Video gamey? What part about it gives you that impression. Legitimate question as I don’t see it, granted I usually take a story based approach with character creation.
Sorry that it took a bit for me to get back on this one. I was busy with the holidays, and other personal matters.
So, when I say that I find the PF2E system “video-gamey”, I am talking mainly as a comparison with other RPG systems, and not necessarily when looked at solely in isolation to itself. I gave Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay as an example of a system that I would prefer over it, but like I can understand if it wasn’t clear what I meant by that because it’s a little niche in terms of TTRPG interest.
Other systems to consider would be Call of Cthulhu (which WHFRP is very similar to structurally, even if it isn’t 1:1 identical), Shadowrun 5th Edition, Mongoose Traveller 2e, the new VtM game, and I’ve recently been looking at Mothership as a more rules-light alternative to Dark Heresy.
One thing that you will note is that for each of these games, even though they can be mechanically crunchy on occasions, is that their rules are primarily derived from & structured around emulating the lore, or vibes of their setting first, and are really only secondarily concerned (if they are at all) with fitting into some kind of formalized over-arching meta-rule structure.
Conversely, before you learn anything about what a dwarf, or a paladin is, PF2E throws up what is essentially it’s thesis statement about how all in-game pc interaction with the world should be structured in the form of it’s “Format of Rules Elements” section. According to the intended game structure as described in that section; every single Action, Skill, Feat, and Racial or Class Ability that a PC can possess, or that a player could attempt to engage in should be articulatable in the form of a definite stat-block, that indicates it’s relationship to the games action-economy, contains one or more “Trait” tags which are supposed to indicate how that action interacts with other “Rules Elements” (how it does this exactly is unclear, because there is no specific exhaustive list of Traits or what they mean outside the glossary, and good luck finding them in that mess), and which achieves a specific discrete mechanical effect within the game system.
Now, it should be said that PF2E itself often times, just fucking gives up on this format for how it wants to structure in-game player interaction, because it’s way too restrictive for most things outside of combat in a TTRPG. But like, trying to use that as a basis to structure the entire system, and particularly PC interaction within the system, in the first place strikes me as just kind of wrong-headed. It’s the kind of solution to the problem of “at-the-table rules-lawyering” that could only really be thought up by somebody with a degree in programming, or formal analytical logic, and I don’t think that it works very well for at-the-table play.
Beyond that, I also don’t like PF2e’s Feat system. Specifically, I don’t like that every single Ancestry, Character Class, and Skill has it’s own dedicated “Feat Tree”. This strikes me as ridiculous, and bloated, and it’s also the main part of the game that makes me think of Diablo; because it obviously gears players towards creating a specific, very mechanically-focused “character build”. This is a legitimate mode of play, to be sure, and it’s the one that PF2e is obviously trying to cater to the most, but it’s not my preference.
There is also the issue that Combat (“Encounters”), Exploration, and Role-play (“Downtime”) are all literally mechanically discrete “Modes”, and are supposed to be largely separate from one another within any given table session, but like my comment is getting overly long; so I’m not going to get into it.
But yes, PF2e is extremely “video-gamey” as a TTRPG by my estimation.
Ahh, thank you for the explanation. I suppose me asking the question in the first place truly shows my inexperience with systems. I’ve only ever played DnD 3.5, DnD 5e, PF1e, and PF2e. Kinda explains my ignorance on the matter. I gotta try one of those systems you suggested at some point.
Not the person you’re asking, and I don’t know PF2e super well, but: it has felt very mechanics-first. You pick stuff from a list to make a build and play that. Sometimes that can inspire a cool story. Sometimes you have a story idea, and you find mechanical options that work nicely with it. But it still feels very constrained. Especially when it “doesn’t come online until 5th level”, so you end up playing something weird and off-story because you needed a level of rogue in order to such-and-such.
Contrast something like Fate where you free form come up with your high concept and aspects. If you want to play “psychic asshole Batman” you can just write “Psychic Vigilante” on your sheet, and don’t have to find feats or anything in a book. Your character can work and be yours from the start.
But that’s a very different mode of play. Some people really like the gamey buildy parts, and that’s fine too. (Except when you have a group and discover you all want to play an RPG, but that means incompatible things to folks, heh)
I don’t like PF2e’s character building system though. It’s too “video-gamey”, it makes me think of Diablo 2.
For comparison, if I’m gonna be running a non D&D fantasy RPG, it’s gonna be WHFRP.
Video gamey? What part about it gives you that impression. Legitimate question as I don’t see it, granted I usually take a story based approach with character creation.
Sorry that it took a bit for me to get back on this one. I was busy with the holidays, and other personal matters.
So, when I say that I find the PF2E system “video-gamey”, I am talking mainly as a comparison with other RPG systems, and not necessarily when looked at solely in isolation to itself. I gave Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay as an example of a system that I would prefer over it, but like I can understand if it wasn’t clear what I meant by that because it’s a little niche in terms of TTRPG interest.
Other systems to consider would be Call of Cthulhu (which WHFRP is very similar to structurally, even if it isn’t 1:1 identical), Shadowrun 5th Edition, Mongoose Traveller 2e, the new VtM game, and I’ve recently been looking at Mothership as a more rules-light alternative to Dark Heresy.
One thing that you will note is that for each of these games, even though they can be mechanically crunchy on occasions, is that their rules are primarily derived from & structured around emulating the lore, or vibes of their setting first, and are really only secondarily concerned (if they are at all) with fitting into some kind of formalized over-arching meta-rule structure.
Conversely, before you learn anything about what a dwarf, or a paladin is, PF2E throws up what is essentially it’s thesis statement about how all in-game pc interaction with the world should be structured in the form of it’s “Format of Rules Elements” section. According to the intended game structure as described in that section; every single Action, Skill, Feat, and Racial or Class Ability that a PC can possess, or that a player could attempt to engage in should be articulatable in the form of a definite stat-block, that indicates it’s relationship to the games action-economy, contains one or more “Trait” tags which are supposed to indicate how that action interacts with other “Rules Elements” (how it does this exactly is unclear, because there is no specific exhaustive list of Traits or what they mean outside the glossary, and good luck finding them in that mess), and which achieves a specific discrete mechanical effect within the game system.
Now, it should be said that PF2E itself often times, just fucking gives up on this format for how it wants to structure in-game player interaction, because it’s way too restrictive for most things outside of combat in a TTRPG. But like, trying to use that as a basis to structure the entire system, and particularly PC interaction within the system, in the first place strikes me as just kind of wrong-headed. It’s the kind of solution to the problem of “at-the-table rules-lawyering” that could only really be thought up by somebody with a degree in programming, or formal analytical logic, and I don’t think that it works very well for at-the-table play.
Beyond that, I also don’t like PF2e’s Feat system. Specifically, I don’t like that every single Ancestry, Character Class, and Skill has it’s own dedicated “Feat Tree”. This strikes me as ridiculous, and bloated, and it’s also the main part of the game that makes me think of Diablo; because it obviously gears players towards creating a specific, very mechanically-focused “character build”. This is a legitimate mode of play, to be sure, and it’s the one that PF2e is obviously trying to cater to the most, but it’s not my preference.
There is also the issue that Combat (“Encounters”), Exploration, and Role-play (“Downtime”) are all literally mechanically discrete “Modes”, and are supposed to be largely separate from one another within any given table session, but like my comment is getting overly long; so I’m not going to get into it.
But yes, PF2e is extremely “video-gamey” as a TTRPG by my estimation.
Ahh, thank you for the explanation. I suppose me asking the question in the first place truly shows my inexperience with systems. I’ve only ever played DnD 3.5, DnD 5e, PF1e, and PF2e. Kinda explains my ignorance on the matter. I gotta try one of those systems you suggested at some point.
No, it’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask, I just happen to have a particular opinion on the matter.
Not sure what type of game you would prefer to run, but I can try to give suggestions, depending on what your preferred genre, or tone is.
Not the person you’re asking, and I don’t know PF2e super well, but: it has felt very mechanics-first. You pick stuff from a list to make a build and play that. Sometimes that can inspire a cool story. Sometimes you have a story idea, and you find mechanical options that work nicely with it. But it still feels very constrained. Especially when it “doesn’t come online until 5th level”, so you end up playing something weird and off-story because you needed a level of rogue in order to such-and-such.
Contrast something like Fate where you free form come up with your high concept and aspects. If you want to play “psychic asshole Batman” you can just write “Psychic Vigilante” on your sheet, and don’t have to find feats or anything in a book. Your character can work and be yours from the start.
But that’s a very different mode of play. Some people really like the gamey buildy parts, and that’s fine too. (Except when you have a group and discover you all want to play an RPG, but that means incompatible things to folks, heh)