Darn. I guess I have given up on Pathfinder.

[SangoProduction]

It took a lot of time, and ultimately the discovery of Spheres of Power, for me to switch from 3.5 to PF. But damn. The PF players on Roll20. I've never seen a group more committed to the most boring rollplay combat. And I've played 4e (with role players, admittedly), and people were descriptive and interactive and fun with everything, even in combat. In the two years I've tried to play Pathfinder, I've had exactly 0 groups that wasn't like that. And I've been in and out of so many campaigns (I think at one point, I was signing up for and quitting 3 a week). Trying to bring the light of life in to PF tables is like trying to push down a solid brick wall of a 3 story house.

It's so frustrating! Especially so due to PF ruining 3.5 for me, with its fairly objective improvements to many of the systems (even if I disapproved of its insistence on single-classing). I've moved on to other games like FATE, and such, but do you guys know of any other roleplay-focused gaming groups on Roll20? (By that I mean, the games that produce good roleplaying players on the site.) Or how to find one? It's a bit difficult to just go in to a new system and sign up for a bunch of games, due to many of them wanting you to learn the system and make the character before beginning, which takes a large chunk of time...especially when it's just something to drop soon thereafter.

[Minion #6]

Didn't you already make this thread last month? I remember discussing this with you already, specifically that Pathfinder doesn't seem to be the system that does what you want.

EDIT: And the responses to your thread are eerily similar again.

[Rhedyn]

With a bit of Backbone, you could GM a local game in meat-space and get players to play like that.

"What do you do?"

"I attack! 13!"

"Describe the attack."

Online games tend to suck and most of the online role-play focused types went to 5e awhile ago because they hate mechanics.

[Troacctid]

Yep, that sounds like 3.5/PF alright.

You'll get the best results if you're willing to GM. Then you get to pick whatever system you want and screen out players you don't like.


Online games tend to suck and most of the online role-play focused types went to 5e awhile ago because they hate mechanics.
3.5e's mechanics are cumbersome to implement in Roll20, while 5e is extremely well-supported with digital adventure modules, streamlined character creation, and an integrated compendium with SRD material included free. The incentive to switch is strong regardless of your playstyle.

[Gallowglass]

... ... I've been in and out of so many campaigns (I think at one point, I was signing up for and quitting 3 a week)...

...even if I disapproved of its insistence on single-classing...

Two points:

If the same thing keeps happening, it would behoove you to consider that the problem might be with you, not with everyone else.

Nothing about Pathfinder insists on single-classing. Single-minded power-gamers and optimizers insist on single-classing. That's not a game issue, that's a style of play issue. And, it seems like your desired style of play contradicts with the power-gaming/optimizing style anyway.

[BWR]

With a bit of Backbone, you could GM a local game in meat-space and get players to play like that.

"What do you do?"

"I attack! 13!"

"Describe the attack."

Online games tend to suck and most of the online role-play focused types went to 5e awhile ago because they hate mechanics.

I hope you aren't conflating description with roleplaying. And the idea that roleplayers hate mechanics is quite at odds with my personal experience.

Personally, having to describe every blow and maneuver is a turn-off for me. It can sometimes work in games where combat doesn't occur that often and where there aren't a lot of dice rolls, but your average D&D-ish game has quite a bit of combat and describing every die roll gets old real fast. As a player I mostly do the rolls and intent and tactics, and leave it up to the GM to tell me how it turns out. As a GM I only bother to add flavor to significant rolls, like felling blows or a really good result on a crit/combat maneuver/spell, etc. For everything else, just saying what you are doing and what your dice rolls are is plenty detail.

[heavyfuel]

which takes a large chunk of time

Y'know what else takes a large chuck of time?

Describing in details every single attack every single character makes.

Party of 4 lv 11 characters facing against 6 lv 6 mobs and 1 lv 11 boss? That's around 25 attacks/spells every single round that you want described. That takes FOREEEEEEVEEER.

It's just so much simpler to simply state the damage and only describe kill-shots on relevant characters. The example fight would, at most have 4 descriptions of attacks, but likely only one or two. Not nearly one hundred.

[SangoProduction]

Y'know what else takes a large chuck of time?

Describing in details every single attack every single character makes.

Party of 4 lv 11 characters facing against 6 lv 6 mobs and 1 lv 11 boss? That's around 25 attacks/spells every single round that you want described. That takes FOREEEEEEVEEER.

It's just so much simpler to simply state the damage and only describe kill-shots on relevant characters. The example fight would, at most have 4 descriptions of attacks, but likely only one or two. Not nearly one hundred.

10 minutes of unengaging combat that is irrelevant to you or your character, because it's not your turn and no one's targeting you, or 11 minutes of engaging combat that's at least worth listening to.

Now, if every round were really quick, and just ran on like a finely-functioning conveyor belt of number rolls, where you're not stuck there waiting for your turn, then you'd have a point. Have yet to find a single Pathfinder game which did that though, despite macros being available.

[Rhedyn]

I hope you aren't conflating description with roleplaying. And the idea that roleplayers hate mechanics is quite at odds with my personal experience.

Personally, having to describe every blow and maneuver is a turn-off for me. It can sometimes work in games where combat doesn't occur that often and where there aren't a lot of dice rolls, but your average D&D-ish game has quite a bit of combat and describing every die roll gets old real fast. As a player I mostly do the rolls and intent and tactics, and leave it up to the GM to tell me how it turns out. As a GM I only bother to add flavor to significant rolls, like felling blows or a really good result on a crit/combat maneuver/spell, etc. For everything else, just saying what you are doing and what your dice rolls are is plenty detail.No but I do conflate switching to 5e with a hatred for mechanics.

[SangoProduction]

Two points:

If the same thing keeps happening, it would behoove you to consider that the problem might be with you, not with everyone else.

Nothing about Pathfinder insists on single-classing. Single-minded power-gamers and optimizers insist on single-classing. That's not a game issue, that's a style of play issue. And, it seems like your desired style of play contradicts with the power-gaming/optimizing style anyway.

/sigh.
OK. Do tell. How many prestige classes does Pathfinder have? But yes, I am clearly a power-gamer. Thank you for that insight.

[Crake]

Nothing about Pathfinder insists on single-classing. Single-minded power-gamers and optimizers insist on single-classing. That's not a game issue, that's a style of play issue. And, it seems like your desired style of play contradicts with the power-gaming/optimizing style anyway.

Disagree strongly. Almost everything about the way pathfinder has been designed strongly encourages single classing. If anything, it's the power gamers and optimizers who actively seek out multiclassing in the hopes of finding some nicely front-loaded benefits worth taking at the expense of their primary class. Most mid-op players I know will single class, because the game so strongly encourages it, and any time they tried to multiclass, it ended in horrible failure, usually nuking the character's abilities to the point where they just re-built single classed. The only time my group made a successful multiclassed character was when I built a rogue/shadowdancer/incanter spheres character, who was practically impercievable even when walking around right in front of people and nuking them in the face with destruction magic.

Honestly though, saying nothing about pathfinder insists on single classing when it's literally part of their stated design philosophy, and hard coded into pathfinder 2 is just showing ignorance on your part.


10 minutes of unengaging combat that is irrelevant to you or your character, because it's not your turn and no one's targeting you, or 11 minutes of engaging combat that's at least worth listening to.

Now, if every round were really quick, and just ran on like a finely-functioning conveyor belt of number rolls, where you're not stuck there waiting for your turn, then you'd have a point. Have yet to find a single Pathfinder game which did that though, despite macros being available.

Adding on descriptions doesn't suddenly make the combat any more engaging, it just slows it down. It would be engaging if the players had some actual means to react to whats going on beyond the typical anime splitscreen as it rotates through all the present characters gasping in awe at what just happened.

[exelsisxax]

Pick up 5e, because it looks like you don't care about mechanically different characters and many of your problems are with people using rules to do what they want. You seem to just want lots of fluffy descriptions, and 5e is the king of having no options or engagement but wanting you to make everything sound awesome as the means of acquiring "fun"

[Buufreak]

Adding on descriptions doesn't suddenly make the combat any more engaging, it just slows it down. It would be engaging if the players had some actual means to react to whats going on beyond the typical anime splitscreen as it rotates through all the present characters gasping in awe at what just happened.

This, entirely. Slapping flavor text onto everything doesn't make it more engaging. The people make it engaging.

Something else I have generally observed: how long are you staying with each of these groups? A day? A week? It is my finding that regardless of system, every single individual plays ever so slightly differently, and the phrase "Oh, my past group (insert things here)" is more common than anything else. If you are hopping in and out of groups so fast and so often, you aren't giving a single game the time it takes to work the bugs out and become the fine tuned machine you are wanting. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Summarizing, give things time. I've played online with freeform, 3.5, 4e, 5e, and pf. The only thing that makes it engaging is the interpersonal interactions, be they material and readily tangible, or if it is more an ethereal and implied thing with the DM/GM/ST. You aren't going to find that overnight, whether you are player nor DM.

... And when you put all that aside, I run PbP here. Some have crashed, some are going strong. If one pops up that tickles your fancy, nibble on the hook. I honestly put in interest on a few each week, but (and I mean no offense by this) seeing the response from a few of the users, or strict desires of the OP, or even kinks in the chains of the 16, I rescind. Its just part of the process. But hopefully you will eventually find something you enjoy.

[Florian]

@SangoProduction:

That's a side-effect of how the system is build and weighted. PF combat is a tactical skirmish game with a heavy focus on attrition and resource management. Basically, you want individual turns be pretty quick and individual actions be to the point, the overall "picture" of the whole combat being what matters, because it can´t handle individual "cineastic" moves all too well. An individual strike or full attack don't really matter when we're talking about the abstract, the "hp" level of the system, so it´s a bit of a waste to go into describing each of them, more so when using stuff like ToB/ToW/SoM. It might please you, but bores the other 3+ on the table, especially when using a slow format.

You already use Fate. Try looking at L5R 4th and 5th, FFG Star Wars, Lady Blackbird and The Shadow of Yesterday.

[Sto]

My current game is heavily roleplay oriented. We've had a grand total of 4 combats. We generally don't describe everything we do unless we crit or instakill an enemy. Weake the combats go by quickly so we can go back to doing dumb things like spending 100 platinum on a party.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

In both my 3.5 and PF games, the fights tended towards two groups: (1) a fait accompli, with the interesting description/choices/rp being what happened beforehand to make it so, or (2) tense enough that a simple roll determining success or failure was exciting. (Which gets to a side point that emotional investment from the players and GM make for a good game, and such investment often requires time spent playing one character in one campaign.)

With (1), you do everything in your power to speed it up and move on to the interesting parts, including hand waving ends of fights entirely. With (2), you still want to keep it moving to maintain the tension. You bring out the flavor text when it's over, or at most to recap a round's worth of action.

If you want a "describe fun things happening all the time" type of game, Wushu is probably your style. Other more narrative-oriented games like Turn of the Card, FATE, or any game with a "yes but" mechanic will do in a pinch.