What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[stoutstien]

As God as my witness, I thought Kobolds could fly.

Well they can...at least once.

[Psyren]

I came across an essay posted to a PF2 group that resonated strongly with me, so I'm linking it here:

Tempering Expectations: Why Pathfinder 2e is a horizontal progression game disguised as a vertical one (and part two.)

There's lots of great quotes throughout this essay but I'll highlight this one:

The developers of Civilization once said players will optimize the fun out of the game, and therefore it is the designer's job to protect the player from themselves. This is because players will naturally gravitate towards what is most efficient, rather than what's actually good for long-term enjoyment.

Vertical progression is a prime example of this; players expect it because it's like sugar. It's a strong hit that feels good, but it begins to devalue the game if you become so strong that everything becomes trivial. You get numbers for their own sake over anything meaningful. This was literally the point of the Genocide route in Undertale.

However, none of this matters if you can't even get players in the door. 2e is a horizontal progression system to avoid the rampant power escalation of other systems, but Paizo had to keep up that deception of strong vertical progression because - frankly - they knew players would reject it outright if they were honest and upfront about it.

Simply put, player expectations of what a d20 system stopped Paizo from being truly free to make the game they wanted, so Paizo had to use sleight of hand to make the game they wanted.

Players were craving sugar. Paizo had to trick people into eating their vegetables.

(Part 2 also touches on the - largely disingenuous - criticisms raised by Taking20 in his quitting PF2 video, while highlighting the point he was actually trying to get across in a much more reasonable way.)

[Tanarii]

No progression / treadmilling because PC offense and enemy defense, and vice versa, go up at the same standard rate is fairly common in both TTRPGs and CRPGs/MMOs. The advantages and flaws in the method are well known.

In TTRPGs it's usually considered a flawed design. Because the primary flaw in a TTRPG is that it requires strongly linear adventures (preferably with milestone leveling), very short adventures designed for a specific level, or railroading. The allowed deviation from the level required and challenges at that level that the GM can use, or the players can decide to go encounter, is very small.

D&D 4e and 13th age were designed the same way. 13th age is actually batter at it, because the three tiers of play are only across ten total, instead of thirty. So there no chance of accidentally being off the required numbers by more than a level either way due to a system design mistake.

CRPGs/MMOs usually get around this by grinding xp until you can proceed with the game.

[Rynjin]

I came across an essay posted to a PF2 group that resonated strongly with me, so I'm linking it here:

Tempering Expectations: Why Pathfinder 2e is a horizontal progression game disguised as a vertical one (and part two.)

There's lots of great quotes throughout this essay but I'll highlight this one:



(Part 2 also touches on the - largely disingenuous - criticisms raised by Taking20 in his quitting PF2 video, while highlighting the point he was actually trying to get across in a much more reasonable way.)

"[Users] don't actually know what they want" is always one of the most pretentious phrases someone can utter, no matter how much you try to cloak it.

I find it really ironic that this article displays the exact kind of elitism people have been decrying in this thread lmao. "The game's not bad, you're just a child who doesn't want to eat their vegetables *smug*"

[Kane0]

I read it and didnt feel the OP being smug or condescending.

[lesser_minion]

"[Users] don't actually know what they want" is always one of the most pretentious phrases someone can utter, no matter how much you try to cloak it.

It's not "players don't know what they want", it's "don't make the player choose between winning and having fun".

[Rynjin]

It's not "players don't know what they want", it's "don't make the player choose between winning and having fun".

frankly - they knew players would reject it outright if they were honest and upfront about it.

...

Players were craving sugar. Paizo had to trick people into eating their vegetables.

The point is literally "people thought they didn't want the game Paizo wanted to make so Paizo had to literally trick them for their own good".

[lesser_minion]

The point is literally "people thought they didn't want the game Paizo wanted to make so Paizo had to literally trick them for their own good".

That's what the whole of the "water finds a crack"/"you need to protect players from themselves" idea is. If people are made to choose between having fun and winning, plenty of people will choose winning and then complain that they're not having fun.

[Rynjin]

In other words, "treat the players like children, they don't know better".

If that doesn't come across as smug and condescending to you...I dunno what else to say.

[Pauly]

"[Users] don't actually know what they want" is always one of the most pretentious phrases someone can utter, no matter how much you try to cloak it.

*"

The better iteration of the phrase is “people are bad at communicating what they want”. There are so many layers of social expectations, misdiagnosis of issues, , differences in technical knowledge, differences in terminology between people, cultural values and so on that sometimes it’s a miracle that person A understands what person B is trying to say.

[JNAProductions]

“Designing a game so the most effective way to play is also dull” is another way of putting it.

Is that smug or condescending?

[Zalabim]

Frankly, this sounds more like your DM being a massive jerk than anything related to the system or rules or skill levels.

The Sunless Citadel is sunken into a crevasse. The party is supposed to climb down some 50' to a landing below. There are old, carved handholds on the wall, and a weathered rope tied to a pillar at the top. We were all new, and the book says that everything has a Climb DC in 3E. I roll and say I failed. The DM says the DC is super low. I rolled less than 0. That's a failure even for a knotted rope. Well, maybe you took off your shield and armor before climbing? There are giant rats down there. I don't remember anything else we might've done that session.

Ackchewally, you only fall if you fail the DC by 5 or more.

We were new. It was funny. There were plenty of other games to play, and I see this mistake still being made in every edition to this day.

[Razade]

In other words, "treat the players like children, they don't know better".

If that doesn't come across as smug and condescending to you...I dunno what else to say.

The way you're phrasing it is certainly condescending, but you're phrasing it in an inherently condescending way and assuming motive of a writer you don't actually know.

As someone who has worked in game design, both table top and video game, with lots of playtesting/focus testing under their belt, having sifted through countless surveys and sat through hours upon hours of redesigns based on community feedback the sentiment that players may not know what they want from a user end experience bears out. That you find it condescending to have this pointed out is a you thing. If I had a dollar for every time I had someone give me a run down of what they wanted, only to give back a user survey along the lines of "I didn't enjoy this because it's exactly what I wanted and I didn't know it wouldn't be good" I would be able to no longer read user surveys or playtest response entries.

[Psyren]

"[Users] don't actually know what they want" is always one of the most pretentious phrases someone can utter, no matter how much you try to cloak it.

I find it really ironic that this article displays the exact kind of elitism people have been decrying in this thread lmao. "The game's not bad, you're just a child who doesn't want to eat their vegetables *smug*"

I think you're taking the sound bite I pulled out as some kind of attack when it definitely isn't. The article isn't calling anyone children.

The point is literally "people thought they didn't want the game Paizo wanted to make so Paizo had to literally trick them for their own good".

If they had openly called PF2 what it is - a horizontal progression system - then I truly think its adoption would have been even lower than what it was. That includes if they had dispensed with the "potency rune" stuff and simply baked those bonuses into the progression normally. People were expecting items that do things, and PF2 made them expected parts of progression rather than electives like they are in 5e.

[animorte]

It's not "players don't know what they want", it's "don't make the player choose between winning and having fun".

“Designing a game so the most effective way to play is also dull” is another way of putting it.

These two right here.

Some people define fun as "whatever it takes to win" while others don't have a problem with "play what is fun either way." Some people can't have fun without winning while others just have fun along the way, win or lose. I also like to note that there are far more ways of losing than just running out of HP. In my experience, plenty of people lack the creativity to figure that out.

[Rynjin]

As someone who has worked in game design, both table top and video game

That experience is not unique to you in this conversation.

with lots of playtesting/focus testing under their belt, having sifted through countless surveys and sat through hours upon hours of redesigns based on community feedback the sentiment that players may not know what they want from a user end experience bears out. That you find it condescending to have this pointed out is a you thing. If I had a dollar for every time I had someone give me a run down of what they wanted, only to give back a user survey along the lines of "I didn't enjoy this because it's exactly what I wanted and I didn't know it wouldn't be good" I would be able to no longer read user surveys or playtest response entries.

There's a very strong difference between these two contexts. Players typically know what they want. What they don't know is the best way to execute on that fantasy.

Buying too heavily into the "users are stupid" mindset is how a lot of software devs get into trouble. And the games industry is no different. This mindset is what leads to infamous out of touch moments like the Battlefront II reboot's launch where the devs got too focused on sucking up their own farts to actually make a fun game.

If they had openly called PF2 what it is - a horizontal progression system - then I truly think its adoption would have been even lower than what it was.

Sure. I think we're pulling opposite lessons from this likely fact, however. To me this reads as "nobody wanted a horizontal progression game from Paizo". It seems as though the Reddit poster believes the opposite "people wanted it, they just didn't know they wanted it".

The "from Paizo" bit is pretty key, as at least one game with primarily horizontal progression exists as a reasonably sized competitor to Patfinder 2e: Savage Worlds.

The difference is that SW executes on the concept competently.

[Razade]

That experience is not unique to you in this conversation.

Nor did I say, or imply, that that wasn't the case. At all.

There's a very strong difference between these two contexts. Players typically know what they want. What they don't know is the best way to execute on that fantasy.

Which, I think you'll find and as others have been saying, is the meat and potatoes of what you're misconstruing. See...anyone else replying to you.

Buying too heavily into the "users are stupid" mindset is how a lot of software devs get into trouble. And the games industry is no different. This mindset is what leads to infamous out of touch moments like the Battlefront II reboot's launch where the devs got too focused on sucking up their own farts to actually make a fun game.

I'm certainly not buying into that mentality and I don't think anyone is arguing for that mentality.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The way you're phrasing it is certainly condescending, but you're phrasing it in an inherently condescending way and assuming motive of a writer you don't actually know.

As someone who has worked in game design, both table top and video game, with lots of playtesting/focus testing under their belt, having sifted through countless surveys and sat through hours upon hours of redesigns based on community feedback the sentiment that players may not know what they want from a user end experience bears out. That you find it condescending to have this pointed out is a you thing. If I had a dollar for every time I had someone give me a run down of what they wanted, only to give back a user survey along the lines of "I didn't enjoy this because it's exactly what I wanted and I didn't know it wouldn't be good" I would be able to no longer read user surveys or playtest response entries.

And not just game design. The aphorism in the product development community goes something like

Customers are really good at finding problems, but really bad at finding solutions.

They know that things don't work right. But they don't know, really, how it should work.

[Rynjin]

Which, I think you'll find and as others have been saying, is the meat and potatoes of what you're misconstruing. See...anyone else replying to you.



I'm certainly not buying into that mentality and I don't think anyone is arguing for that mentality.

In this thread? No. In that post? Yes.

I'm really not sure how the frequent use of infantilizing language doesn't ping on anybody else's "wow, that's uncalled for" meter, but whatever, I've already spent enough time arguing over some random Redditor's opinion for one night.

And not just game design. The aphorism in the product development community goes something like

Customers are really good at finding problems, but really bad at finding solutions.

They know that things don't work right. But they don't know, really, how it should work.

This part I can absolutely agree with. The part I take umbrage with is taking that a step further, and saying that customers don't know what they want.

They absolutely know what they want. They might not know the best way to get it, but they know what they want. Ignoring this is a recipe for disaster

[Tanarii]

I read it and didnt feel the OP being smug or condescending.

The writer of the linked Reddit post may not have been smug or condescending, but it certainly attributes something to Paizo that paints them as being both condescending and deceitful.

"Customers don't know what they really want, our way is superior*, and we'll trick them into doing it" definitely qualifies as both

*even though several systems have shown it actually isn't.

[Snowbluff]

I came across an essay posted to a PF2 group that resonated strongly with me, so I'm linking it here:

Tempering Expectations: Why Pathfinder 2e is a horizontal progression game disguised as a vertical one (and part two.)

There's lots of great quotes throughout this essay but I'll highlight this one:



(Part 2 also touches on the - largely disingenuous - criticisms raised by Taking20 in his quitting PF2 video, while highlighting the point he was actually trying to get across in a much more reasonable way.)

I have to say, something about a community member stating a deliberate deception from the game devs followed by applause from the audience makes me sick to the stomach. Doubly so for saying complaints about said system are "disingenuous" when the devs have set such a low bar on the sincerity scale.

Also the assertation that people have trouble adjusting because of the heavy railroading not having basic competency outside of their few areas of expertise coming off of 5e, rather than maybe their game have deep rooted flaws, is more than a little funny to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This part I can absolutely agree with. The part I take umbrage with is taking that a step further, and saying that customers don't know what they want.

They absolutely know what they want. They might not know the best way to get it, but they know what they want. Ignoring this is a recipe for disaster

Well...it's not that simple. Very frequently, people don't really know what they want. They know what they've liked in the past, but rarely why or what particular parts of it were key. And very frequently, something as simple as the DM being really enthusiastic about something can totally change the person's perspective and they'll like something they never thought they would.

Of course, this is more about the details. And does not excuse bait-and-switch tactics or otherwise deceptive ones. I'm taking no position on Paizo or this article here--personally, I'm not a fan of Paizo's work generally. But "people don't always know what they want" is quite often true. The qualifier there is important.

People often know what they don't want. But that doesn't get you all the way to a finished product. And often that comes with a lot of baggage that may or may not apply. A customer might say they do not like cherry pie because they had a bad date where cherry pie was involved. This does not mean that cherries are totally off the table. Or that in the right context, with the right person, cherry pie might be great.

Or even they might be utterly confused about what it is they don't like. Often, the concerns they say are not their real concerns. And it's not that they're lying, but their concerns aren't well examined even to themselves. Some digging might (depending on the relationship the inquirer has with them) might uncover their real concerns. Or might not. Or they might not have any real concerns and are just annoyed for some other reason entirely.

Product development is hard. It's why I stick to building stuff for my own tables, where I have a much better view of what's desired. And why about half the time I just say "screw it, I'm gonna build something I can be excited about." Because I've found a lot of the time, that's enough. Even if the content isn't exactly what someone wants, enthusiasm is infectious.

This also implies that being cautious and "cramped" about your design to avoid offending anyone, touching anything that someone doesn't like, or "keeping a broad audience" often just means you end up with something no one really likes. Because it's just bland.

/rant

[Razade]

I'm really not sure how the frequent use of infantilizing language doesn't ping on anybody else's "wow, that's uncalled for" meter, but whatever, I've already spent enough time arguing over some random Redditor's opinion for one night.

I generally don't have a problem pinging when people are using condescending language, especially when they act like I just can't grok when it's happening simply because myself or others don't agree with their own feelings.

[Pex]

I came across an essay posted to a PF2 group that resonated strongly with me, so I'm linking it here:

Tempering Expectations: Why Pathfinder 2e is a horizontal progression game disguised as a vertical one (and part two.)

There's lots of great quotes throughout this essay but I'll highlight this one:



(Part 2 also touches on the - largely disingenuous - criticisms raised by Taking20 in his quitting PF2 video, while highlighting the point he was actually trying to get across in a much more reasonable way.)

I saw the video that was discussed. Wow, what a response to it.

That was a wonderful accolade to Pathfinder. It won't necessarily change the minds of people here who prefer 5E, but it's not really trying to. What it comes down to is where the people who aren't liking Pathfinder for reasons, the author admits those reasons and calls them a virtuous on purpose intent. If you won't like Pathfinder, fine, but the game has nothing to apologize for.

Awhile ago in an old thread I mentioned I have reached the point of liking 5E more than Pathfinder 1E. I still do, but I haven't stopped liking Pathfinder 1E. My pre-Virus Apocalypse Pathfinder group got back together, and we're playing again. I'm definitely missing some 5E rules such as movement freedom and Cantrips, but I'm still enjoying the game for the campaign's sake and the game mechanics. It's possible to like both 5E and Pathfinder, hard as it may seem for some. I have not played Pathfinder 2E. I was not fond of the playtest rules, but from what I've been reading so far they polished it up into something I like. I would be willing to give it a try if given the opportunity.

The Sunless Citadel is sunken into a crevasse. The party is supposed to climb down some 50' to a landing below. There are old, carved handholds on the wall, and a weathered rope tied to a pillar at the top. We were all new, and the book says that everything has a Climb DC in 3E. I roll and say I failed. The DM says the DC is super low. I rolled less than 0. That's a failure even for a knotted rope. Well, maybe you took off your shield and armor before climbing? There are giant rats down there. I don't remember anything else we might've done that session.

Ackchewally, you only fall if you fail the DC by 5 or more.

We were new. It was funny. There were plenty of other games to play, and I see this mistake still being made in every edition to this day.

That's where Take 10 should have come in and solved the problem. You can Take 10 when climbing and not in combat or other stressful situation. It only means you're autoaccepting an average result. If it would still fail a particular DC it only means you failed trying to climb in the first place, not climb half-way and fall. It wouldn't have failed in this case, and you'd have climbed down safely. You couldn't Take 20 because it assumes you roll a 1 before a 20, and there's a serious consequence for rolling that 1. I don't know if that was the module's intent, but it was a good opportunity to teach the Take 10 rule. The module was not designed for a PC to die as soon as it starts.

[Snowbluff]

Awhile ago in an old thread I mentioned I have reached the point of liking 5E more than Pathfinder 1E. I still do, but I haven't stopped liking Pathfinder 1E. My pre-Virus Apocalypse Pathfinder group got back together, and we're playing again. I'm definitely missing some 5E rules such as movement freedom and Cantrips, but I'm still enjoying the game for the campaign's sake and the game mechanics. It's possible to like both 5E and Pathfinder, hard as it may seem for some. I have not played Pathfinder 2E. I was not fond of the playtest rules, but from what I've been reading so far they polished it up into something I like. I would be willing to give it a try if given the opportunity.

I don't know a lot of people who have played PF1 who enjoy PF2. I know a lot of people who have played PF1 and enjoy 5e. Most of the people who I have seen enjoy PF2 have simply not played 3.5 or PF1. Having played the game, I cannot say it has improved from the playtest. I get the impression people like the idea of a crunchy system, and the illusion of PF2 having in depth character building holds up as long as you've not played a system that executes it well.

I think "illusion of choice" is right. Illusion of work is probably also right. I had thought of it as a rigidly vertical system, but I'm not sure why it's worth even to put the pen to paper to make a character sheet outside of your bio. I've played a lot of MMOs, and FFXIV comes to mind. It's a game I like well enough, but it has deep seated issues that have compounded after years. The progression is drawn out pointlessly each time an expansion comes out. Each class gains an ability, and loses one, and you need to level 10 levels to get back to having one more button to push. There's not a lot of meaningful decision making in buildcrafting (you'll probably get a weapon for a slight different weighting in a second stat). It's a treadmill in the purest sense. The story is the main draw, I would say, but nothing about any other MMO (or even FFXIV itself with some level compression) would preclude a good story.

[Tanarii]

Read part two of the Reddit post, and this poster is just doing a terrible job of "defending" PF2. (Defending in quotes because like many defenders, they're actually going on the offense online because they view it as needing defending.)

If this is an example of PF2 online attitudes of folks suggesting PF2, I can see why some folks would get triggered.

Edit: So far I'm enjoying my read through of PF2. But I can't see I'll ever be able to run a multi-FLGS open-table true-sandbox campaign using it. It's too complex to sell to a big enough audience of somewhat new to TTRPG folks. And the math appears to be too tightly bound. That combination lends it to dedicated gaming groups where the players don't change, the characters are all the same level, and the DM designs or finds content appropriate to their level.

[Kurald Galain]

Tempering Expectations: Why Pathfinder 2e is a horizontal progression game disguised as a vertical one (and part two.)

I find that reddit post a pretty funny bit of amateur armchair theorizing.

Leaving aside the question of condescendingness, the analysis is clearly incorrect if you look at what other games in the market are popular. It also gives the designers too much credit: the more straightforward explanation is that they're great at stories (because Paizo adventure paths have been exceedingly popular for over a decade) and just not great at game design; not than that they're pulling some "magnificent bastard" level of manipulation on the player base. Occam's Razor y'all.

(edit) this fits well with the classic 3E CYA post that "yeah, we intentionally made some feats crappy because that's how MtG also works amirite? Honestly, we didn't make a mistake, it's intentional".

[Zalabim]

To reply to the thread topic myself: Pathfinder 2E promoters frequently and loudly proclaimed things about the system that were, on inspection, complete fiction. Now I've read more and more of the system, I can better judge when someone is just being exuberant. For my own part, I think of the system as having bloated numbers for deflated PC options. "The high level combat doesn't break" because level 20 PF2 PCs are about as powerful as level 10 5E PCs. "The system is a lot like 4E" in that it doubled down on complaints I've heard about 4E, like every character applying +something or -something for one round, or roles pigeonholing classes into doing just one thing. It is not like 4E in the sense of allowing flexible character builds (like classes leaning into secondary roles), or balanced resource attrition (no martial encounter powers, no healing surges), or fun powers (even at-will powers are allowed strong knock-on effects, like adding your secondary ability modifier to the next ally's attack), or an epic tier that feels epic. It also feels like pathfinder when I see that Fighter, Barbarian, Investigator, Monk, Ranger, Swashbuckler, Rogue, Thaumaturge, Gunslinger, and Inventor are strikers. They deal lots of damage, particularly to single targets, while protecting themselves. (good-aligned) Champions are defenders. They protect allies. Evil-aligned champions are also strikers. Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, Psychic, Summoner, and Wizard are casters which means they have a bunch of vaguely thematic limited use abilities that make them good at ???? in combat. So they're controllers I guess. It also still feels like it has the full-attack action problem.

[Zuras]

Man, if people knew what they wanted we’d still be drinking New Coke. It’s not like those market researchers didn’t know how to run a double blind taste test or interpret a t-statistic.

Besides which, using the most inflammatory phrasing possible (the designers did x because they think we’re fools) hardly brings much insight to the issue. If their number one customer complaint was balance, and they solved it by shifting level advancement to be more horizontal, that’s hardly ignoring your customers.

[Kurald Galain]

Besides which, using the most inflammatory phrasing possible (the designers did x because they think we’re fools) hardly brings much insight to the issue. If their number one customer complaint was balance, and they solved it by shifting level advancement to be more horizontal, that’s hardly ignoring your customers.

I should add that while PF2's vertical progression (i.e. getting bigger numbers as you level up) is largely illusory, its horizontal progression (i.e. getting more different options as you level up) is also largely illusory*; and both 3E/PF and 4E easily offer much more horizontal growth than PF2 does.

*On the one hand because of feat chains; on the other hand because most of the extra "options" either don't do anything, or are clearly inferior to standard low-level moves. If new options are clearly weaker than lower-level options, then they are making people choose between "winning" and "having fun".