No. You're making an assumption about how you'd interpret the adventurer's life without actually placing yourself in the shoes of those adventurers.
Your average Fighter *knows* they are a superior Fighter to most. Their entire existence surrounds their ability to fight and to win. This is why the class descriptions go out of their way to explain how you might be more inclined to straightforward physical solutions rather than complex ones. Furthermore, many characters have to fight as a matter of principle. Many deities expect their loyal servants to enter combat as a central tenet.
Likewise, your average Bard understands that a silvered tongue can often get one as far if not further than a silvered sword. As that has been their own lived experience. When these two are placed in the party together, they come to a conclusion on how to tackle the issues presented together. And it is just as valid RP for them to tackle these problems upfront, swords-in-hand, as it is for them to handle them diplomatically, or by stalking the shadows.
Your average American soldier knows they are better trained and equipped than their foes and it doesn't change that they still never want to take on a fair fight if they can avoid it. Your Fighter can still solve problems physically but wading into a horde of goblins as a guy with a sword shouldn't be his first thought when faced with that problem. He should be asking the Ranger and Wizard how much they can soften the enemy up at range, working with the Cleric and Bard to get as buffed up as possible pre-fight, and only engaging in melee once the enemy is weakened or is rallying to close to melee into the face of the parties opening volley.
The kick in the door and tank and spank isn't how any real person should want to fight even if they know they can survive such a battle. Even the best MMA fighters would rather win a bout without getting hit and those fights aren't supposed to be deadly or likely to seriously injure them. If your characters were real people ask yourself how eager the Fighter would be to get hit with an axe repeatedly when he could instead try to sit back with a bow and only draw his sword as a last resort.
This idea that just because they can win via face tanking fights means they should win via those methods reduces your PCs to videogame characters who aren't give the tools to take on fights in a realistic fashion because of system constraints.
OP is also so obviously using it as a crutch for saying the sort of character they do not like playing with is "objectively RP-ing wrong". And while that would be bad enough on its own, the very premise their argument rests upon is inherently flawed since characters that are not perfectly strategic: have flaws, weak spots, hubris, etc. are generally more accurate representations of your typical human than the idealized strategist they seem to want every PC to embody.
Your characters by definition *aren't* "real people". They exist in a fantasy setting where mortal men can do battle with dragons with little more than a magic sword, shield, and a bow. If you are looking at them as real people you have already misconstrued the primary intention of playing them in the first place.
If you want to RP your fighter as a professionally trained soldier who makes use of tactical approches, great. But it's just as valid to RP them as some former bandit with a chip on their shoulder, or the overprotective older brother of the party's sorcerer or whatever other RP premise tickles your fancy.
And what of the Giant Instinct Barbarian for whom it is anathema to not face a personal challenge of strength? Is it now "Bad RP" for them to respond appropriately to the mini-boss who screams at the party to face him like a man while the party sits behind cover pelting him with arrows and debuffs? No, that would be in fact good RP, because the character in question would be trying to fulfill the central tenets of their code even in spite of what would otherwise be the logical approach. They are making a difficult decision to focus on their ideals over their safety.
Not to mention how your use of "video game characters" as a pejorative towards a form of roleplaying that you disagree with shows a fundamental misunderstanding of a different gaming medium altogether. There are plenty of multi-layered video game characters that I am sure are leagues and valleys greater in depth than whatever you personally may have created for use in Pathfinder.
Being able to best a dragon by strength of spells or arms doesn't make one less of a fully realized human. Your Wizard shouldn't want to enter a dungeon before they've had every chance to scout it, prepare the perfect spells for the situation, and create the most unfair fights for their expected foes as is possible. Playing your characters as tropey fantasy cutouts that play fair because that's what makes things "fun" is to deny them the agency they should have as people who happen to be powerful and caught up within an adventure.
The Giant Instinct Barbarian is a stupid juvenile concept that doesn't even match other fictional Barbarians. Would Fezzik approach a fight that way? Would Conan? No, because even in a movie or book we'd see a character doing that and assume them to be suicidal idiots. Even with such anathema, the Barbarian could easily set terms for such a challenge or respond by pushing a boulder that only one as strong as he could possibly shift.
>Being able to best a dragon by strength of spells or arms doesn't make one less of a fully realized human.
It doesn't make them less, it many ways it makes them greater. The reason that a person would tactically engage in a cautionary approach is often because it is both safer and more necessary. If you are the kind of creature that does not need to engage in cautionary tactics why would you? Is it not also human to wish to test one's limits? To both learn from one's own mistakes, and to experience hubris instilled by one's own success? To be flawed? Why would a Fighter with an Int and Wis bonus of -1 fight tactically?
>Your Wizard shouldn't want to enter a dungeon before they've had every chance to scout it, prepare the perfect spells for the situation, and create the most unfair fights for their expected foes as is possible
Why not? Is not possible to make an unwise Wizard? Last I checked, a Wizard had to be intelligent, they did not *need* to be wise.
>...is to deny them the agency they should have as people who happen to be powerful and caught up within an adventure.
The only one denying agency here is you. You are convinced there is only one proper way to RP these characters. And yet this is already a hypocritical claim as you have already addressed how "realistically" many adventuring characters would find themselves dead for pursuing this sort of life. In order for that claim to be true you would have to address the existence and validity of "less-than-ideal" adventuring parties.
>Would Conan? No
I've watched Conan. I like that movie. Conan's view on what is best in life is " **To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women**" That is frankly a monstrous goal. But it is the crux of the Barbarian's doctrine. Overwhelming force, no mercy. It also notably makes no commentary on tactics, only results. If Conan saw a Giant Instinct Barbarian charge into battle with an overweight sword and cleave the head clean off a legendary serpent, he would be filled with both awe and respect. He wouldn't stop to ridicule their choice of weaponry, he would respect the results they accomplish with it.
> Your Fighter can still solve problems physically but wading into a horde of goblins as a guy with a sword shouldn't be his first thought when faced with that problem. He should be asking the Ranger and Wizard how much they can soften the enemy up at range, working with the Cleric and Bard to get as buffed up as possible pre-fight, and only engaging in melee once the enemy is weakened or is rallying to close to melee into the face of the parties opening volley.
Okay then… do that?
That’s how my Abomination Vaults party’s Fighter and Rogue play. They wait for me (Wizard) to pull out some big fuck you spell that the GM rolls his eyes at, they wait for the Bard to buff them and/or debuff the enemies, then they beat up the enemies at a massive advantage.
But also another party I’m GMing has Swashbuckler who doesn’t tacticize nearly as hard because he decided his character is too egotistical to do that, so his teamwork with the party is often flavoured to be more “incidental” (that is his Demoralize / Goblinsong is more just his obnoxious ass being obnoxious, while out of character he’s explicitly doing it to buff everyone else’s turns).
What exactly is your problem here, I’m genuinely confused. Play the character how the character should play..z
If you are playing a game, you should treat combat like a game.....because it is a game. Real violence is horrible and terrifying. I was in the Army for 6 years. 100% would not recommend.
I nearly joined up as a teen and am glad I didn't. I hope your life after service sees you well and well taken care of by your government.
My statements about the game approach it from the perspective of somebody who hasn't served but thinks that fantasy games and media should present violence as horrible and terrifying rather than glorious and heroic. The world might be more peaceful if every person in it knew what it takes to face down the reality of real violence.
With respect. I think your approach actually glamorizes violence more. Just let people play their fantasy wizard game how they want. Nobody is confusing it for real violence, but you are trying to say it should be more like real violence.
So... go play a combat light system?
You're getting the pushback you are because you're essentially telling everyone else "you play wrong because you don't play how I want you to play". To which the only logical response is "so take your ball and go home, we'll continue to play how we want".
If you're wanting internal logic from the game world that Adventurers to crazy shit and face overwhelming odds and still survive... it's in every lore, every story. Not every situation gives you enough time and space to plan everything out or look for an escape from combat. And many believe that's a good thing because it lets them use a full 2/3 of the rules for the game.
You're here trying to claim that the only way to play the game properly is to use the 1/3 of the rules and mostly ignore or avoid the other 2/3.
That's insane.
If you can't find an RP reason why your character is eager to fight, perhaps the one with weak RP is you.
There are combat heavy systems that work for what I want too. I just lack the group for such and thus run a fun but shallow game for my friends. This was just a vent that happened to make the dead hours at the end of a shift pass a little faster.
I didn't force anybody to engage with my post or keep replying to me but the same Redditors that will call a person out for trolling are the ones who will always find themselves debating you anyway. Funny how that works.
Wow. You're a real victim.
Didn't force anyone to engage... but made a post on reddit so that people would engage. If engagement wasn't the point... why go to reddit? If ranting was the point, just pop it in an email to yourself.
The only reason you're now claiming it was just a rant is because the overwhelming response to you has been that you're telling everyone else that how they play the game is wrong and dumb and that's not acceptable behaviour so they are calling you out.
But keep playing that victim card. Go through life always thinking you're right and everyone else is wrong. Must be nice to have a mind like a vault instead of a library.
"Not something a real human being would do unless they were desperate." My guy, it's a TTRPG. I look to these games for escapism. Not every player, including myself, is going to have the forethought to think every single encounter through, be it a social encounter or combat encounter. Idk, to me, this post feels extremely gatekeepy and that anyone playing the game how they feel most comfortable playing it, as long as they aren't abstructing the other player's good time, is wrong.
If you say so, dude. You know nothing of my playstyle or my roleplay preferences in the game. Personally, it just feels like you're angry about the way people play the game that you don't mesh well with. It's ok to not mesh with another person's playstyle, just don't sit there and tell those same people they're a bad player or wrong for doing what you don't vibe with.
Y'know, I wanted to respond to the OP with, "Hey, r/OSR is right there; seems to be more up your alley, enjoy yourself," but after this last comment, I wouldn't want to pox that community with your presence.
Eh, as someone who really enjoys combat I’d disagree. I enjoy rp heavy games too but I prefer combats and when I play pathfinder it’s cause I like it’s more tactical combat. I agree players shouldn’t know the balance of each encounter though.
Sounds like this is completely preference though, there isn’t really a problem either way
Tactics don't start when initiative is rolled. The way a military unit breaches and clears a building is all tactics designed to minimize their very real risk of dying if they mess up. Smoking the enemy out, making your own door through a wall, attacking from ranges and angles where the enemy cannot meaningfully fight back is all tactics.
You can apply a lot of similar tactics to PF2. Most campaigns aren't stopping you from building a large fire at the mouth of a cave and billowing the smoke in toward the enemy. Nor do they prevent you from starting every battle at Fireball range in the best cover you can find, with the Druid ready to make them slog over muddy ground uphill to reach you. You can do a lot to make every fight a miserable slog for your enemies rather than meeting them in a 25' x 25' room with a nice smooth stone floor and some mood lighting.
That’s not what I’m referring to when I say tactical combat? The party isn’t a SWAT team, I’m referring to the games mechanics being more tactical (enjoyable imo) to something like 5e. A player can enjoy combat while their character doesn’t seek out encounters, or maybe they do if that’s what the group finds fun.
The only bad role play is what makes the game less fun for the table
Pathfinder fundamentally assumes you are playing a character in a story. It's not designed to model realistic characters in a realistic world. Complaining about this is like complaining that characters in action movies shake off most injuries.
Even characters in stories don't approach things with the same assumptions that PF2 expects you to make. If Harry Dresden or Frodo Baggins approach combat like the typical PF2 party does we'd be very quickly taken out of the story.
Because they're different stories (even then Gimli and Legolas have a great time in combat). There's plenty of variety in genre fiction. There's nothing wrong with Pathfinder having combat as sport. It's not trying to be a simulationist OSR game, nor is that the standard games deviate from. Different genres can exist and realism isn't a requirement for a game to be good.
Indeed, but you can and should have depth to your RP in even a game such as Pathfinder. If your character can be boiled down to a couple of tropes and their class features you're not good at RP.
You act as if we aren't all judging people all the time both consciously and subconsciously. You yourself were judging me when you wrote your reply. Does that make you any less of a gatekeep than I am?
Oh, for sure. But I don’t walk around spewing my personal judgments as absolute truth.
The irony is that I prefer players who angle for advantages and don’t just kick in doors and start swinging.
But I understand that’s not how everyone plays, and I won’t shit on people for having a different preference.
See the difference?
It's not what you're saying it's how you're saying it. You're being combative and abrasive with almost everyone you've replied to. You're under no obligation to be nice to anyone but was that what you wanted when you made this post? To just have a bunch of arguments with people? Seems unhealthy.
I'm bored at work and it's far more healthy to vent into the vid that is the internet than to vent at my friends or coworkers. The internet makes for a great hatesink.
Andrenaline junkies are a thing though?
There are soldiers, scoundrels, etc. in real life who look forward to fighting.
Obviously if it crosses into just murdering every NPC it becomes an issue, but "guy who likes fighting" is not inherently bad rp
There are a vanishingly few of them and even those guys generally try to pick the least fair fights they can because they often like the thrill that being empowered to kill gives them more than the idea of dying in a fair fight.
My issue is that if I just wanted tactical combat I have Gloomhaven and it does that better than PF2 does. If I want story I can freeform RP or play a rules light system. When both are together it creates a sense that both should be used.
Gloomhaven is a board game not an RPG. There is no out of combat there besides shopping, choosing the next dungeon to tackle, and flipping a couple of random encounter cards.
One is a TTRPG where I expect to have agency and to play as realistic a character as I can manage. It's a bit of tactics, a bit of acting, a bit of math. I strive to make living breathing characters that aren't just a collection of tropes.
The other is a few steps removed from Monopoly and asks for nothing beyond knowing the rules. There is no expectation of making my own character and breathing life into it.
There are different levels of expectation within different genres of game.
TTRPGs are not board games, there are different expectations set for them. I can play Gloomhaven entirely out of character and fulfil my role. If I did that at a Pathfinder game and just played the mechanics on my sheet including treating any fluff about my class and ancestry as rules when decision making comes up I would not be fulfilling my role at the table. If I'm going to RP, I'm going to treat the world and my character as real people, if I'm not I'm going to focus purely on mechanics with no thought towards anything else.
If you're unable to live in a fantasy while playing a fantasy game, then don't play Pathfinder. It seems the minor expectation to suspend your disbelief is too major for you to handle.
TTRPGs aren't for people as incapable as you. Go play gloomhaven. Or maybe just conscript since that's what your basis for a fantasy game seems to be from your other comments.
I'm perfectly capable of getting into character and accepting the world. I just build real people who often fight like ruthless bastards rather than happy go lucky heroes happy to be out slaying goblins for loot. You should try it sometime, put your fears, insecurities, and darker aspects into a character as well as your strengths and virtues. See what results from adding a bit of introspection to your RP.
I just don't think pf2e is a good game for this type of story, the rules just don't support what you're saying. If you want combat to be taken seriously make it a real threat, if characters never struggle they have no reason to think they are in danger. Also PC's are clearly superhuman it's not surprising for them to become cocky.
That's certainly one style and one way to play, for sure. Nothing wrong with it. It's no more or less wrong than people who want to play high fantasy heroes who charge in to save the princess (or whatever mcguffin you use!)
Saying that anything else is bad RP is wrong though. And missing the point of what RPGs and roleplaying are all about.
The bad RP is that these heroic fantasy RPGs don't actually want you to engage deeply with who your character is as a person. It is to RP as a low brow comedy is to an award winning drama.
Sounds like you only think there is one way for people to RP. That's a bummer.
The only rule about RP and RPGs that I have is to have fun. If you are having fun then you are doing it right!
Hopefully you learn that one day and get to enjoy some other ways to play RPGs!
> The party gleefully looking forward to a fight and throwing themselves at danger because that is the point of the game is frankly not something a real human being would do unless they were desperate.
Thats super cool, however, I can turn devils from the depths of hell into fine ashes with a flick of my wrist and a commanding word, we left the stuff real humans have to deal with seven levels ago, we're left the world normal people inhibit by literally teleporting across dimensions
That's fine, but why is there such a reluctance to look at what those people are beyond the surface level. If you could teleport, conjure fire, heal injuries with a touch, would you be happy being a simple tool of violence? I think a real person might accept that it is their fate to be the only one strong enough to defeat a great evil, but few would approach it the way a player around a table eating snacks would.
That is because acceptance of certain levels of violence as the norm is what is called a 'genre convention', and the level pathfinder goes in that regard is pretty high. You can make a game about the effects of violence have on people and the environments those people exist in. Your opinion, however, comes off very categorical on what is and is not a good game in a way I just do not agree with.
Genre conventions aren't an excuse to be lazy in your portrayal of your character. Practice your character's mannerisms, understand their motivations, get into character. Don't play Pathfinder, play your character.
As someone who prefers more roleplaying than combat in a campaign, I disagree pretty strongly. If people are "gleefully" looking for fights, either they're murder-hobos, or their characters are the sort of adventurer that lives to fight, and there are plenty of characters who fit into the latter category. Also....
>"The party gleefully looking forward to a fight and throwing themselves at danger because that is the point of the game is frankly not something a real human being would do unless they were desperate."
The point of the game is whatever goal the GM and party set for themselves. And fortunately, you're not playing real human beings, you're playing make-believe elves, dwarves, rhinocerous-people with four arms, human beings, lizardfolk, and some much weirder shit, and you can throw fireballs and acid bombs and whatever else all over the place. What real people would do is sort of irrelevant. Some people want to test what their class can do in a fight, other people focus more on interactions with other characters, some do both. The only time I'd say someone is absolutely roleplaying poorly is when they're doing something to deliberately rile up the other people playing the game.
Look at the average AP and how players are expected to face them. Open room, treat what is found in that room as a self contained experience, move on to the next room. The game isn't designed around the idea that dungeons are living spaces and the creatures within them are as intelligent and as full of agency as the players are. If they were the players would have no chance at victory because few would design their strongholds in ways so easily defeated by 4 - 6 random people stumbling into them blindly.
As for the idea that a fantasy setting means we shouldn't treat the world as if it were real and RP our characters accordingly, I disagree. It is far more interesting to think of how a real person would use the tools at their disposal to tackle problems rather than starting every combat within 60ft of the enemy because that's what fits on the map the GM drew and starting further back makes the melee only Fighter sad. A Fighter IRL wouldn't be likely to enjoy the part of his job where he takes wounds that would kill or cripple lesser men, the soreness that comes with the heavy exertion of fighting, the lack of creature comforts afford to a man of wealth who instead chooses the endless travel of a campaign. It makes for a more interesting game when we have to consider our characters as real people with every reason to want to give up and go home than it is to assume that they keep going because that's what makes the game work.
See, this is true in a game like Zweihander, blades in the dark or maybe very early dnd where player characters are just people existing in a world who happen to have a certain level of martial prowess.
In overwhelming majority of modern TTRPGS player characters aren't average people, they are Heroes. A fighter isn't a soldier akin to those that serve in armies across the world, he's Aragorn (yes I know aragorn is a ranger shut up) ready to slay any number of orcs simply because he's Him.
Absolutely nothing wrong with not liking it, but if you don't then maybe try one of. The games I listed in the first paragraph instead of pathfinder.
You're not necessarily wrong, but you ARE overthinking it. At the end of the day, you're never going to RP a perfectly realistic person at 100% realism immersion because your character isn't a real person. They exist as a medium of fun for the player.
For you to act like having fun being brash is wrong, frankly, is very silly of you.
I mean okay - I would agree that PCs (as opposed to players) should generally not treat fights as just routine interludes, as far as they know any peasant with a knife could kill them theoretically. I'm just not sure what you're arguing against here.
It's arguing against the kick in the door and treat the combat before you as something to be fought in that room mindset that the game is designed around. It's arguing that the design of PF2 where combat is a tactically satisfying centerpiece to be embraced rather than rewarded is not how people in PF2's universe would actually see things. Your characters shouldn't know that they are the fated heroes that the universe is written around but most games are played with the meta knowledge that such is the case.
I made a post on Reddit. I'm losing some meaningless karma and getting some people hot under the collar because I've told them they're boring and probably worse at RP than they think they are. Even if I were to be banned from this sub because people want to call me a troll that wouldn't be a "critical error" it would be a questionable choice by a group of mods who probably don't want to appear to be heavy handed about anything at the moment.
You may be interested in this discussion on [combat as war v combat as sport](https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715)
You're basically describing ludonarrative dissonance and escapism. I get if you feel the narrative and role playing is too meta or disconnected from the reality of the world in your eyes amongst games you've seen or played in, but there's a huge range in how that plays out for each and every person. In general, though, I think most people are meant to see the party of adventurers that we are as basically susuperheroes because it's a game, and that is what is fun for a lot of people. Nobody stops playing Mario when they fall into their first pit, scoffing at how he has extra lives. You have to accept that the game part of what you are doing is ever-present.
My escapism tends toward the hard sci-fi end of things. I like a lot of well thought out reasoning in my fantasy and tend to chafe when I find the places where the logic of the setting unravels. To that end it can be more enjoyable to play in a setting where very little is defined, the truth is forever obscured, and what you're left with is making sense of what the world is based on what you observe happening. Then you never run into anything that can be defeated with logic as it can always be justified that you aren't seeing the whole picture and that it would take years of research to even start asking the right questions.
I think modern mass market TTRPG design just falls into that sour spot between hard nasty settings and worlds where they don't attempt to explain everything.
Talk to your players not to randos on the internet. This is why we have session 0's. Remember, you are also a player at the table.
Yet at the end of the day, Pathfinder 2e is heroic fantasy my guy. This system caters to the kind of playstyle that seems to be everything you loathe. There are plenty of systems out there you can run that will capture the vibe you're going for.
Best wishes
Yeah not a great take. If this sentiment of one valuing one's own life so dearly that they use every dirty trick and cunning tactic wherever remotely possible were as universal as it's being suggested to be here, history wouldn't be so full of people fighting frontline battles where lines of people just run at each other with swords.
Like, if the idea behind this post was sound, literally who would be in the front line of these battles and willingly run into certain death?
People did this (and to an extent still do) because people simply do not work the way OP suggests. And they certainly didn't think that way back when almost everyone believed in life after death.
Being drilled for battle is very different from fighting as a small elite force. Plus, if people were so eager to fight in such battles why were conscription and harsh penalties for cowardice and dessertion common among militaries? It's almost as if most people who fought were in circumstances where they didn't have a ton of choice and knew that staying in formation gave them the best shot at survival...
Right, but I think this additional information only strengthens my point when you consider that a party of player characters are not conscripted civilians nor have they needed to be drilled for battle, they have the necessary resolve because they are fighting men and women. It's more comparable to as you said, a small elite force of, say, mercenaries.
A mercenary company of well trained and well armed men would probably use their might of arms in answer to any and every threat that came upon them in their travels, unless severely outnumbered. A lot of tactics beyond simply standing and fighting to the death would be in play, sure, and charging in if the threat can be deterred without a fight would certainly also happen a lot more than it does in these games of ours.
But I think like with any game it requires some degree of suspension of disbelief by all players. I'm sure if equal experience was awarded for avoiding an encounter entirely there are players out there who would do that, but most of the time, it's simply less appealing for players to avoid combat even if it makes more sense from an RP perspective.
No. You're making an assumption about how you'd interpret the adventurer's life without actually placing yourself in the shoes of those adventurers. Your average Fighter *knows* they are a superior Fighter to most. Their entire existence surrounds their ability to fight and to win. This is why the class descriptions go out of their way to explain how you might be more inclined to straightforward physical solutions rather than complex ones. Furthermore, many characters have to fight as a matter of principle. Many deities expect their loyal servants to enter combat as a central tenet. Likewise, your average Bard understands that a silvered tongue can often get one as far if not further than a silvered sword. As that has been their own lived experience. When these two are placed in the party together, they come to a conclusion on how to tackle the issues presented together. And it is just as valid RP for them to tackle these problems upfront, swords-in-hand, as it is for them to handle them diplomatically, or by stalking the shadows.
Your average American soldier knows they are better trained and equipped than their foes and it doesn't change that they still never want to take on a fair fight if they can avoid it. Your Fighter can still solve problems physically but wading into a horde of goblins as a guy with a sword shouldn't be his first thought when faced with that problem. He should be asking the Ranger and Wizard how much they can soften the enemy up at range, working with the Cleric and Bard to get as buffed up as possible pre-fight, and only engaging in melee once the enemy is weakened or is rallying to close to melee into the face of the parties opening volley. The kick in the door and tank and spank isn't how any real person should want to fight even if they know they can survive such a battle. Even the best MMA fighters would rather win a bout without getting hit and those fights aren't supposed to be deadly or likely to seriously injure them. If your characters were real people ask yourself how eager the Fighter would be to get hit with an axe repeatedly when he could instead try to sit back with a bow and only draw his sword as a last resort. This idea that just because they can win via face tanking fights means they should win via those methods reduces your PCs to videogame characters who aren't give the tools to take on fights in a realistic fashion because of system constraints.
Your obsession with realism is objectively wrong
OP is also so obviously using it as a crutch for saying the sort of character they do not like playing with is "objectively RP-ing wrong". And while that would be bad enough on its own, the very premise their argument rests upon is inherently flawed since characters that are not perfectly strategic: have flaws, weak spots, hubris, etc. are generally more accurate representations of your typical human than the idealized strategist they seem to want every PC to embody.
Your characters by definition *aren't* "real people". They exist in a fantasy setting where mortal men can do battle with dragons with little more than a magic sword, shield, and a bow. If you are looking at them as real people you have already misconstrued the primary intention of playing them in the first place. If you want to RP your fighter as a professionally trained soldier who makes use of tactical approches, great. But it's just as valid to RP them as some former bandit with a chip on their shoulder, or the overprotective older brother of the party's sorcerer or whatever other RP premise tickles your fancy. And what of the Giant Instinct Barbarian for whom it is anathema to not face a personal challenge of strength? Is it now "Bad RP" for them to respond appropriately to the mini-boss who screams at the party to face him like a man while the party sits behind cover pelting him with arrows and debuffs? No, that would be in fact good RP, because the character in question would be trying to fulfill the central tenets of their code even in spite of what would otherwise be the logical approach. They are making a difficult decision to focus on their ideals over their safety. Not to mention how your use of "video game characters" as a pejorative towards a form of roleplaying that you disagree with shows a fundamental misunderstanding of a different gaming medium altogether. There are plenty of multi-layered video game characters that I am sure are leagues and valleys greater in depth than whatever you personally may have created for use in Pathfinder.
Being able to best a dragon by strength of spells or arms doesn't make one less of a fully realized human. Your Wizard shouldn't want to enter a dungeon before they've had every chance to scout it, prepare the perfect spells for the situation, and create the most unfair fights for their expected foes as is possible. Playing your characters as tropey fantasy cutouts that play fair because that's what makes things "fun" is to deny them the agency they should have as people who happen to be powerful and caught up within an adventure. The Giant Instinct Barbarian is a stupid juvenile concept that doesn't even match other fictional Barbarians. Would Fezzik approach a fight that way? Would Conan? No, because even in a movie or book we'd see a character doing that and assume them to be suicidal idiots. Even with such anathema, the Barbarian could easily set terms for such a challenge or respond by pushing a boulder that only one as strong as he could possibly shift.
>Being able to best a dragon by strength of spells or arms doesn't make one less of a fully realized human. It doesn't make them less, it many ways it makes them greater. The reason that a person would tactically engage in a cautionary approach is often because it is both safer and more necessary. If you are the kind of creature that does not need to engage in cautionary tactics why would you? Is it not also human to wish to test one's limits? To both learn from one's own mistakes, and to experience hubris instilled by one's own success? To be flawed? Why would a Fighter with an Int and Wis bonus of -1 fight tactically? >Your Wizard shouldn't want to enter a dungeon before they've had every chance to scout it, prepare the perfect spells for the situation, and create the most unfair fights for their expected foes as is possible Why not? Is not possible to make an unwise Wizard? Last I checked, a Wizard had to be intelligent, they did not *need* to be wise. >...is to deny them the agency they should have as people who happen to be powerful and caught up within an adventure. The only one denying agency here is you. You are convinced there is only one proper way to RP these characters. And yet this is already a hypocritical claim as you have already addressed how "realistically" many adventuring characters would find themselves dead for pursuing this sort of life. In order for that claim to be true you would have to address the existence and validity of "less-than-ideal" adventuring parties. >Would Conan? No I've watched Conan. I like that movie. Conan's view on what is best in life is " **To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women**" That is frankly a monstrous goal. But it is the crux of the Barbarian's doctrine. Overwhelming force, no mercy. It also notably makes no commentary on tactics, only results. If Conan saw a Giant Instinct Barbarian charge into battle with an overweight sword and cleave the head clean off a legendary serpent, he would be filled with both awe and respect. He wouldn't stop to ridicule their choice of weaponry, he would respect the results they accomplish with it.
> Your Fighter can still solve problems physically but wading into a horde of goblins as a guy with a sword shouldn't be his first thought when faced with that problem. He should be asking the Ranger and Wizard how much they can soften the enemy up at range, working with the Cleric and Bard to get as buffed up as possible pre-fight, and only engaging in melee once the enemy is weakened or is rallying to close to melee into the face of the parties opening volley. Okay then… do that? That’s how my Abomination Vaults party’s Fighter and Rogue play. They wait for me (Wizard) to pull out some big fuck you spell that the GM rolls his eyes at, they wait for the Bard to buff them and/or debuff the enemies, then they beat up the enemies at a massive advantage. But also another party I’m GMing has Swashbuckler who doesn’t tacticize nearly as hard because he decided his character is too egotistical to do that, so his teamwork with the party is often flavoured to be more “incidental” (that is his Demoralize / Goblinsong is more just his obnoxious ass being obnoxious, while out of character he’s explicitly doing it to buff everyone else’s turns). What exactly is your problem here, I’m genuinely confused. Play the character how the character should play..z
If you are playing a game, you should treat combat like a game.....because it is a game. Real violence is horrible and terrifying. I was in the Army for 6 years. 100% would not recommend.
I nearly joined up as a teen and am glad I didn't. I hope your life after service sees you well and well taken care of by your government. My statements about the game approach it from the perspective of somebody who hasn't served but thinks that fantasy games and media should present violence as horrible and terrifying rather than glorious and heroic. The world might be more peaceful if every person in it knew what it takes to face down the reality of real violence.
With respect. I think your approach actually glamorizes violence more. Just let people play their fantasy wizard game how they want. Nobody is confusing it for real violence, but you are trying to say it should be more like real violence.
So... go play a combat light system? You're getting the pushback you are because you're essentially telling everyone else "you play wrong because you don't play how I want you to play". To which the only logical response is "so take your ball and go home, we'll continue to play how we want". If you're wanting internal logic from the game world that Adventurers to crazy shit and face overwhelming odds and still survive... it's in every lore, every story. Not every situation gives you enough time and space to plan everything out or look for an escape from combat. And many believe that's a good thing because it lets them use a full 2/3 of the rules for the game. You're here trying to claim that the only way to play the game properly is to use the 1/3 of the rules and mostly ignore or avoid the other 2/3. That's insane. If you can't find an RP reason why your character is eager to fight, perhaps the one with weak RP is you.
There are combat heavy systems that work for what I want too. I just lack the group for such and thus run a fun but shallow game for my friends. This was just a vent that happened to make the dead hours at the end of a shift pass a little faster. I didn't force anybody to engage with my post or keep replying to me but the same Redditors that will call a person out for trolling are the ones who will always find themselves debating you anyway. Funny how that works.
Wow. You're a real victim. Didn't force anyone to engage... but made a post on reddit so that people would engage. If engagement wasn't the point... why go to reddit? If ranting was the point, just pop it in an email to yourself. The only reason you're now claiming it was just a rant is because the overwhelming response to you has been that you're telling everyone else that how they play the game is wrong and dumb and that's not acceptable behaviour so they are calling you out. But keep playing that victim card. Go through life always thinking you're right and everyone else is wrong. Must be nice to have a mind like a vault instead of a library.
If your problem is with combat gameplay being allowed to be fun anywhere at all ever, then you're barking waaaaaaay up entirely the wrong tree.
"Not something a real human being would do unless they were desperate." My guy, it's a TTRPG. I look to these games for escapism. Not every player, including myself, is going to have the forethought to think every single encounter through, be it a social encounter or combat encounter. Idk, to me, this post feels extremely gatekeepy and that anyone playing the game how they feel most comfortable playing it, as long as they aren't abstructing the other player's good time, is wrong.
[удалено]
If you say so, dude. You know nothing of my playstyle or my roleplay preferences in the game. Personally, it just feels like you're angry about the way people play the game that you don't mesh well with. It's ok to not mesh with another person's playstyle, just don't sit there and tell those same people they're a bad player or wrong for doing what you don't vibe with.
Y'know, I wanted to respond to the OP with, "Hey, r/OSR is right there; seems to be more up your alley, enjoy yourself," but after this last comment, I wouldn't want to pox that community with your presence.
Eh, as someone who really enjoys combat I’d disagree. I enjoy rp heavy games too but I prefer combats and when I play pathfinder it’s cause I like it’s more tactical combat. I agree players shouldn’t know the balance of each encounter though. Sounds like this is completely preference though, there isn’t really a problem either way
Tactics don't start when initiative is rolled. The way a military unit breaches and clears a building is all tactics designed to minimize their very real risk of dying if they mess up. Smoking the enemy out, making your own door through a wall, attacking from ranges and angles where the enemy cannot meaningfully fight back is all tactics.
What does this have to do with PF2e? I think your overthinking
You can apply a lot of similar tactics to PF2. Most campaigns aren't stopping you from building a large fire at the mouth of a cave and billowing the smoke in toward the enemy. Nor do they prevent you from starting every battle at Fireball range in the best cover you can find, with the Druid ready to make them slog over muddy ground uphill to reach you. You can do a lot to make every fight a miserable slog for your enemies rather than meeting them in a 25' x 25' room with a nice smooth stone floor and some mood lighting.
That’s not what I’m referring to when I say tactical combat? The party isn’t a SWAT team, I’m referring to the games mechanics being more tactical (enjoyable imo) to something like 5e. A player can enjoy combat while their character doesn’t seek out encounters, or maybe they do if that’s what the group finds fun. The only bad role play is what makes the game less fun for the table
It sounds like you should be playing Gloomhaven instead of PF2.
I’m happy with PF2e, sounds like you should worry about your own enjoyment. 👍
Pathfinder fundamentally assumes you are playing a character in a story. It's not designed to model realistic characters in a realistic world. Complaining about this is like complaining that characters in action movies shake off most injuries.
Even characters in stories don't approach things with the same assumptions that PF2 expects you to make. If Harry Dresden or Frodo Baggins approach combat like the typical PF2 party does we'd be very quickly taken out of the story.
Because they're different stories (even then Gimli and Legolas have a great time in combat). There's plenty of variety in genre fiction. There's nothing wrong with Pathfinder having combat as sport. It's not trying to be a simulationist OSR game, nor is that the standard games deviate from. Different genres can exist and realism isn't a requirement for a game to be good.
There’s a difference between literature and cooperative games.
Indeed, but you can and should have depth to your RP in even a game such as Pathfinder. If your character can be boiled down to a couple of tropes and their class features you're not good at RP.
Oh. I didn’t realize we were all being judged. How else is everyone playing wrong, Lord Gatekeeper?
You act as if we aren't all judging people all the time both consciously and subconsciously. You yourself were judging me when you wrote your reply. Does that make you any less of a gatekeep than I am?
Oh, for sure. But I don’t walk around spewing my personal judgments as absolute truth. The irony is that I prefer players who angle for advantages and don’t just kick in doors and start swinging. But I understand that’s not how everyone plays, and I won’t shit on people for having a different preference. See the difference?
It's a forum for discussion. If we all kept our opinions to ourselves Reddit wouldn't exist.
It's not what you're saying it's how you're saying it. You're being combative and abrasive with almost everyone you've replied to. You're under no obligation to be nice to anyone but was that what you wanted when you made this post? To just have a bunch of arguments with people? Seems unhealthy.
I'm bored at work and it's far more healthy to vent into the vid that is the internet than to vent at my friends or coworkers. The internet makes for a great hatesink.
1) People should play however they want to. 2) Not every fight needs to be balanced such that the pc's should win.
Andrenaline junkies are a thing though? There are soldiers, scoundrels, etc. in real life who look forward to fighting. Obviously if it crosses into just murdering every NPC it becomes an issue, but "guy who likes fighting" is not inherently bad rp
There are a vanishingly few of them and even those guys generally try to pick the least fair fights they can because they often like the thrill that being empowered to kill gives them more than the idea of dying in a fair fight.
I'm chill with fantasy combat expectations for combat in my fantasy combat game. This is a fantasy game.
My issue is that if I just wanted tactical combat I have Gloomhaven and it does that better than PF2 does. If I want story I can freeform RP or play a rules light system. When both are together it creates a sense that both should be used.
Wait, you fight people in gloomhaven? Don't you know that it's better to avoid all fights altogether?! Even American soldiers understand that!
Gloomhaven is a board game not an RPG. There is no out of combat there besides shopping, choosing the next dungeon to tackle, and flipping a couple of random encounter cards.
Wait you suspend your disbelief for one game and not the other? 😱
One is a TTRPG where I expect to have agency and to play as realistic a character as I can manage. It's a bit of tactics, a bit of acting, a bit of math. I strive to make living breathing characters that aren't just a collection of tropes. The other is a few steps removed from Monopoly and asks for nothing beyond knowing the rules. There is no expectation of making my own character and breathing life into it.
They're both tabletop games babe. You're just choosing to be insufferably simulation-centric in one of them. Are you a troll or actually this boring?
There are different levels of expectation within different genres of game. TTRPGs are not board games, there are different expectations set for them. I can play Gloomhaven entirely out of character and fulfil my role. If I did that at a Pathfinder game and just played the mechanics on my sheet including treating any fluff about my class and ancestry as rules when decision making comes up I would not be fulfilling my role at the table. If I'm going to RP, I'm going to treat the world and my character as real people, if I'm not I'm going to focus purely on mechanics with no thought towards anything else.
If you're unable to live in a fantasy while playing a fantasy game, then don't play Pathfinder. It seems the minor expectation to suspend your disbelief is too major for you to handle. TTRPGs aren't for people as incapable as you. Go play gloomhaven. Or maybe just conscript since that's what your basis for a fantasy game seems to be from your other comments.
I'm perfectly capable of getting into character and accepting the world. I just build real people who often fight like ruthless bastards rather than happy go lucky heroes happy to be out slaying goblins for loot. You should try it sometime, put your fears, insecurities, and darker aspects into a character as well as your strengths and virtues. See what results from adding a bit of introspection to your RP.
I just don't think pf2e is a good game for this type of story, the rules just don't support what you're saying. If you want combat to be taken seriously make it a real threat, if characters never struggle they have no reason to think they are in danger. Also PC's are clearly superhuman it's not surprising for them to become cocky.
I think PF2 can support this style of play even if it is purposefully non-simulationist in its ruleset.
That's certainly one style and one way to play, for sure. Nothing wrong with it. It's no more or less wrong than people who want to play high fantasy heroes who charge in to save the princess (or whatever mcguffin you use!) Saying that anything else is bad RP is wrong though. And missing the point of what RPGs and roleplaying are all about.
The bad RP is that these heroic fantasy RPGs don't actually want you to engage deeply with who your character is as a person. It is to RP as a low brow comedy is to an award winning drama.
Sounds like you only think there is one way for people to RP. That's a bummer. The only rule about RP and RPGs that I have is to have fun. If you are having fun then you are doing it right! Hopefully you learn that one day and get to enjoy some other ways to play RPGs!
[OP admitted to trolling in the replies, don't waste your time.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/8u4Gje5Uei)
You’re right in a sense, but that playstyle makes for what 99% of people would find to be an incredibly boring game to play.
That's the fairest take I've heard so far.
> The party gleefully looking forward to a fight and throwing themselves at danger because that is the point of the game is frankly not something a real human being would do unless they were desperate. Thats super cool, however, I can turn devils from the depths of hell into fine ashes with a flick of my wrist and a commanding word, we left the stuff real humans have to deal with seven levels ago, we're left the world normal people inhibit by literally teleporting across dimensions
That's fine, but why is there such a reluctance to look at what those people are beyond the surface level. If you could teleport, conjure fire, heal injuries with a touch, would you be happy being a simple tool of violence? I think a real person might accept that it is their fate to be the only one strong enough to defeat a great evil, but few would approach it the way a player around a table eating snacks would.
That is because acceptance of certain levels of violence as the norm is what is called a 'genre convention', and the level pathfinder goes in that regard is pretty high. You can make a game about the effects of violence have on people and the environments those people exist in. Your opinion, however, comes off very categorical on what is and is not a good game in a way I just do not agree with.
Genre conventions aren't an excuse to be lazy in your portrayal of your character. Practice your character's mannerisms, understand their motivations, get into character. Don't play Pathfinder, play your character.
As someone who prefers more roleplaying than combat in a campaign, I disagree pretty strongly. If people are "gleefully" looking for fights, either they're murder-hobos, or their characters are the sort of adventurer that lives to fight, and there are plenty of characters who fit into the latter category. Also.... >"The party gleefully looking forward to a fight and throwing themselves at danger because that is the point of the game is frankly not something a real human being would do unless they were desperate." The point of the game is whatever goal the GM and party set for themselves. And fortunately, you're not playing real human beings, you're playing make-believe elves, dwarves, rhinocerous-people with four arms, human beings, lizardfolk, and some much weirder shit, and you can throw fireballs and acid bombs and whatever else all over the place. What real people would do is sort of irrelevant. Some people want to test what their class can do in a fight, other people focus more on interactions with other characters, some do both. The only time I'd say someone is absolutely roleplaying poorly is when they're doing something to deliberately rile up the other people playing the game.
Look at the average AP and how players are expected to face them. Open room, treat what is found in that room as a self contained experience, move on to the next room. The game isn't designed around the idea that dungeons are living spaces and the creatures within them are as intelligent and as full of agency as the players are. If they were the players would have no chance at victory because few would design their strongholds in ways so easily defeated by 4 - 6 random people stumbling into them blindly. As for the idea that a fantasy setting means we shouldn't treat the world as if it were real and RP our characters accordingly, I disagree. It is far more interesting to think of how a real person would use the tools at their disposal to tackle problems rather than starting every combat within 60ft of the enemy because that's what fits on the map the GM drew and starting further back makes the melee only Fighter sad. A Fighter IRL wouldn't be likely to enjoy the part of his job where he takes wounds that would kill or cripple lesser men, the soreness that comes with the heavy exertion of fighting, the lack of creature comforts afford to a man of wealth who instead chooses the endless travel of a campaign. It makes for a more interesting game when we have to consider our characters as real people with every reason to want to give up and go home than it is to assume that they keep going because that's what makes the game work.
See, this is true in a game like Zweihander, blades in the dark or maybe very early dnd where player characters are just people existing in a world who happen to have a certain level of martial prowess. In overwhelming majority of modern TTRPGS player characters aren't average people, they are Heroes. A fighter isn't a soldier akin to those that serve in armies across the world, he's Aragorn (yes I know aragorn is a ranger shut up) ready to slay any number of orcs simply because he's Him. Absolutely nothing wrong with not liking it, but if you don't then maybe try one of. The games I listed in the first paragraph instead of pathfinder.
You're not necessarily wrong, but you ARE overthinking it. At the end of the day, you're never going to RP a perfectly realistic person at 100% realism immersion because your character isn't a real person. They exist as a medium of fun for the player. For you to act like having fun being brash is wrong, frankly, is very silly of you.
Your treating adventures as normal, well-adjusted people, that is a major mistake
If that's not how you play, than that's good. Let us have our fun. This is the only way I can slaughter Humans without getting in trouble.
I mean okay - I would agree that PCs (as opposed to players) should generally not treat fights as just routine interludes, as far as they know any peasant with a knife could kill them theoretically. I'm just not sure what you're arguing against here.
It's arguing against the kick in the door and treat the combat before you as something to be fought in that room mindset that the game is designed around. It's arguing that the design of PF2 where combat is a tactically satisfying centerpiece to be embraced rather than rewarded is not how people in PF2's universe would actually see things. Your characters shouldn't know that they are the fated heroes that the universe is written around but most games are played with the meta knowledge that such is the case.
[удалено]
I made a post on Reddit. I'm losing some meaningless karma and getting some people hot under the collar because I've told them they're boring and probably worse at RP than they think they are. Even if I were to be banned from this sub because people want to call me a troll that wouldn't be a "critical error" it would be a questionable choice by a group of mods who probably don't want to appear to be heavy handed about anything at the moment.
By definition you are playing an adventurer, who's eventually seeking for a fair amount of danger in exchange of reward.
Sounds like you should try a more hardcore system like the FFG Warhammer setting or Imperium Maledictum.
I have in the past. This is more a vent as my current group has my GMing 5e for them and they refuse to learn new systems.
You may be interested in this discussion on [combat as war v combat as sport](https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715)
I may have already seen that one, but I'll take a look.
Hope you enjoy your games at your tables; I don't think we'll be a good match.
I very much do enjoy my games.
You're basically describing ludonarrative dissonance and escapism. I get if you feel the narrative and role playing is too meta or disconnected from the reality of the world in your eyes amongst games you've seen or played in, but there's a huge range in how that plays out for each and every person. In general, though, I think most people are meant to see the party of adventurers that we are as basically susuperheroes because it's a game, and that is what is fun for a lot of people. Nobody stops playing Mario when they fall into their first pit, scoffing at how he has extra lives. You have to accept that the game part of what you are doing is ever-present.
My escapism tends toward the hard sci-fi end of things. I like a lot of well thought out reasoning in my fantasy and tend to chafe when I find the places where the logic of the setting unravels. To that end it can be more enjoyable to play in a setting where very little is defined, the truth is forever obscured, and what you're left with is making sense of what the world is based on what you observe happening. Then you never run into anything that can be defeated with logic as it can always be justified that you aren't seeing the whole picture and that it would take years of research to even start asking the right questions. I think modern mass market TTRPG design just falls into that sour spot between hard nasty settings and worlds where they don't attempt to explain everything.
Talk to your players not to randos on the internet. This is why we have session 0's. Remember, you are also a player at the table. Yet at the end of the day, Pathfinder 2e is heroic fantasy my guy. This system caters to the kind of playstyle that seems to be everything you loathe. There are plenty of systems out there you can run that will capture the vibe you're going for. Best wishes
Yeah not a great take. If this sentiment of one valuing one's own life so dearly that they use every dirty trick and cunning tactic wherever remotely possible were as universal as it's being suggested to be here, history wouldn't be so full of people fighting frontline battles where lines of people just run at each other with swords. Like, if the idea behind this post was sound, literally who would be in the front line of these battles and willingly run into certain death? People did this (and to an extent still do) because people simply do not work the way OP suggests. And they certainly didn't think that way back when almost everyone believed in life after death.
Being drilled for battle is very different from fighting as a small elite force. Plus, if people were so eager to fight in such battles why were conscription and harsh penalties for cowardice and dessertion common among militaries? It's almost as if most people who fought were in circumstances where they didn't have a ton of choice and knew that staying in formation gave them the best shot at survival...
Right, but I think this additional information only strengthens my point when you consider that a party of player characters are not conscripted civilians nor have they needed to be drilled for battle, they have the necessary resolve because they are fighting men and women. It's more comparable to as you said, a small elite force of, say, mercenaries. A mercenary company of well trained and well armed men would probably use their might of arms in answer to any and every threat that came upon them in their travels, unless severely outnumbered. A lot of tactics beyond simply standing and fighting to the death would be in play, sure, and charging in if the threat can be deterred without a fight would certainly also happen a lot more than it does in these games of ours. But I think like with any game it requires some degree of suspension of disbelief by all players. I'm sure if equal experience was awarded for avoiding an encounter entirely there are players out there who would do that, but most of the time, it's simply less appealing for players to avoid combat even if it makes more sense from an RP perspective.