says anything to me.

Yes, the STORY is the same. I want a system that mechanically engages that story.
Chess isn't as close to DnD as PF. That was the point. But there is a scale and saying different RPGs land at different points on that scale is reasonable and it takes more than waving your hands and saying "edition war" to rebut the distinctions.

That last part was not my intent......there are distinctions, which I acknowledged in my OP, and second post, and now my third.

The edition war part was me adding on, in the original post, that I just don't get it. I don't get the emotions around it, I don't get the anger.....I get why people might like one game or the other more or less, even if they are, at their core, the same game....but I don't get the edition war behavior.

I also have a hard time understanding how a DM and players can't use pretty much any D20 rule set to engage in any story they want, which is my point, I guess. Yes, the details will be different, but you can tell any story you want. I never understood "I can't roleplay as much in 4e" for example......

 

[S'mon]

I rated it Good for the play experience, but our GM is making our PCs so I don't have to worry about choosing from those horrible Feats! I think if I had to build my own PC it'd be Average.

I prefer Bounded Accuracy in general, but I think for a game called Pathfinder the numbers escalation and triviliasation of lower level opponents works well. I'm playing PF2 to get a different experience from 5e, not the same experience.

 

[S'mon]

I never understood "I can't roleplay as much in 4e" for example......

Playing 4e I get to feel like a Marvel Superhero (fantasyland version) which I find encourages roleplaying; not that I have a problem in any edition, but 4e has a lot of thematic weight to character choices. Only issue was when fight takes the entire session.

 

[BryonD]

That last part was not my intent......there are distinctions, which I acknowledged in my OP, and second post, and now my third.

The edition war part was me adding on, in the original post, that I just don't get it. I don't get the emotions around it, I don't get the anger.....I get why people might like one game or the other more or less, even if they are, at their core, the same game....but I don't get the edition war behavior.

I also have a hard time understanding how a DM and players can't use pretty much any D20 rule set to engage in any story they want, which is my point, I guess. Yes, the details will be different, but you can tell any story you want. I never understood "I can't roleplay as much in 4e" for example......

I think you are ascribing motives to others.

But beyond that, it is more than simply details. I spelled out my complaint and you have made zero effort to respond to what I actually said. As I made clear, of course you can tell the same story for any system, but the reality remains that some systems do a much better job at actually reflecting the cause and effect. 2E's fixation with level promotes consistency and gameplay balance, but it slides down the scale in the direction of chess compared to other games when it comes to the mechanical system being actually tied to the narrative elements.

I can roleplay in 4E and PF2E. I just don't want to because the mechanics downplay the who, how, why, and what and focus on this idea that the chance of success needs to be in a very tight band based soley on comparing two levels. PF2E as a MECHANICAL system can't live up to the roleplaying I give it.

 

[Maggan]

The mechanics may be different (better or worse for sure), but at it's core, you can play your character pretty much with the same fiction in any RPG (within the context of the gameworld you are playing in).

I do tend to agree, but would like to note that the stated rationale stated from Paizo for creating Pathfinder was that they couldn't tell the stories they wanted with the DnD 4e framework (such as it was for 3rd part publishers).

So for them at least, rules inform story.

Cheers!

/M

 

[Zaukrie]

I think you are ascribing motives to others.

But beyond that, it is more than simply details. I spelled out my complaint and you have made zero effort to respond to what I actually said. As I made clear, of course you can tell the same story for any system, but the reality remains that some systems do a much better job at actually reflecting the cause and effect. 2E's fixation with level promotes consistency and gameplay balance, but it slides down the scale in the direction of chess compared to other games when it comes to the mechanical system being actually tied to the narrative elements.

I can roleplay in 4E and PF2E. I just don't want to because the mechanics downplay the who, how, why, and what and focus on this idea that the chance of success needs to be in a very tight band based soley on comparing two levels. PF2E as a MECHANICAL system can't live up to the roleplaying I give it.

I'm clearly not communicating well. I have two separate thoughts. I don't get edition wars. I am not saying disagreements are that, I am saying I don't get edition wars.

I am separately failing to understand what you couldn't do in 4e or PF2 that you want to do?

I have acknowledged that rules inform the details of the story... But what can't people do that they want to do? The GM and players have a ton of freedom here. I've played several adventures in nearly every single person if the game, for example.

Since this is a PF2 thread, help me understand what you can't do given the rules. Or not, we might be taking part each other now, unfortunately.

 

[Zaukrie]

I do tend to agree, but would like to note that the stated rationale stated from Paizo for creating Pathfinder was that they couldn't tell the stories they wanted with the DnD 4e framework (such as it was for 3rd part publishers).

So for them at least, rules inform story.

Cheers!

/M

To me, that's marketing speak, but I could be wrong. There are certainly super specific things you can do in one game or the other, but I'd bet good money every pf adventure path has been played in other rule systems by someone.