Wrunner
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 18
Preferred Game Systems: Star Wars (FFG), Fiasco, Wild Talents, Golden Sky Stories
Currently Playing: Pathfinder (because it's the unquestionable center and true means of roleplaying, according to my gaming group ... unfortunately)
Currently Running: Star Wars: Age of Rebellion (soon! ... just have to "solve" another dire Pathfinder campaign situation by swinging our swords at it enough times ... then it will be MY turn to GM!)
|
Post by Wrunner on May 9, 2016 14:29:52 GMT -8
To those unaware, Fantasy Flight is a tabletop gaming company that has released some AMAZING Star Wars products, covering all manner of adventure in a galaxy far, far away. Two such product lines are Imperial Assault and a trilogy of titles: Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion, and Force and Destiny. The former is a tactical grid-based combat board game, and the latter is a role-playing system; each of the three titles is a different focus within the Star Wars universe and their core role-playing system.
Before getting to know both products and their distinct mechanics, I was a little confused: why is Fantasy Flight releasing both a tactical miniatures game AND a role-playing system? Isn't that a bit redundant, especially when they're both Star Wars?
I come from a background of 15 years of D&D/Pathfinder and only upon diving into the mechanics of Fantasy Flight's two very distinct ways to "play Star Wars" did I arrive at the opinion that, unknowingly for years, Pathfinder has inflicted a glass ceiling upon my role-playing.
In Imperial Assault, gameplay is comprised of a sequence of missions. In each, there is a particular objective/win condition for each side. No creative alternatives. If you have to blow up all four terminals for the mission, sweet-talking an officer into deactivating them for you, or attempting to sneak in and upload a virus, are not acceptable alternatives. I'm not criticizing. By design, it is a game of "tactical miniatures combat" and says as much on the box. The fun lies in "out-battling" your opponent. This is the point of the game.
Pathfinder may indulge non-combat oriented characters some moments to exercise their talents, but it will not impact the ultimate truth: everything is designed to conquer an opposing force through tactical combat.
I understand that one could take Pathfinder and embrace all manner of combat alternatives, but what can one say to module after module and Adventure Path after Adventure Path - published by the designers - that ultimately amounts to "there is a problem ... the solution/game/reason for playing is to become powerful enough to kill it"? It seems to indicate the intention of it's design, doesn't it? Under this light, I find its name to be a mocking, sarcastic jab: never has a Path required less effort in Finding. When you're engaged in tactical combat against a prescribed opposing force, you're on that right path.
Only upon discovering the extent to which Fantasy Flight's Star Wars role-playing system distinguishes itself from the Imperial Assault game of tactical combat have I come to discover the extent to which D&D/Pathfinder - or at the very least, my table - has been cheating me.
Now, I'm not saying that Pathfinder offers an inferior gaming experience. I'm saying Pathfinder offers an inferior role-playing experience. Sure, I'm "playing" a "role" as a cleric in an adventuring party, but by that argument I'd also be "playing" the "role" of a corporation in Android: Netrunner ... a Medic in Pandemic ... orange in Catan ... red in checkers. I can't believe I set you up to jump three of my pieces! Spoken in the first person and by that measure playing a role, sure. But a role-playing game? No.
A role-playing game should fulfill this definition: a game that allows each participant a role (or roles) to play ...
and here's the zinger
... in order to grant agency to each participant the ability to develop and influence an ongoing, collaborative story.
|
|
Wrunner
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 18
Preferred Game Systems: Star Wars (FFG), Fiasco, Wild Talents, Golden Sky Stories
Currently Playing: Pathfinder (because it's the unquestionable center and true means of roleplaying, according to my gaming group ... unfortunately)
Currently Running: Star Wars: Age of Rebellion (soon! ... just have to "solve" another dire Pathfinder campaign situation by swinging our swords at it enough times ... then it will be MY turn to GM!)
|
Post by Wrunner on May 9, 2016 14:37:13 GMT -8
[... long inhale ... sharp exhale.]
Now, I realize that the above is just, like ... uh, my opinion, man.
Perhaps this opinion is merely the result of the biases of my table's style of play.
What say you, people, to a typical experience such as this?
[flashback noise]
Just last session, I'm playing a Paladin to Iomedae: protector of the weak and liberator of the downtrodden. Nothing is more important to me than defending innocent life.
We find ourselves in a village attacked by orcs. There is a house and inside their orc leader has a group of kids tied up and one of them at the end of his weapon. He is demanding we throw down our weapons and walk away. Because of initiative, I am the first to enter and I throw down my weapons but refuse to abandon these children. Iomedae will protect me for my cause is just. I proceed to insult the orc: here I stand unarmed and you still cower behind a little child, etc.
Other PCs hold their actions to see how the leader will respond. Ally NPC takes a shot, doesn't kill orc leader, orc stabs kid, PCs rush in, I heal child, they kill orc leader, the day is saved. Yay.
Afterwards, I reprimanded the ally NPC (in character), saying taking that shot was a foolish risk putting innocents at risk ... but I won't deny how I was personally motivated by how I felt robbed of an exciting and challenging RP situation by turning it into yet another combat.
In my DM's defense, he is running a module and the NPC did have motivation to want to take such a shot, and we had a good talk in character about the subject ... but I also followed up the session out of character, pointing out how those type of dramatic actions/decisions should be left to us, the player characters. He was accepting of my point. So, yay.
But again, back to my point: there is such a gravity in Pathfinder, it seems, to replace the "if" a problem will be solved with combat with a "when".
It seems all my frustrations are rooted in the notion that I'm showing up to the table for a role-playing game and what is waiting for me is a tactical miniatures combat game ... and there's nothing I can do about it.
Is there anything that can be done? Do I just have to get over it and accept that Pathfinder is lying with the words "role-playing game" on its cover?
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 9, 2016 14:50:16 GMT -8
Pathfinder isn't even a Game of Tactical Combat. it is a literal game of Resource Management and Resource Attrition. the point of the game, is to pretty much optimize your use of your available resources to combat the downsides of Attrition. of which the Best 5 Man Party Consists of a Combat Cleric, a Switch Hitter Slayer, an Arcanist, an Archery Support Bard, and a Melee Druid with a Pet Tiger. because not only are all your bases covered, but you have 5 characters that can inflict consistent damage, 3 of which can also heal wounds or remove conditions and only one of which needs a serious investment to use healing wands. plus, you have 2 potential face characters, a really good scout and trapfinder, and a pair of massive bestial tanks that are good at eating space and controlling chokepoints.
|
|
Wrunner
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 18
Preferred Game Systems: Star Wars (FFG), Fiasco, Wild Talents, Golden Sky Stories
Currently Playing: Pathfinder (because it's the unquestionable center and true means of roleplaying, according to my gaming group ... unfortunately)
Currently Running: Star Wars: Age of Rebellion (soon! ... just have to "solve" another dire Pathfinder campaign situation by swinging our swords at it enough times ... then it will be MY turn to GM!)
|
Post by Wrunner on May 10, 2016 6:58:46 GMT -8
Ha! Wow. Nice.
And Golarion is saved ... from all things ... forever.
Excellent point about resource management and attrition. That is so spot on!
Are we good now, guys? Can we move on? Any combination of PCs we come up with will be slightly less effective than ilina's party here, and that just means we'll trudge through encounters at a slightly less rapid pace ... but we will trudge through them ... eventually ... given enough opportunities to rest.
Hitherto, I have been pressing my companions to boldly press on (ie not stop to rest in order to recover HP/restore spells/regain abilities/etc. and kill the adventuring momentum) under the mantra, "Fear not, Iomedae will protect us! She favors the brave!"
Now, with the credence of your resource management insight: keep pressing the party in order to push our attrition limits and break the monotony of combat-stop-recharge-repeat.
I live for the challenge, for the unexpected, the unknown; for the very real possibility that things could go horribly wrong and despite it all, taking the leap of faith. That's what thrilling heroics is all about, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 10, 2016 9:25:27 GMT -8
Okies... Seems like I might earn myself another spot on an ignore list here, but....
No.
Just, no.
There is no game that actually impedes your ability to RP or to solve problems without engaging in combat. Those problems lie within the group.
Neither Pathfinder, nor Paizo forced your GM to have the NPC shoot. Had he chosen to allow you to talk your way out of the situation, no one from the RPG Police would have shown up to arrest him. HE chose to move to combat. Even if the module said that the NPC should or will shoot, it's his choice to follow that or follow the flow of the game and the will of the players.
The reason why so many modules include and/or center around combat is simply because that is the way most people play. Either because that's their genuine preference, or they just haven't tried something else. Doesn't matter which. Groups that never touch the dice (Amber and LoGaS not withstanding) and talk their way out of everything are very much the exception. Most people, at least occasionally, want to frag some llamas.
|
|
Wrunner
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 18
Preferred Game Systems: Star Wars (FFG), Fiasco, Wild Talents, Golden Sky Stories
Currently Playing: Pathfinder (because it's the unquestionable center and true means of roleplaying, according to my gaming group ... unfortunately)
Currently Running: Star Wars: Age of Rebellion (soon! ... just have to "solve" another dire Pathfinder campaign situation by swinging our swords at it enough times ... then it will be MY turn to GM!)
|
Post by Wrunner on May 10, 2016 13:08:31 GMT -8
I realize all this and fully admit that my group is much more inclined - to an extent I don't think they are quite aware - to resort to combat as a knee-jerk reaction. When talking to my GM about that NPC shot, he personally thought the stand-off was dragging on and this was his way of helping us break the gridlock. It hadn't even been a round. So yeah, the "uh, how do we get out of this? ... uh, fight!" response is very apparent.
I still put encouraging that tendency or the gravity that pulls toward the obligatory combat response on Pathfinder - a byproduct of inheriting the D&D engine. We've dabbled ever so briefly in a couple non-combat RPGs (Maid and Golden Sky Stories) and the players - and same GM incidentally - had a wonderful time and did a great job with "just" a story and no violence. So, it's within their capacity. But break out Pathfinder and that all goes out the window, which I'll admit is not entirely Pathfinder's fault ... more like it's a trained reaction of theirs associated with their most familiar system and all that's been habitually ingrained since AD&D. Pathfinder is just the new, evolved, more elaborate way to do essentially the same thing for them.
You're right. In Pathfinder they DO just want to frag some llamas.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 10, 2016 13:49:13 GMT -8
It has nothing to do with Pathfinder, D&D, the phases of the moon, or your sacrifices to Great Cthulhu.
It's entirely, 110% on the shoulders of the group. You see Pathfinder, and You think combat. Pathfinder didn't do it to you.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on May 10, 2016 16:46:11 GMT -8
It has nothing to do with Pathfinder, D&D, the phases of the moon, or your sacrifices to Great Cthulhu. It's entirely, 110% on the shoulders of the group. You see Pathfinder, and You think combat. Pathfinder didn't do it to you. I would say most people who see Pathfinder see combat since most of the rule's are about you know combat. Certain systems do certain things better and worse than other systems. Granted you can break out of that by why not just play another system at that point? Though I do think there is a pile of assholery to show up in a board about a certain system just to trash it somewhat...
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 10, 2016 18:44:49 GMT -8
i mentioned the most Adaptable Party you could make. but it uses 4 spellcasters. 3 of which are martially inclined. because killing a foe quickly is less resource intensive than trying to heal during the fight. but it is a great "press on" party. because if played correctly. very little healing is actually needed. meaning more DPS and less boredom for the healers. most healing is done out of combat via wand use, and in combat healing is mostly done to save characters from dying..
fighters, rogues and barbarians aren't resource savers, they are resource consumers. slayers cover enough of the important rogue skills, while being a better combatant. but i know how effective this party combo is. because i tested it. healing was rarely needed, and foes died quickly.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 11, 2016 2:38:06 GMT -8
It has nothing to do with Pathfinder, D&D, the phases of the moon, or your sacrifices to Great Cthulhu. It's entirely, 110% on the shoulders of the group. You see Pathfinder, and You think combat. Pathfinder didn't do it to you. I would say most people who see Pathfinder see combat since most of the rule's are about you know combat. Certain systems do certain things better and worse than other systems. Granted you can break out of that by why not just play another system at that point? Though I do think there is a pile of assholery to show up in a board about a certain system just to trash it somewhat... Of course certain systems have different strengths and weaknesses. And of course people's views can get coloured by what name is on the game. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't the system that is determining whether or not combat is required to solve any given solution. Again, that onus rests ENTIRELY on the group. There is nothing intrinsic to Pathfinder that demands that you fight your way through each encounter. There is nothing about it that demands that you can not talk your way through problems. Period. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on May 11, 2016 3:11:52 GMT -8
I would say most people who see Pathfinder see combat since most of the rule's are about you know combat. Certain systems do certain things better and worse than other systems. Granted you can break out of that by why not just play another system at that point? Though I do think there is a pile of assholery to show up in a board about a certain system just to trash it somewhat... Of course certain systems have different strengths and weaknesses. And of course people's views can get coloured by what name is on the game. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't the system that is determining whether or not combat is required to solve any given solution. Again, that onus rests ENTIRELY on the group. There is nothing intrinsic to Pathfinder that demands that you fight your way through each encounter. There is nothing about it that demands that you can not talk your way through problems. Period. End of story. Only a Sith deals in absolutes!!
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 11, 2016 4:04:31 GMT -8
/waves hand
This is not the Sith you're looking for.
But honestly, I generally avoid them. This is a great exemption, though.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 11, 2016 8:15:01 GMT -8
Wow, gosh, right . . . 'Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People' : 'Pathfinder Doesn't Stop RolePlay, Players Stop RolePlay' In other words just because a Game System doesn't have specific rules to RP doesn't mean you cannot RP. Nor does it mean that you have instructions and a mandate to NOT RP. The rules of cricket don't tell you how to catch a ball, they simply tell you what happens when you catch the ball in specific circumstances. As to Pathfinder, you may feel obliged to combat, because it has combat heavy rules, but you don't HAVE to combat. One of the big mistakes of the D20 ruleset is that the RP elements are hidden away while the combat elements are made explicit (and in great detail) - to which I would point at many of the more obscure spells that, realistically, are only ever effective in RP situations or require narrative resolutions. ie: they're not very good combat spells, which why they often don't get picked and are thus often forgotten. Many, and most, ADnD (the grand daddy of Pathfinder) campaigns I have run have been very heavy on the RP with many sessions that have not resulted in any combat at all: just players getting into character and exploring their world. Though resource management is a constant focus BUT I'll just ask: isn't that the nature of existence? or does no one here check our bank balances?, pick games to buy based on ability to pay? use discretion when allocating time to pursue our hobby and attend to real life? etc etc. An economist would say so, but please if you have a fairy fudgey life that negates the need to make decisions based on available resources then, please, let me in the secret. To criticize an RPG because it has resource management as a tenant is a bit like criticizing an RPG because it demands the PC's breath air as a core assumption . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on May 11, 2016 9:26:10 GMT -8
I agree the onus is completely on the gaming group. Comparing my 3.5 running style to our current GM's Pathfinder running style I know it is completely on him that we get into so many fights even though we have a guy with something like +27 Diplomacy. (He is really new at this and I am trying to be encouraging but man we just keep fighting things...)
Could we agree that humans can be influenced by their choice of systems as to how they play? I would suspect the less experienced the playing group the more easily influenced they would be just based on the above comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 11, 2016 9:55:50 GMT -8
Oh yeah, of course. The fault of Pathfinder in its presentation is that the RP side is obscured in the core rules - it's there but, compared to the amount of content dedicated to combat, it gets easily lost. For this reason one can understand that certain players gravitate to this system PLUS it unintentionally encourages a certain type of play with new players. Aaron
|
|