I’m tentatively going to move my long-form blogging over to here, I think. write.as is a good platform, but CHost has better tools than what I have over there, plus there’s a community here. I often felt like I was opining into the void. That’ll probably also be true here, but… less so?
Hmm. Anyway:
The other day I was talking RPGs with my friends. I’m the most pro-Pathfinder 2E/anti-D&D 5E of the lot of us, for context. One of them said something to the effect of “Pathfinder 2E’s feats get in the way of letting the GM letting you just do things”. And, y’know, he’s right. However, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing, nor is it an ahistoric trend. I’m not trying to put said friend on blast, but rather outline two different approaches to game design.
A Tale As Old As Ti… I Mean, The Hobby
This sort of hard delineation between characters’ abilities has been in the game for several decades, if not the inception of the hobby. After all, if you wanted to cast spells, you had to be a Magic User or a Cleric. If we pull up OSRIC, the faithful 1E clone, we see that the Thief has an entire table dedicated to stuff it can do that are unique to it.
Even in this early state of the game, we see that classes not only define what they can do, but what they can’t, in relation to others. Clerics don’t get access to the Thief’s abilities, nor does the Thief get to Turn Undead. The Assassin has a special carve-out for them getting Thief abilities at two levels lower.
What games like Pathfinder 2E bring is a modularity to this design. You can lean in hard on Feat choices that reinforce the classic tropes of a sneaky Thief or a tanky Fighter, but you have the tools to subvert these tropes as much or as little as you want.
That’s fine for class feats and features, but what about stuff outside of the class scaffold? That’s a bit trickier.
Two Roads, Diverging
When I got back into D&D in 4th Edition, I was struck by how modal the game was. Here, there was a very rules-y, tightly structured game while in combat, giving way to a very light, loose game of skill-rolling outside of combat. 5th Edition still does this, although the in-combat game is looser. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does raise a couple of complications to be aware of:
- It increases the work the GM has to perform, in order to adjudicate the scope and effects of skills.
- In-combat abilities/powers become more enticing.
In the first point, the scope, limitations, and overall effectiveness of any skill roll has to be adjudicated by the GM. While this is unavoidable to a certain extent in any TTRPG, being able to delegate authority over a certain set of effects to a ruleset, and then to distribute the understanding of the effect to the entire table, frees up a non-zero amount of the GM’s cognitive and creative overhead. The second point allows that bifurcation between in-/out-of-combat modes to blur a bit. Combat still has that tactical bite, but out-of-combat activities have special effects that a player can invest in and have toys and systems to play with that don’t involve swinging axes or throwing fireballs. Feeding back into the first point, this also frees up the GM in term of session and encounter design. Perhaps it’s just me, but players having interesting tools to solve problems means that combats don’t have to be the only way a player engages with the crunch of a game.
Yes, But…
But still, my friend is right. This approach does take away from a GM’s authority to make decisions that are right for their game, and some GMs would not be cool with that. Some games (13th Age springs to mind, as does the OSR family of games) have a system that can’t support this non-combat rules-heaviness.
All that said, however, having feats determine a part of how class abilities and skills work is also an excellent design space.