What gets me playing Draw Steel and not Pathfinder 2e?

[zakael19]

This was one of the launch mistakes of 4e and one that was eventually fixed with Essentials; there was no "social player" class. We had a player who was a chore to play with until his twin strike ranger was converted to a scout, when he opened up. And another one who had historically been bouncing between D&D evokers and martials - and had one of the best experiences of an RP career dating back to the 70s with a Fire Elementalist where he could Just Burn Stuff.

Part of the point of a class based systems that you can give different players different mechanical as well as thematic experiences. And I consider it a serious flaw and case of unnecessary gatekeeping that there's no low mechanical engagement class to allow a friend to keep having fun with their friends when you already have a class based system.

If the core design of your system requires players to give a little bit of a crap, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Can other more dedicated players pick up the slack and toss out advice even here? Yeah. But as soon as you have Triggered abilities that go beyond OAs, you need people who are paying attention.

Like, the Fire Elementalist isn’t that complex but it’s still got the building of resources and stuff.

 

[cranberry]

People who are disengaged are likely disengaged regardless of the game.

There is a lot to remember in DS, and adults with limited time are not going to pick it up right away. That doesn't mean that they are disengaged.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Part of the point of a class based systems that you can give different players different mechanical as well as thematic experiences. And I consider it a serious flaw and case of unnecessary gatekeeping that there's no low mechanical engagement class to allow a friend to keep having fun with their friends when you already have a class based system.

I'd buy that more if I thought the late-period simplified classes were actually as functional as the earlier engaged classes; often they weren't, sometimes in attempts to do so they were too much so.

And, to be blunt, not all games are for all people. D&D 4e suffered from the fact is was kind of required to be, but that doesn't mean its virtuous to do that with every game ever. It often just compromises the design in harmful ways to really try if you have a purpose you're aiming for.

That doesn't mean if you're trying for a one-size-fits-all game that's an evil, but I have no evidence there's not a price to pay for that. To pick a genre I know much better than D&D. Super! RED and Champions Complete would not be better games from trying to fish for the other's intended audience.

 

[dbm]

Draw Steel is billed as a tactical, heroic, cinematic, fantasy game. They even suggest other games to try if you don’t want to play a tactical, heroic, cinematic, fantasy roleplaying game. Why should they be required to add character classes which don’t fit that bill? That’s not the game they wanted to create.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People who are disengaged are likely disengaged regardless of the game.

There is a lot to remember in DS, and adults with limited time are not going to pick it up right away. That doesn't mean that they are disengaged.

Yeah, but the honest truth is that what being a bit disengaged means can vary considerably. In simpler game systems without a lot of design twiddles or combat manuevers, combat can very much add up to "Pick your target, engage with them, roll your to hit and damage (and maybe a defense in some games)". There's not a lot of meaningful decisions that need to be made there, and that isn't even always directly related to the complexity of the game (original RuneQuest was a significantly more complex game than OD&D (at least as long as you stayed out of the latter's spellcasting) but my description above describes both of them. They had the same amount of engagement load for the most part.

The problem is that for people who actually want to be involved in the tactical part of the game in a decision-making fashion, there's not that much to do with either. RQ might give you a little more involvement because it wasn't as abstract, but the proper choice of weapons and target was about all there was there most of the time there, too (you could aim for locations but that wasn't regularly a good choice so it didn't come up, and that early version hadn't gotten into the sort of options you see in something like Mythras).

But the truth is there are always going to be RPG players who find that "pick your target, roll to hit" thing all they want out of the combat system. I'm just extremely cynical that even with a class system you can make a game that really suits both them and the people who want more tactical engagement at the same time.

 

[cranberry]

But the truth is there are always going to be RPG players who find that "pick your target, roll to hit" thing all they want out of the combat system. I'm just extremely cynical that even with a class system you can make a game that really suits both them and the people who want more tactical engagement at the same time.

There are abilities though that depend on the battlefield conditions, or other factors that may occur infrequently.

And if you don't see those conditions, after a while, people get into the "roll to hit" mode instead of being on constant alert for that one occasion when the planets are aligned on the battlefield.

 

[zakael19]

I mean a core super basic thing that DS! does to keep you paying attention is that your class resource has multiple “if this then gain” triggers based on things often not on your turn. If you aren’t watching out for that, you’re going to miss a lot of potential action fuel.

 

[tetrasodium]

There are abilities though that depend on the battlefield conditions, or other factors that may occur infrequently.

And if you don't see those conditions, after a while, people get into the "roll to hit" mode instead of being on constant alert for that one occasion when the planets are aligned on the battlefield.

I think that is an oversimplification that blames luck or the system for poor teamwork and a refusal of players to communicate in ways that allow them to work together with reciprocity. A lot of those kinds of watch for x and then do/get y events can be triggered by other players optimally doing their own thing just by being aware of and caring to help their party mates.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are abilities though that depend on the battlefield conditions, or other factors that may occur infrequently.

And if you don't see those conditions, after a while, people get into the "roll to hit" mode instead of being on constant alert for that one occasion when the planets are aligned on the battlefield.

I'd argue that's more a problem with overspecialized tactical options, whether open to everyone or requiring specific access (the latter is usually worse, however, because it means some degree of overhead for something you won't, and maybe can't, use).

In other words, if you're going to have things triggered by battlefield conditions, you probably should ensure that under expected play conditions they will come up reasonably frequently (I put in the "expected" because there are always going to be campaign or GMing issues that can change this; best you can do is try to hit the middle of the target of expected play styles).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean a core super basic thing that DS! does to keep you paying attention is that your class resource has multiple “if this then gain” triggers based on things often not on your turn. If you aren’t watching out for that, you’re going to miss a lot of potential action fuel.

I consider that a good approach, though I've got to say that as someone who's attention tends to drift as a player (ADHD combined with too many years of GMing I suspect) even with the best of intentions I'd probably miss a fair bit of those. That's not the design's fault, though.