Puffin Forest’s In Depth Review of Pathfinder 2e

[Ragitsu]

It should be pointed out that we are in the belly of the beast, so to speak; most everyone on this board either played or still plays HERO and not everyone here has branched out to other tabletop RPGs (and, even if they have, the other systems are not necessarily light on dice tossing). HERO has social Skills built in; there's going to be a bias towards using social Skills. However, one commonality between HERO and old school D&D involves Presence and Charisma. With AD&D 2e, the most direct mechanical influence you have in social encounters (barring magic such as charm person or friends) is an initial Charisma roll. Once the general reaction has been established, however much you play it safe (a useful strategy if the conversation begins on a positive note) or go for broke (when desperation is the name of the game) influences the final outcome of the interaction.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Similarly, an interaction encounter is not resolved  by "I use Diplomacy - here is my roll".  How are you using that Diplomacy? 

 

Perhaps I will try to persuade the Ogre leader than we are no threat to them, and sweeten the deal with a bribe of a couple hundred gold pieces.  Maybe I will brandish my Axe and ask that Ogre if he is SURE he wants a piece of this (Intimidation)!  I could try to trick the Ogres into chasing a (nonexistent) lower threat, higher profit target that passed us by a few minutes ago (Bluff).  Maybe I will try to Seduce the ogre.

 

The weakness of this approach is that, no matter how clever you think your wordsmithing is, you'll still be at the mercy of the dice. Grand speeches, quietly impassioned pleas and diabolical reverse psychology all can fail, yes. Absolutely. Yet...if you're the player subjected to bad luck (your rolls are low or the opposing NPC rolls well or the situational modifiers are terrible or perhaps the skill chosen was inappropriate) on a semi-regular basis, you'll probably begin to feel disincentivized from going all in. Maybe player experiences within this community are wildly dissimilar, but, when it comes to the subtleties of NPC interaction, I'll trust a fair DM over the chaos of plastic any day of the week.

[IndianaJoe3]

42 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 Maybe I will try to Seduce the ogre.

 

Hey guys! I found the bard!

[Ninja-Bear]

2 hours ago, Ragitsu said: I'll trust a fair DM over the chaos of plastic any day of the week.

That’s good. First though I’ve heard good advice whereas not all things should be dice rolls. And of that advice perhaps only certain people need to roll. Example would be stealth. In Hero terms say the party has to roll a stealth check. Well allow the thief with 16- to automatically succeed but mister Brute with Everyman of 8-  must roll. Second though as a GM by throwing dice or making the player throw dice removes you from the situation. Did She succeed? Well the GM isn’t being fair because I didn’t succeed. People may hate the rolls and dice but GM gets less blame. 

[Ragitsu]

41 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

That’s good. First though I’ve heard good advice whereas not all things should be dice rolls. And of that advice perhaps only certain people need to roll. Example would be stealth. In Hero terms say the party has to roll a stealth check. Well allow the thief with 16- to automatically succeed but mister Brute with Everyman of 8-  must roll. Second though as a GM by throwing dice or making the player throw dice removes you from the situation. Did She succeed? Well the GM isn’t being fair because I didn’t succeed. People may hate the rolls and dice but GM gets less blame. 

 

DMs can cheat, dice or no dice.

[Spence]

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I find sometimes the hardest thing to do is to roleplay less than your ability or a hinderance like say Psy Lim: Rash. I know I shouldn’t rush into that obvious trap however that a Total limitation said otherwise.

 

Well doing something stupid as a player has never been a problem for me

 

42 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

That’s good. First though I’ve heard good advice whereas not all things should be dice rolls.

 

While I didn't start that way, I only require the dice to be rolled when it is suitably dramatic and failure would drive the plot. 

The PC is a Private Eye with Professional Skill: PI, Combat Driving and Shadowing.  They are tailing a regular stock broker they suspect of the crime through rush hour traffic.   Since the suspect is a regular citizen type, I wouldn't require the PC to make any skill rolls to successfully follow the target to their destination.  If the suspect had been a seasoned law enforcement type I may have the PC make a shadowing roll if they leave the congested downtown streets for the suburbs or other low traffic area.  But it would be pointless to make them roll to drive and such.  

 

Now if the same PC was attempting to follow a team of training agents or spies, then there will be a much greater chance of the tail being spotted.  And this could lead to skill rolls or even Skill vs Skill contests. 

 

In the end, I believe you only need to make a roll when failure could actually mean something.  I have always treated 3 and 18 as results that have special results.  Not necessarily a critical or a fumble like some games, but a boost to the narrative.

 

 

[Spence]

21 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

DMs can cheat, dice or no dice.

 

No.  DM's, GM's and Players do not cheat. Sack of sh*t munchkins of all flavors cheat. 

 

Now a good DM/GM will always fudge the dice in favor of the players having a great adventure. 

There have been many great delves where the party celebrated barely scraping by to victory over the goblins by the narrow margin of a handful of body and stun.  Notably because I "forgot" to count all the damage dice.  It would not only be just wrong, but pretty crappy for a well executed plan and great session of role play to end in defeat because of a couple crappy die rolls. 

 

Sometimes a good GM has to fudge a bit.

[Ragitsu]

28 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

No.  DM's, GM's and Players do not cheat. Sack of sh*t munchkins of all flavors cheat. 

 

Now a good DM/GM will always fudge the dice in favor of the players having a great adventure. 

There have been many great delves where the party celebrated barely scraping by to victory over the goblins by the narrow margin of a handful of body and stun.  Notably because I "forgot" to count all the damage dice.  It would not only be just wrong, but pretty crappy for a well executed plan and great session of role play to end in defeat because of a couple crappy die rolls. 

 

Sometimes a good GM has to fudge a bit.

 

A bit of chocolate goes a long way, but once you catch the DM substituting in the chalky cheap stuff (cheating) for quality brown (fudging), the illusion becomes dispelled. Trust is hard to regain. My point was that this detachment from blame a DM gains from throwing dice only goes so far, because they can always find a way to twist events in their favor.

[Greywind]

The dice never lie.

[Ragitsu]

28 minutes ago, Greywind said:

The dice never lie.

 

They may have a funny way of telling the truth, though (poorly constructed or otherwise substandard dice, that is).

[Ninja-Bear]

7 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

They may have a funny way of telling the truth, though (poorly constructed or otherwise substandard dice, that is).

There’s an Old School Primer on the ‘net. You outta read it. Author gives an example on how a player can describe searching for a trap the exact same way however DM 1 feels yeah cool you find the trap. DM 2 feels nope no way and you find the trap the hard way. The point is each DM is fair because it’s his call. The dice take that out of the equation.

[Ninja-Bear]

Spence funny thing about dying. The last game I played was a Fantasy Hero-very impromptu. After several bad rolls I knew I was going to die (I really should have). I did get to do a blaze of glory by bear hugging the Hobgoblin mage and ramming him on my axe that was embedded in the wall.  I know my GM saves my character however looking back, it is sorta anticlimactic. Should players face death? In this genre I think that it is appropriate.  Else victory can be cheapened because the Players might feel that they are invulnerable because the GM won’t let me die.

[pbemguy]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:13 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

Okay then. So the hardbacks with the lurid covers were 1st Edition? What we then referred to as AD&D?  
 

 

 

Yes. When I started playing D&D the DM only had the 1st edition DM guide and the OD&D brown books. So I was playing "0.5 edition," I guess.

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

The weakness of this approach is that, no matter how clever you think your wordsmithing is, you'll still be at the mercy of the dice. Grand speeches, quietly impassioned pleas and diabolical reverse psychology all can fail, yes. Absolutely. Yet...if you're the player subjected to bad luck (your rolls are low or the opposing NPC rolls well or the situational modifiers are terrible or perhaps the skill chosen was inappropriate) on a semi-regular basis, you'll probably begin to feel disincentivized from going all in. Maybe player experiences within this community are wildly dissimilar, but, when it comes to the subtleties of NPC interaction, I'll trust a fair DM over the chaos of plastic any day of the week.

 

How does that differ markedly from losing combat, even after a great plan and brilliantly described move, because the dice roll poorly?  What should determine success or failure?  The subjective arbitration of the DM, or the objective results of the dice?

 

Perhaps I did some very clever wordsmithing, and an impassioned and stirring oratory.  Did my character achieve the same?  I don't know - let's find out.  Is he a great speaker (what are his social stats and skills)?  How well did he rise to the moment with this impromptu speech (what was the roll of the dice)?  Did the way he presented just happen to sit poorly with his audience (again, poor luck on the dice).

 

And either result should advance the game.  The Duke may be convinced, but he's not handing over the keys to the treasury.  Or perhaps he is not convinced, but it does not mean "off with their heads".  If success or failure of the adventure hangs on a single die roll, either the players played poorly or the GM fumbled his adventure design skill.

 

And the results have to be adjudicated in context.  If we have provided sufficient evidence to the Duke, it is likely impossible he fails to believe us.  He may or may not be impressed enough to bankroll our desired expedition to address the issue we have now solidly proven exists.  Maybe he wants to send a couple of his own men along, when we would prefer to avoid that, or hire someone else, forcing us to re-think our own plans, but certainly we may have situations where success is certain.

 

But because of in-game actions of the characters, not out of game presentation by the player.  If your character has a 5 CHA/PRE and no social skills, yet you prortray him as an eloquent and persuasive speaker, I am forced to assume something prevents that from having the impact it should on the listener.  Perhaps he is a spitter.  Maybe he has horrible personal hygiene and reeks to high heaven.  Clearly something is preventing that impressive oratory from resonating with the audience, which it clearly does not based on the chatacter's abilities.

[unclevlad]

20 hours ago, Spence said:

 

No.  DM's, GM's and Players do not cheat. Sack of sh*t munchkins of all flavors cheat. 

 

Now a good DM/GM will always fudge the dice in favor of the players having a great adventure. 

There have been many great delves where the party celebrated barely scraping by to victory over the goblins by the narrow margin of a handful of body and stun.  Notably because I "forgot" to count all the damage dice.  It would not only be just wrong, but pretty crappy for a well executed plan and great session of role play to end in defeat because of a couple crappy die rolls. 

 

Sometimes a good GM has to fudge a bit.

 

What is the difference between fudging and cheating?

 

I get your point, but doesn't that make the PCs' victory hollow?  They *didn't* win legitimately.  How is that not cheating on the GM's part?  Saying it's "fudging" is simply lying to yourself.  Mind...I've done it.  But be honest with yourself with what you're doing.

The problem with taking the player's eloquence (or lack thereof) *as* the roll, is that it's substituting the player's attribute for the character's.  I don't mind if a good speech is rewarded with a bonus to the roll...but it shouldn't replace it, if the roll is important.  Mind...in D&D, rolling a d20 for these implicitly involves far too much variance when a PC should be good at something.  I wonder if that was part of the motivation;  taking the player's role play quality might well be a substitute for terrible system mechanics.  But as has been pointed out...it's neither consistent nor fair.

[unclevlad]

Come to think....I can remember a game where fudging would've been absolutely necessary.

 

It was a Living City game.  Fairly late in the 2E period, IIRC.  Living City always had balance issues, as the parties were ad hoc.  They had to be written to tiers, based on total party levels.  This particular session, IIRC, the 6-man party had something like 2 first-time characters, 2 other 2nd level chars maybe, someone 4th or 5th...and a double-digit thief.  Jacked up the total party level something fierce.  But, if you recall the 2E thief?  They had the worst scaling for something like this, since their thieving probably wouldn't come into play that much and setting up the backstab was always a royal PITA.

I remember being in a similar game;  my character was a fighter 6, and everyone else was 1st or 2nd.  I looked at the GM, he looked at me;  we knew I be getting the brunt of the fighting.  I was good with that;  my character was good with that, being the shepherd for the newbies.

BUT that doesn't work well *at all* with a pure 2E thief.  And that's not what the DM here did.  There was a fight...I'd played this module earlier, and I knew it was NASTY.  It became a wipeout.

 

This was a case where the DM *needed* to fudge because the module author couldn't anticipate such a grossly mismatched party.

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I get your point, but doesn't that make the PCs' victory hollow?  They *didn't* win legitimately.  How is that not cheating on the GM's part?  Saying it's "fudging" is simply lying to yourself.  Mind...I've done it.  But be honest with yourself with what you're doing.

 

I would say that the dice can create a loss which is not legitimate as well, but I agree that changing die rolls is "cheating" if the group social contract is "let the dice fall where they may".  I have never seen a player volunteer to change that third successive Critical Hit into a miss, or a normal hit, because the dice were skewing the results.  And just imagine the reaction to the GM suggesting that conversion!

 

13 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The problem with taking the player's eloquence (or lack thereof) *as* the roll, is that it's substituting the player's attribute for the character's.  I don't mind if a good speech is rewarded with a bonus to the roll...but it shouldn't replace it, if the roll is important.  Mind...in D&D, rolling a d20 for these implicitly involves far too much variance when a PC should be good at something.  I wonder if that was part of the motivation;  taking the player's role play quality might well be a substitute for terrible system mechanics.  But as has been pointed out...it's neither consistent nor fair.

 

Yup.  I would suggest that a very eloquent speech by the player should get the same bonus (or lack thereof) that a great description of an action in combat would receive.  The mechanics are what they are, and I will suggest the vagaries of social interaction are no less random than the vagaries of combat.

[Ninja-Bear]

Btw I don’t see either  approach as exclusive. I can’t remember what Matt Colville called the issue where a highly skilled character botched a roll but another with almost no skill makes it. But that’s where I picked up certain levels should have an automatic success. Now let’s bring that back to said Roleplaying. Say the situation requires a bribe to some guards to overlook your companion and you have a decent skill roll. Just have the player interact (as much as player is comfortable with it) and then viola, the Bribe works-no roll needed (due to the player having a high score and this isn’t an important plot point.) Now if for some reason a different player wants to do the Bribe and said Player only has an 8- well...let the dice fall where they fall.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Btw I don’t see either  approach as exclusive. I can’t remember what Matt Colville called the issue where a highly skilled character botched a roll but another with almost no skill makes it. But that’s where I picked up certain levels should have an automatic success. Now let’s bring that back to said Roleplaying. Say the situation requires a bribe to some guards to overlook your companion and you have a decent skill roll. Just have the player interact (as much as player is comfortable with it) and then viola, the Bribe works-no roll needed (due to the player having a high score and this isn’t an important plot point.) Now if for some reason a different player wants to do the Bribe and said Player only has an 8- well...let the dice fall where they fall.

 

I have no issue with a high enough skill being autosuccess - but that has nothing to do with the player's role playing, just the character's skill. A cobbler should be able to make and repair shoes without needing a roll.

[unclevlad]

There was also some discussion when 3E came out, IIRC, about what an encounter was.  An encounter can only exist when there is risk to the PCs...when failure has a consequence.  So haggling over price in Abdul's Discount Magic Shop is not an encounter;  all that's at stake is a bit of money, and that's not significant enough.  OTOH, convincing the duke to let you do research in his library to find out how to defeat a weird menace...the failure means not getting the info, and/or forcing the PCs to use less acceptable means.

 

When it's not an encounter, then rolling isn't for success or failure.  It might be degree of success...but there's really no such thing as failure.  Why bother?  

 

Some other times, heck, the RP can be enough.  For Fantasy Hero...say the rogue has Bribery 11-.  "I bribe the gate guard to let us pass."  Done, it works.  Had he not thought to say it?  Search might've happened.  Once he thought about it?  We're good, unless the guards are specifically on alert.  Not likely.

[Hugh Neilson]

3rd Ed added the "take 10" mechanic.  In standard situations, where your skill is typically enough to see you through, you can take 10.

 

When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful.

 

Let a Hero character "take 11".  There's my Rogue at the Gates.  Or just say it is automatic if routine - if the Rogue must roll in such cases, it indicates that this is not routine (e.g. he might still only need an 11-, but the guards are on alert, so failure is a real possibility).

 

But that's not RP - that's just using your skills.  You don't have to act out your discussion with the guard - "I bribe him" covers it.

[archer]

On 8/13/2020 at 9:49 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Sure.  A glib player can make a fantastic speech for a combat monster PC with INT 6, WIS 5 and CHA 3.  That does not mean the character should succeed because the player is clever, quick-witted and glib any more than his Mighty Warrior with 18/97 STR,  17 CON, 16 DEX should trip over his bootlace, drop his sword, fall to the ground and, wheezing, be unable to rise to his feet before being slain because his player is morbidly obese, struggles to lift two game books and needs two rest breaks to climb the stairs out of the basement.

 

I see that as a problem with the GM setting up and enforcing the ground rules for his world to his players.

 

The world can be set up so that the INT, WIS, and CHA stats accurately reflect how the player intends to play the character. And the other stats to altered downward if the player is intending on having a character who displays high INT, WIS, and CHA. 

 

Or the world can be set up so that players are expected to role play whatever stats get assigned to INT, WIS, and CHA.

 

But whichever way the world is set up, a player running a character with crappy INT, WIS, and CHA ought to know better than to expect an attempt to sweet talk a dragon to succeed by the time they've played in that world long enough to be facing a dragon. If the GM is doing his job right.

 

2 cents

[archer]

On 8/13/2020 at 7:21 PM, zslane said:

To my mind this is the Roll Playing vs. Role Playing debate, and while I fall somewhere in the middle on that, my old school gaming background pulls me closer to the role playing camp than to the roll playing camp. When it comes to mental and social activities in the game, I want the players to do most of the work themselves, and not rely on dice rolls. My rule of thumb is simple: if you aren't comfortable portraying a character with high mental and/or social abilities, then don't make one. Turning everything you do into a dice rolling exercise places too much emphasis on the Game and takes too much focus away from the Role Playing. Combat is different, of course, because the usual flow of play is suspended while everyone plays a skirmish-level wargame for a couple of hours.

 

Personally I love role playing.

 

But I also have speech aphasia. Sometimes I use the wrong word in a sentence without realizing it. If I tell a story about Fred, George, and Harry, I will use those names interchangeably without meaning to or noticing. Sometimes I can only speak very, very slowly and have to struggle to get any words out. Occasionally, I am completely non-verbal.

 

If I'm playing a Champions character, I can take a complication of speech aphasia and it'll just activate on its own without the GM having to roll for it.

 

But if I'm playing a character in many other gaming systems, I don't get points for my complications...I just have complications.

 

I can sweet talk a NPC, fast talk him, outwit him, out-logic him. I can even do it in my mind when my speech aphasia is kicking in...I just can't get the words to get out of my mindspace.

 

I am very comfortable portraying a character with high mental and social abilities, that's always been my go-to kind of character.

 

But I do have a real-life handicap in always playing those kinds of characters to their fullest. When I'm having handicap problems in those other gaming systems, I'd appreciate a GM who would let me roll dice for those social interactions rather than making me auto-fail. Or worse, force me to play characters who I find to be dull and who don't present me with the roleplaying opportunities which I look forward to.

 

(For example, I like playing a con artist. My idea of a good time is to end up with the NPC's gold and goods plus be able to use them as a character reference for my next con.)

[HeroGM]

Old school primer that was mentioned earlier.

A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.pdf

[archer]

12 minutes ago, ChaosDrgn said:

Old school primer that was mentioned earlier.

A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.pdf 350.21 kB · 0 downloads

 

God, thank you for that.

 

That's exactly how I remember playing.

[Ninja-Bear]

As to XP being low, I've come across an answer. Gygax wanted leveling to be slow. Partly because he didn’t have anything worked out beyond 8th at the time of it being published. And some people back in that day played 3 days a week, every week!