No, really, I just care about hygiene
-
I haven’t really played PF2e, but from reading it I don’t really love that it does the “numbers go way up” thing. I did 3e and I didn’t like the “I rolled a 4, but I have a +47 on my check” thing. I’m told PF2e has a “without level bonus” mode, but I don’t know if anyone plays it.
To me it feels meaningful in a way that the ludicrous numbers never did in previous versions. The expanded crit system makes degrees of success matter, and they do a great job of making you feel heroic; especially when you go back and fight underleveled enemies and crit on every attack. (Or, alternatively, when you roll a natural 20 and it just upgrades your crit fail to a regular fail. That’s when you know it’s time to run.)
-
Here’s my list:
- It scales very well from level 1-20. The math just works at all levels of play.
- 3 action rounds
- Encounter design and balancing is easy for the busy GM
- All of the classes are good, flavorful, and have interesting options
- Teamwork is highly encouraged through class and ability design
- Martial/Caster/Support balance
- Degrees of success/failure
- Easy, free access to the rules
- The ORC license
- https://pathbuilder2e.com/
- Pathfinder Society Organized play is well done and well supported by Paizo
- The rune system for magic weapons/armor
Great list. Totally agreed across the board, and I’d add that they just folded Starfinder into the PF2e engine, which means that it now has a ton more content for it (including some stuff that isn’t sci-fi exclusive).
-
these posts gatekeeping what’s called an ttrpg always confuse me
This isn’t gatekeeping. This is authorial intent. The companies that produce these games have increasingly co-mingled their staff with video game studios, with a very intentional and explicit eye towards making the conversion to CRPGs easier.
Mechanics in the system that are fuzzy to implement in a video game environment get cut or edited into a numerical effect. Characters and monsters that exist or behave in ways that are difficult to conceptualize as a computer game get re-engineered. Non-combat features and more artistic roleplaying elements get beveled down. And the end result is a game that ports much more easily to a digital medium.
I don’t begrudge the studios for the transition, particularly given how much more money there is digital gaming. But when I’ve already got a stack of older edition books and mods and half-written home brews, there’s no rush to jump ship. Not when I’ve got my eye on an even older stack of Unknown Armies and 2e Mage: The Ascension books and I’m hoping to wrangle some players into a game that’s even more abstract and esoteric.
The companies that produce these games have increasingly co-mingled their staff with video game studios
Like who?
I mean, in the case of D&D, maybe. But PF2e was written by Logan Bonner, Jason Bulmahn, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, and Mark Seifter; they have a combined zero years of video game studio experience between them. In fact, most of them have been making tabletop RPGs for literally their entire professional careers, including stints at Wizards of the Coast.
For fun, I went to the Pathfinder wiki, which has brief profiles of all of the authors and contributors to Pathfinder; and I can’t find a single person on any of the game’s recent sourcebooks that has worked for a video game company before working for Paizo. In fact, most of them have worked for Paizo in some capacity for 5+ years, or are freelancers who have worked for big tabletop RPG publishers for ages.
-
They ripped it out because their “backwards compatibility” was literally just grafting an NES to the SNES. I think it even had a toggle switch you had to flip between the two. It was going to make the thing cost tons of money and nobody was ever going to use it, and anyone who cared could just plug their old NES back in whenever they wanted to use it.
But the people who didn’t upgrade never got to play Star Fox. Man, I love Star Fox.
-
What are some highlights that make you feel that way? I’ve never played.
I think one of the biggest things, besides not being owned by WOTC, is that it doesn’t have a million exceptions you have to remember.
D&D5e: Want to use your bonus action? Cool. Is it for a spell? Have you cast a spell this round? Is it a spell that’s allowed to be cast even if you’ve cast a spell?
Pathfinder2e: Do you have enough actions to perform an action? OK, do it.
-
First edition Pathfinder should be. Second edition is more like 5e, but actually thought out. I don’t think it’s natively compatible with D&D5e though.
-
They ripped it out because their “backwards compatibility” was literally just grafting an NES to the SNES. I think it even had a toggle switch you had to flip between the two. It was going to make the thing cost tons of money and nobody was ever going to use it, and anyone who cared could just plug their old NES back in whenever they wanted to use it.
But the people who didn’t upgrade never got to play Star Fox. Man, I love Star Fox.
Personally speaking, I find Star Fox (and most on-rails shooters) incredibly boring. Visually for the time it’s impressive, but I’ll play Corncob on my PC or any of the Jane’s games because they provide more gameplay.
As far as “nobody was ever going to use it”, that’s incorrect (as the success of the Retron series shows). My parents among others were highly resistant to buying me any console because we were a PC family - Genesis was the only one I could get them to even budge on because it had access to a library of cheaper games in addition to the expensive stuff. Part of the reason I didn’t get a 7800 was because they’d picked the TRS-80 CoCo over the 2600 and we didn’t have the library of software at the ready. If they’d included an NES on a chip, and I could have convinced at least two of my friends to let me borrow their NES carts in addition to SNES stuff, I might have had a SNES.
-
First edition Pathfinder should be. Second edition is more like 5e, but actually thought out. I don’t think it’s natively compatible with D&D5e though.
Oh, 1e Pathfinder is basically 3.75. I have the core book and a few others somewhere, and I lost the 3-ring binder with the thread from the GitP forum laying out the major changes between 3.5 and PF, as well as conversions for books that didn’t exist for PF, and some of the Green Ronin stuff.
-
It wouldn’t have been just an NES chip. It would’ve had to also include a separate PPU (in addition to the two already in the SNES), a NES cartridge I/O slot, a whole different video out architecture (the NES didn’t support composite out), and maybe more. Those are just the ones I know for sure.
Besides, the SNES was already going to cost significantly more than the Genesis. They were wary of widening that price gap still further when the owners of the older system still owned the older system and could easily plug it back in. Further, they were launching the SNES in North America with five launch titles and eight more on deck over the following month, with a total of thirty games coming out before that Christmas. I don’t think they were worried about having enough content for people to play on that new system.
-
I like pathfinder(2e) more in every way except less people play it
I’ll play with you.
Seriously.
I haven’t before but I’d love to. Last dnd I played was 3.5. I won’t touch anything else, except pathfinder and other non-dnd games.
-
To me it feels meaningful in a way that the ludicrous numbers never did in previous versions. The expanded crit system makes degrees of success matter, and they do a great job of making you feel heroic; especially when you go back and fight underleveled enemies and crit on every attack. (Or, alternatively, when you roll a natural 20 and it just upgrades your crit fail to a regular fail. That’s when you know it’s time to run.)
How often do pathfinder games do the thing like “The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you’re higher level and I want the math to be challenging”? Because I’ve always disliked that in games. That’s more of a video game trope, but I’ve seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don’t need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.
-
Yeah. I don’t think 1e is underrated, but I do think it’s over-hated. It’s the system I largely got started with for TTRPGs. It’s really not that difficult, but it does let you make things very complex.
I know why people went for D&D 5e over Pathfinder, but I think it should have been seen as an entry point, not the place you stay forever like it’s become for most people. It’s dumbed down, but also with you having to remember a lot of exceptions and things because they dumbed it down too much and tried adding things that didn’t fit exactly into the rules.
-
It wouldn’t have been just an NES chip. It would’ve had to also include a separate PPU (in addition to the two already in the SNES), a NES cartridge I/O slot, a whole different video out architecture (the NES didn’t support composite out), and maybe more. Those are just the ones I know for sure.
Besides, the SNES was already going to cost significantly more than the Genesis. They were wary of widening that price gap still further when the owners of the older system still owned the older system and could easily plug it back in. Further, they were launching the SNES in North America with five launch titles and eight more on deck over the following month, with a total of thirty games coming out before that Christmas. I don’t think they were worried about having enough content for people to play on that new system.
What Nintendo was worried about is almost inconsequential compared to what American parents were worried about. And parents were very worried about the investment they’d made into games that still worked.
-
these posts gatekeeping what’s called an ttrpg always confuse me
This isn’t gatekeeping. This is authorial intent. The companies that produce these games have increasingly co-mingled their staff with video game studios, with a very intentional and explicit eye towards making the conversion to CRPGs easier.
Mechanics in the system that are fuzzy to implement in a video game environment get cut or edited into a numerical effect. Characters and monsters that exist or behave in ways that are difficult to conceptualize as a computer game get re-engineered. Non-combat features and more artistic roleplaying elements get beveled down. And the end result is a game that ports much more easily to a digital medium.
I don’t begrudge the studios for the transition, particularly given how much more money there is digital gaming. But when I’ve already got a stack of older edition books and mods and half-written home brews, there’s no rush to jump ship. Not when I’ve got my eye on an even older stack of Unknown Armies and 2e Mage: The Ascension books and I’m hoping to wrangle some players into a game that’s even more abstract and esoteric.
You’re probably right for D&D 5e 2024 (or whatever it’s being called). The main focus was the virtual table top subscription service. As the other commenter says though, this isn’t true for most other systems.
Also, I don’t even think it’s necessarily a bad thing. Table top inspired video games. It’s not bad for the influence to flow the other way too. It just needs to be considerate of the format.
-
How often do pathfinder games do the thing like “The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you’re higher level and I want the math to be challenging”? Because I’ve always disliked that in games. That’s more of a video game trope, but I’ve seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don’t need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.
That’s down to the GM in any system.
-
How often do pathfinder games do the thing like “The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you’re higher level and I want the math to be challenging”? Because I’ve always disliked that in games. That’s more of a video game trope, but I’ve seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don’t need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.
Either you send mega-goblins, or you send MORE goblins.
A lower level party might fight 3 goblins fair and square, so 4 levels later they confront 6 goblins and 2 lieutenants.
The idea that the same enemy stays a challenge despite the level increase is actually what I despise in D&D. My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
-
Ehh, not really. In D&D 3e-like games, a low level goblin that attacks at +4 can barely hit a mid level character with AC 30. You could have a thousand goblins, and they’d only hit on natural 20 (and for regular, non-crit damage).
-
I wish GURPS had taken off more.
I’m doing my part
-
I was curious about this some years back.
Are there any published materials on how to run a game in a GURPS system?
There’s literally a book called How to be a GURPS GM that’s a pretty good blend of system agnostic and GURPS specific advice. Additionally, Chris Normand has a pretty good Intro to GURPS video series on YouTube
-
Either you send mega-goblins, or you send MORE goblins.
A lower level party might fight 3 goblins fair and square, so 4 levels later they confront 6 goblins and 2 lieutenants.
The idea that the same enemy stays a challenge despite the level increase is actually what I despise in D&D. My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
I read an article online somewhere about bounded accuracy, and it brought a question like that as a litmus test for if you like the idea. Should a novice archer, no matter how lucky they are, be able to shoot the ominous black knight? For a scratch? Or a lucky hit in the throat?
D&D 3e says no. You can only hit them on a natural 20. I think PF2e also says no in the same way.
D&D 5e tried to say yes, the archer should be able to hit the knight. The knight’s armor is probably ~22, and the archer is rolling at +5, so there’s decent odds. But he certainly won’t be able to kill him, because HP is what scales up with power.
Other systems are more deadly.
Personally, I don’t like the “these goblins can’t even touch me anymore” mode that much. I prefer less superhero heroics, where a goblin with a knife can be a real threat