First Play with Pathfinder 2
Feb. 22nd, 2021 09:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
canyonwalkerLast night I had my first opportunity to play in a roleplaying game using the Pathfinder 2 system. This is after a session zero that wound up being two sessions— one of them involving a selfish player with some ill-fitting character ideas, and the second being an opportunity to flesh out some of the mechanics of my first character with guidance from the GM and a skilled player. It was fun... but also a lot of work. More on that in a bit.
Pathfinder (PF) was so well known as a refinement on D&D 3.5 that it was loving called "D&D 3.6" by a lot of people who'd played both systems. That was the first version of PF, though. PF2 came out in 2019 with a thoroughly re-imagined set of rules. That's the version we're playing in this new game I've joined.
In the world of roleplaying games there's a canonical split in rules styles. On one side are the rules-heavy, mechanics-heavy, or "crunchy" games. D&D has always been a crunchy mechanics game. As it defined the genre the games that came out in the first generation of roleplaying pretty much all emulated its approach. As a reaction to too many rules, too many tables of effects, and rolling too many dice, some second-generation games took a rules-light, dice-less, or "storyteller" approach. Within the current generation of games some systems strike a middle path, offering light and flexible mechanics that give GMs and players guidance while allowing them to tilt the mechanics to suit the narrative storytelling rather than vice versa.
My discourse on rules styles has gotten a little long (though believe me, it could be a lot longer) to outline the spectrum from rules-heavy to rules-light across which fantasy games operate. On this spectrum PF2 is unabashedly at the rules-heavy end. The core rulebook is nearly 700 pages long. Just creating characters— the first thing players do in a new role-playing game— took Hawk and me several hours each. And that's just for first level characters, and with us being very experienced gamers in other rules-heavy systems.
Our accomplishments in-game were modest, as befits first level characters starting out. We explored part of a small dungeon and whomped on a few giant rats and a giant spider. There were useful things for all of us to do; a swashbuckler, a champion, a wizard, and a cleric.
One of the things PF2 looks to solve relative to older games like D&D 3.5 and its predecessors is to give each class lots of options for customization. A common criticism of older games is they risk becoming overly repetitious, like "I'm a Fighter, I'll swing my sword!" or, "I'm a Wizard, I'll cast my 2 spells for the day then cower in the back because any single hit is likely to kill me." PF2 definitely addresses that with lots of class variations... though the cost is complexity. Even with our lowly first-level characters, fighting first-level type monsters, there was a lot of state information to track. And even with a virtual tabletop software program specialized to PF2 rules to help manage all those details, it still took lots of time & effort to manage all the rules and state information and +1 or +2 bonuses here and there. Thet sheer amount of bookkeeping work that went into managing a simple, first level combat, even with computer software to help manage it, absolutely dwarfs what long-ago versions of D&D entailed.
Pathfinder Background
Pathfinder is a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game. It was developed several years ago as an outgrowth of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). A lot of people felt that D&D version 3.5 (the latest version at the time; now D&D 5 is the latest version) rules needed improvement. Indeed, inasmuch as the rules of 3.0 and 3.5 were way more complete and cohesive than previous D&D versions, 3.5 still had a few rough edges. I know, because I'm still using 3.5 for my long term game and I've long since incorporated workarounds for the rough parts.Pathfinder (PF) was so well known as a refinement on D&D 3.5 that it was loving called "D&D 3.6" by a lot of people who'd played both systems. That was the first version of PF, though. PF2 came out in 2019 with a thoroughly re-imagined set of rules. That's the version we're playing in this new game I've joined.
Rules. So Many Rules.
Coming into PF2 after long experience with D&D 3.5 and earlier versions I find myself in a landscape that is both immediately familiar and slightly alien. All the classic tropes of swords-and-sorcery fantasy games are there; though some of the names have changed. The game-mechanics concepts of races, classes, skills, feats, combat, and spells are there, too; but the mechanics have gotten both more cohesive and more complex. Mostly more complex.In the world of roleplaying games there's a canonical split in rules styles. On one side are the rules-heavy, mechanics-heavy, or "crunchy" games. D&D has always been a crunchy mechanics game. As it defined the genre the games that came out in the first generation of roleplaying pretty much all emulated its approach. As a reaction to too many rules, too many tables of effects, and rolling too many dice, some second-generation games took a rules-light, dice-less, or "storyteller" approach. Within the current generation of games some systems strike a middle path, offering light and flexible mechanics that give GMs and players guidance while allowing them to tilt the mechanics to suit the narrative storytelling rather than vice versa.
My discourse on rules styles has gotten a little long (though believe me, it could be a lot longer) to outline the spectrum from rules-heavy to rules-light across which fantasy games operate. On this spectrum PF2 is unabashedly at the rules-heavy end. The core rulebook is nearly 700 pages long. Just creating characters— the first thing players do in a new role-playing game— took Hawk and me several hours each. And that's just for first level characters, and with us being very experienced gamers in other rules-heavy systems.
A Fun First Game... Though At What Cost?
So, after lots of effort getting our first-level characters ready, we finally played them Sunday night. The game was fun. Part of that was because the difficult player I wrote so much about recently was a no-show. We started without him, and without his disruptive, uncooperative presence our characters and play-styles meshed fairly well. (He chimed in online after about 2 hours, saying he'd overslept. Overslept? The game started at 8pm in his timezone!)Our accomplishments in-game were modest, as befits first level characters starting out. We explored part of a small dungeon and whomped on a few giant rats and a giant spider. There were useful things for all of us to do; a swashbuckler, a champion, a wizard, and a cleric.
One of the things PF2 looks to solve relative to older games like D&D 3.5 and its predecessors is to give each class lots of options for customization. A common criticism of older games is they risk becoming overly repetitious, like "I'm a Fighter, I'll swing my sword!" or, "I'm a Wizard, I'll cast my 2 spells for the day then cower in the back because any single hit is likely to kill me." PF2 definitely addresses that with lots of class variations... though the cost is complexity. Even with our lowly first-level characters, fighting first-level type monsters, there was a lot of state information to track. And even with a virtual tabletop software program specialized to PF2 rules to help manage all those details, it still took lots of time & effort to manage all the rules and state information and +1 or +2 bonuses here and there. Thet sheer amount of bookkeeping work that went into managing a simple, first level combat, even with computer software to help manage it, absolutely dwarfs what long-ago versions of D&D entailed.
no subject
Date: 2021-02-23 09:27 am (UTC)Second, yes, PF2 is extremely crunchy. Almost, but not quite yet, overbearingly crunchy. Three sub-observations on that are:
- If anything, the action economy is conceptually simpler, because all the action types are the same;
- But this is offset by the sheer scope of character building options;
- But so far, in play (up to 3rd level) my combat activities focus almost entirely on maneuvering my glass cannon rogue into a flanking position; the fighter seems to spend most of the time soaking damage and helping me set up flanks, and occasionally using a power attack; but the options for the spell casters seem like they might legitimately overwhelm a new player. This may change at higher levels-- we'll see.
Third, and related to above, my jury is still out as to whether these character customizations really mean anything. Partly, this is because I find d20 systems to be relatively anemic, and cannot muster up any real excitement over a +1 bonus in a d20 system. Partly it is because PF 2e is a shameless treadmill in terms of your average bonus (at level) vs the average difficulties you'll be facing due to monsters (at level.)
Fourth, I'm curious, and I have a reason for asking that I might not say anything about until later: Are you playing through one of the published Adventure Paths, and if so which one?
no subject
Date: 2021-02-23 03:54 pm (UTC)The place where I see PF2 getting complicated is in the sheer number of alternatives available to characters. A huge variety of feats give players a huge variety of options— and many of them introduce one-off rules, concepts, and or state information the player and GM have to track.
For example, as I'm playing a Swashbuckler, I have Panache. It powers my special attack form. There are at least 5 different ways for a Swashbuckler to gain Panache. My first level character has two of them: one that's standard for all, and one that's based on choices I made in character creation. Then there are various ways that the state of having Panache, once gained, is lost. I had to learn a whole new mechanic specific to this character class, and so did the GM.
Once we absorbed the additional mechanic it seems not hard to apply in combat; at least not in the simple combats of our first playing session. My concern, though, is about scaling. Every character class introduces additional mechanics that must be folded into one's understanding of the game. Even at first level, there is significant variation within each to master. I anticpate at higher levels the range of variability will be increased, likely with new mechanics, too, as higher level feats allow even greater customization.
Customization is great. It helps us get away from the "I'm a fighter, I just play the same attack action over and over" narrowness of play. But the downside of customization is the large and increasing number of rules players must master and all the fiddly bits of state information that must be tracked in combat.
no subject
Date: 2021-02-24 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-24 11:26 pm (UTC)I could see using that as an NPC class. It's fun to have a contact you visit occasionally who's weird, dangerous, and— on a 1d6 roll of "6"— wondrous. But to have that person in the party in every interaction and combat? Please, no.
no subject
Date: 2021-02-24 11:13 pm (UTC)