Pathfinder Pathfinder: The Dragon's Demand - Pathfinder 2E turn-based miniatures RPG from Ossian Studios

[Mortmal]

What does PF2e do different from the PF1e anyway?

Everything. Is like compare 4e with 3.5e.

Read what people who DMed 4e, pf2e and pf1e has to say :

"D&D 4e is more of an influence on the actual system design of PF2e than Pathfinder 1e is." https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/175nec6/how_similar_are_pf2e_and_dnd_4e_how_do_they/

As I explained in another topic, OSR is not AD&D. OSR is a romanticization/bastardization of D&D in the early 80s. OSR also is influenced heavily not by AD&D, but by B/X D&D which is basically AD&D with less rules and more room for improvisation. Improvisation is the heart and soul of OSR and will be super challenging if not impossible to replicate in CRPG form.

Is obvious that the improvisation wouldn't work in a CPRG. However, some OSR are quite "complete" and some are very rules light. I suggested Hyperborea and LotFP. This games can make a spectacular CRPG imo.

I just don't get. Paizo got popular when WoTC decided to make 4e and ... Decided to repeat the same mistakes of WoTC with 4e.

IMO Paizo should have just made PF2e using good P&P RPGs as inspiration. Making magic as dangerous as Warhammer(fantasy and 40k) and casters more specialized. And debloated the game, without endless +2+3+1+5+6+1+3+6+2+1+8 and gave more cool stuff to martial classes. If Conan can do X in a book/movie, a mid level Barbarian should be able to do X, this include, push, pull, throw enemies, knock down enemies, intimidate, decapitations, etc. But no, instead of taking inspiration in other good RPGs, Paizo took 4e as inspiration...

OSR and rules-light systems aren't suited for CRPGs, as a lot of elements rely entirely on the DM. In the gazebo thread, you said: 'One time in 3.5e, my high-level group pissed off a noble really badly, and he hired professional assassins. They stalked us, and while we were sleeping, they used Sleep on the guy keeping watch, followed by a scroll of Antimagic Field, and then started sniping us with longbows and poisoned arrows. It was brutal—only our druid survived.' You’ll never see something like that in a CRPG unless you have a ChatGPT-4 AI specifically tailored for it.
On the other hand, PF2E is far better suited for our primitive tactical CRPGs because of its perfect balance. Unlike D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1E, you can't create overpowered characters, and the game emphasizes group optimization—a challenge on the tabletop, but ideal for CRPGs. The system also doesn't rely on attrition; instead, every fight is deadly and demands 80% to full resources. This makes it perfect for gauntlet-style adventures, dungeon crawling, and a save-and-reload playstyle.

 

[Ontopoly]

Read what people who DMed 4e, pf2e and pf1e has to say :

You have to read what they say because you've never experienced it first hand, correct?

Why get so hung up on a game that you won't play because of the visual style, and won't play because of the rule system you've never personally experienced?

 

[Cryomancer]

offensive for modern audiences

Sure, the 600 people that brought concord wouldn't like LotFP.

If someone makes LotFP in CRPG format, game journos and retardera will get butthurt, but I still think that will be a success.

Trying to compete directly with 5E was a terrible idea

Never said it. IMO Paizo in PF2e should have one huge priority. Maintain its core 3.5e/pf1e audience and stop losing consumers to 5e. By using PF1e as bases and trying to address the problems of pf1e, they could archive that and even maybe bring some people back.

for gauntlet-style adventures, dungeon crawling, and a save-and-reload playstyle.

Yes, but I don't want "gauntlet style adventures", I want a immersive world to explore.

you've never experienced it first hand, correct?

Yes.

 

[0sacred]

I recently played through Darkness over Daggerford and it was excellent, so I'm very interested to see what they can do with their own game (yes I played that mobile game too, it was fun). I couldn't not buy it if/when it comes out.

I can absolutely refrain from backing another kickstarter though.

 

[Fedora Master]

LotFP? Lamentation of the Flame Princess?
Might as well make a FATAL CRPG.

 

[Mortmal]

for gauntlet-style adventures, dungeon crawling, and a save-and-reload playstyle.

Yes, but I don't want "gauntlet style adventures", I want a immersive world to explore.

But you realize those are completely unrealistic demands. Even Larian, the best developer by far — proven by the sales, number of positive reviews from users (and not just gaming journos, or rather gaming activists), and the amount of butthurt it causes on the Codex — can only deliver a fraction of that. It's not reasonable to expect that from small indies who have never made a real game before. Only constrained, combat-oriented RPGs are possible right now.

 

[Cryomancer]

can only deliver a fraction of that. It's not reasonable to expect that from small indies who have never made a real game before. Only constrained, combat-oriented RPGs are possible right now.

Again, I know that I can't get exactly the same P&P experience. I wanna get the same experience in Ravenloft : Strahd possession or Dark Sun : Shattered Lands + Wake of the Ravager.

 

[scytheavatar]

Never said it. IMO Paizo in PF2e should have one huge priority. Maintain its core 3.5e/pf1e audience and stop losing consumers to 5e. By using PF1e as bases and trying to address the problems of pf1e, they could archive that and even maybe bring some people back.

They did try to address the problems of PF1E. By walking down the same path that 4E walked down. PF2E fixed a lot of problems of PF1E, just like how 4E fixed a lot of 3.5E's problems. The only issue is that it created new problems along the way.

 

[Cryomancer]

did try to address the problems of PF1E. By walking down the same path that 4E walked down.

Here is the problem.

They should have looked into OTHER TTRPGs to fix PF1e problems, not to 4e.

• For eg, too much bloat? Diminishing returns and removal of endless +1+2+3, 5e took stuff too far, but if the "bloat" is reduced to AD&D levels, would be a incline
• Casters too versatile? Warhammer more specialized casters (casters in warhammer fantasy has only one "wind" of magic to learn from)
• High level spells being too powerful? Make them more ritualistic requiring multiple turns to cast like FATAL or GURPS artillery spells. "Meteor Swarm" In GURPs is a spell that would take dozens of turns to cast.
• Too much boring options for martials? Check conan RPG, check retroclones, check homebrew stuff
• (...)

Here is, everything that people complain about 3.5e can be fixed without going full 4e.

 

[Ontopoly]

None of you fuckers are even planning on playing or funding the game. Can you fuck off with your gay DnD shit. Video games are better than tabletop anyways. You're theorizing game systems none of you faggots have even played and even if you wanted to you wouldn't be able to because no one wants to play with a dumbfuck who larps being a sweaty wizard inside the game and then continues the larp after the game has ended and everyone is packing their rainbow dice into their dice holders. I prefer system I haven't played over system I haven't played. eat shit.

Can we instead direct our attention towards convincing people to give this game a chance? Fuck off to your gay tabletop threads. I never thought I would support Infinitron moving half a thread to retardo

 

[Ontopoly]

You so passionately hate 2 systems that you've never played to the point that you shit up every single thread with the exact same gay shit about wizards. Wizards are gay. Talk about Druids or something

 

[notpl]

did try to address the problems of PF1E. By walking down the same path that 4E walked down.

Here is the problem.

They should have looked into OTHER TTRPGs to fix PF1e problems, not to 4e.

• For eg, too much bloat? Diminishing returns and removal of endless +1+2+3, 5e took stuff too far, but if the "bloat" is reduced to AD&D levels, would be a incline
• Casters too versatile? Warhammer more specialized casters (casters in warhammer fantasy has only one "wind" of magic to learn from)
• High level spells being too powerful? Make them more ritualistic requiring multiple turns to cast like FATAL or GURPS artillery spells. "Meteor Swarm" In GURPs is a spell that would take dozens of turns to cast.
• Too much boring options for martials? Check conan RPG, check retroclones, check homebrew stuff
• (...)

Here is, everything that people complain about 3.5e can be fixed without going full 4e.

All of these (edit: except the narrower caster specializations, that's cool) are terrible ideas for a video game or collaborative tabletop wargame and 4e and pf2e are both fine and good.

 

[Cryomancer]

Can you fuck off

Said the guy who posted a lot of hate against bg3.

terrible ideas for a video game or collaborative tabletop

Disagreed. In bg3, act3, in temple of Bhaal, there is a guy who casts mass power word kill. Take multiple turns for him, so is up to the party to kill him before he casts the spell or die trying. Is imo one of the most memorable encounters.

But I am not disagreeing that pf2e and 4e are great war games. I am disagreeing that they are great role playing games.

 

[Ontopoly]

Said the guy who posted a lot of hate against bg3.

I hated BG3 based off of things I could actually see like Homosexual bear sex, dumb motion capture, and their typical larian design which I confirmed was in the game through early access footage. You're shit talking this game based off of zero personal experience other than what other people told you to think about 2 systems you've never played or even read up on past a few codex posts. Huge difference. You're an npc, I just don't like larian

 

[Cryomancer]

bear sex, dumb motion capture, and their typical larian design

And I can like bg3 and recognize that most of your criticism is right.

That saying, I am not saying that this game is bad, will suck or anything like that. Only that My preference would be a lotfp as I particularly prefer more the game mechanics and lore in line. Just like I would prefer bg3 with a older ruleset.

 

[Ontopoly]

All you're doing is clogging up a thread by repeating the same old tired uninformed second hand criticisms you've had in the past

 

[rojay]

did try to address the problems of PF1E. By walking down the same path that 4E walked down.

Here is the problem.

They should have looked into OTHER TTRPGs to fix PF1e problems, not to 4e.

• For eg, too much bloat? Diminishing returns and removal of endless +1+2+3, 5e took stuff too far, but if the "bloat" is reduced to AD&D levels, would be a incline
• Casters too versatile? Warhammer more specialized casters (casters in warhammer fantasy has only one "wind" of magic to learn from)
• High level spells being too powerful? Make them more ritualistic requiring multiple turns to cast like FATAL or GURPS artillery spells. "Meteor Swarm" In GURPs is a spell that would take dozens of turns to cast.
• Too much boring options for martials? Check conan RPG, check retroclones, check homebrew stuff
• (...)

Here is, everything that people complain about 3.5e can be fixed without going full 4e.

All of these (edit: except the narrower caster specializations, that's cool) are terrible ideas for a video game or collaborative tabletop wargame and 4e and pf2e are both fine and good.

Completely off topic from the shit show going on here but I like the ritual requirement for high-end spells.

It got me thinking about a magic system where everything is governed by something like the constitution stat in D&D. Low-level spells don't take that much out of you and you recover quickly. The more powerful the spell, the greater the drain and as things progress the higher the percentage that you suffer some lasting injury/handicap if you fail your save. The most powerful spells would be almost certain to kill a single person casting them without McGuffin/help/sacrificial victims. Lots more details to work out.

As you were.

 

[scytheavatar]

did try to address the problems of PF1E. By walking down the same path that 4E walked down.

Here is the problem.

They should have looked into OTHER TTRPGs to fix PF1e problems, not to 4e.

• For eg, too much bloat? Diminishing returns and removal of endless +1+2+3, 5e took stuff too far, but if the "bloat" is reduced to AD&D levels, would be a incline
• Casters too versatile? Warhammer more specialized casters (casters in warhammer fantasy has only one "wind" of magic to learn from)
• High level spells being too powerful? Make them more ritualistic requiring multiple turns to cast like FATAL or GURPS artillery spells. "Meteor Swarm" In GURPs is a spell that would take dozens of turns to cast.
• Too much boring options for martials? Check conan RPG, check retroclones, check homebrew stuff
• (...)

Here is, everything that people complain about 3.5e can be fixed without going full 4e.

+1 bloat was already dealt with by PF2E and also by both 4E and 5E. PF2E is a tight maths system that doesn't allow you to stack so many multipliers. And PF2E basically does martials better than any system so I am not sure what you are complaining about.

What they did with magic in PF2E is probably not wise, 4E in particular nerfed magic but still manages to make it fun and strong. But going the path of limiting versatility would have made many D&D heads angry so I can understand why they went down their direction of making magic versatile but weak.

 

[Luke Scull]

can only deliver a fraction of that. It's not reasonable to expect that from small indies who have never made a real game before. Only constrained, combat-oriented RPGs are possible right now.

Again, I know that I can't get exactly the same P&P experience. I wanna get the same experience in Ravenloft : Strahd possession or Dark Sun : Shattered Lands + Wake of the Ravager.

Two of my favourite games, though Wake of the Ravager was a technical mess. Still beat it - even dominated the Lord Warrior to get him to help against Mr. T. Probably didn't have a single party wipe throughout the entire game. It's just what I do.

 

[Mortmal]

did try to address the problems of PF1E. By walking down the same path that 4E walked down.

Here is the problem.

They should have looked into OTHER TTRPGs to fix PF1e problems, not to 4e.

• For eg, too much bloat? Diminishing returns and removal of endless +1+2+3, 5e took stuff too far, but if the "bloat" is reduced to AD&D levels, would be a incline
• Casters too versatile? Warhammer more specialized casters (casters in warhammer fantasy has only one "wind" of magic to learn from)
• High level spells being too powerful? Make them more ritualistic requiring multiple turns to cast like FATAL or GURPS artillery spells. "Meteor Swarm" In GURPs is a spell that would take dozens of turns to cast.
• Too much boring options for martials? Check conan RPG, check retroclones, check homebrew stuff
• (...)

Here is, everything that people complain about 3.5e can be fixed without going full 4e.

+1 bloat was already dealt with by PF2E and also by both 4E and 5E. PF2E is a tight maths system that doesn't allow you to stack so many multipliers. And PF2E basically does martials better than any system so I am not sure what you are complaining about.

What they did with magic in PF2E is probably not wise, 4E in particular nerfed magic but still manages to make it fun and strong. But going the path of limiting versatility would have made many D&D heads angry so I can understand why they went down their direction of making magic versatile but weak.

The only system that does it better than PF2E is DCC. There, your martial characters have deed dice and are allowed to perform spectacular maneuvers if they succeed. From something acrobatic to severing a monster's body part, it’s possible. Of course, this is the kind of thing that's absolutely impossible to translate into a CRPG and requires a DM.

 

[Cryomancer]

but still manages to make it fun and strong.

This I strongly disagree. Magic in almost every TTRPG that I saw, be it Shadow of the Demon lord, Shadowdark, LotFP, Hyperborea, MtA, VtM is great. PF2e and D&D 4e are the unique TT systems which I didn't liked the magic. 5e is okish, nothing exceptional good or bad. I don't like FF style summons,

Of course, this is the kind of thing that's absolutely impossible to translate into a CRPG and requires a DM.

You can try tables and tables of the most common stuff used in P&P. But yes, some stuff can't translate well from P&P to CRPG.

 

[Desiderius]

This looks like Dungeons of Nahollaback

 

[Dr1f7]

haha woke dei slop isn't getting funded

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ossianstudios/pathfinder-the-dragons-demand/posts/4222430

Update 4: The PC Gamer Interview & Another Surprise​

The project is now over 70% funded with over 5,000 backers!

Greetings Demanders,

As you can see, the project is making solid progress towards our goal. There is still work to be done, however, and your support will be crucial in helping us hit our target as we approach the final 10 days of crowdfunding. Please continue to share, discuss, and spread news about Pathfinder: The Dragon's Demand. We see your enthusiastic posts on social media, Reddit, Discord, and other channels, and we are grateful beyond words.

We were fortunate to be recently interviewed by PC Gamer. You can check out the interview below by clicking on the wonderfully long title:

'That's what we're trying to do, be a DM that enables any player's play style:' Check out the upcoming RPG that's trying to do Baldur's Gate 3 in miniature⁠—in more ways than one

The article references our love of low-level adventures, miniatures, and open and interactive worlds, as well as our goal of replicating "the deep character writing and storytelling and encounter design of the very best traditional isometric RPGs." We are dedicated to giving you both world reactivity and world interactivity, with a unique design aesthetic.

Despite the relatively low level spread, the game features vast potential for party development with lots of character choices and build options. In fact, after listening to our backer feedback, we have decided to give players the option of fully creating their own party. We will of course have a dozen wonderfully written companions to choose from - but if you prefer the Icewind Dale (or indeed tabletop) approach of complete party customization, we have you covered.

Either way, the Pathfinder Second Edition rules system gives you deep character customization, with meaningful choices at every level. And it is well-balanced, so you don't have to wait for the thrill of tactical play to begin.

And of course, the Pathfinder Lost Omens setting is one of the most vibrant and long-lived in the genre.

As you can see, we love talking about The Dragon’s Demand, so here’s an updated list of all our interviews:

• The Rules Lawyer
• Matt Barton
• Nonat1s
• Manny Ortiz

Once again, your support is everything. We read each and every comment, and though it is has been a challenge to respond to everyone as quickly as we would like - this is our first Kickstarter, and we are learning on the job! - rest assured we are listening and doing our very best to give fans the Pathfinder and CRPG experience you all deserve.

In Gratitude,
Ossian Studios

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/t...rs-gate-3-in-miniature-in-more-ways-than-one/

'That's what we're trying to do, be a DM that enables any player's play style:' Check out the upcoming RPG that's trying to do Baldur's Gate 3 in miniature⁠—in more ways than one​

"Baldur's Gate 3 has raised the bar, and I think players would expect more in terms of player options and world reactivity and world interactivity moving forward from the very best RPGs."

Indie developer Ossian Studios is a bit of a people's champion for a certain brand of RPG sicko (I'm a certain brand of RPG sicko). Company founder Alan Miranda worked at BioWare on Baldur's Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights before striking out on his own. With the exception of an Android RPG released in 2013, Ossian's work hasn't strayed far from Neverwinter Nights' umbrella, with its portfolio mostly consisting of ambitious, unique RPGs built on NwN's foundation⁠—expansions like Darkness Over Daggerford and Mysteries of Westgate that punch well above their weight.

But now Ossian's going bigger than before, crowdfunding Pathfinder: The Dragon's Demand, a standalone CRPG it's building from scratch, based on the new second edition rules for the Dungeons & Dragons-derived system. I spoke with Miranda, who is also the project's director, as well as Ossian lead designer and longtime Neverwinter Nights modder Luke Scull about the project and their ambition to make a highly reactive, Baldur's Gate 3 or Divinity: Original Sin-style RPG work at a much smaller scale.

Scaling down​

Like Owlcat's Pathfinder adaptations Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, Ossian is adapting a pre-existing tabletop adventure. The Dragon's Demand is a module (read: self-contained story) that takes characters from level one up to level seven. Even with Ossian adding an extra level to that cap (and reserving the right to push a little further in DLC), that's a far cry from the 20-level high-power fantasy of Owlcat's games or the 30-40 "epic level" caps in Neverwinter Nights. It's also a very intentional choice.

"Baldur's Gate 3 demonstrated that you can have a relatively low level spread, but still have a huge gain with lots of character choices, lots of build options," explained Scull. "Owlcat was making adventure paths, which are basically three of these kinds of modules put together," Miranda added. "We chose that smaller size module…to make it manageable for us as a small indie company to do."

There are a few reasons I find that scope particularly exciting. Ossian has no shortage of ambitious goals for The Dragon's Demand, and a corresponding sober realism in other areas of the project gives me confidence the studio will be able to get it all done.

Also: Low-level RPGs rule. In addition to Baldur's Gate 3, I point you to genre classics like Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil (with a level cap of 10) or BioWare's original Baldur's Gate (8-10 depending on your class) for examples of low-level D&D done right. Lower levels often mean higher stakes, with characters lacking the inflated health pools and superhuman abilities of endgame builds. There can be a numbing effect to an RPG endgame swollen with overpowered abilities and magical items, leaking inflated damage numbers all over the floor.

But that's not Ossian's only deflationary target with The Dragon's Demand. "As I've gotten older⁠—and you'll hear this from other RPG players as they get older⁠—they don't have time for 100-hour RPGs," Miranda said. "It'd be much nicer if it was a 20 or 30 hour game. And we thought that's something good to focus on."

Mini me​

"It was always going to be a miniatures game," Miranda said of the unique presentation. The Dragon's Demand is leaning into a virtual tabletop look, a sort of midpoint between Tabletop Simulator and a more traditional CRPG art style. Every character and enemy is represented by a largely static (though customizable and reflecting changes in equipment and status) model with a round base. My favorite touch is the full-3D, physics-simulated dice for attack and damage rolls, a fun twist on the visualized rolls in Baldur's Gate 3 and Disco Elysium.

"You're always looking for something to help differentiate your game," said Miranda. "There's so many games out there that are new versions of the original Baldur's Gate or going all the way to Baldur's Gate 3 with full 3D. It's a crowded space."

It's also another place where resource allocation comes into question⁠—Ossian doesn't have to maintain a high level of animation fidelity with this art style, which means the studio can instead focus on simulating tabletop features and player options that don't often make it into videogame adaptations like flight, underwater combat, or a cover system: "A lot of that would be a huge effort—even for someone like Larian—to do all the character animations and sync all that up," Miranda said.

Scull believes that this will "open a whole new breadth of options" for him in designing the game, and he cited infiltration options like crowbarring open windows or climbing down chimneys as the kinds of avenues he wants to give players. Miranda referenced immersive sim Deus Ex as a big inspiration, and hopes players will have to think "a bit in 3D" to overcome Dragon's Demand's challenges and encounters.

Replicating some of the magic of Baldur's Gate 3 (maybe the most imm simmy CRPG) seems to be Scull's primary ambition with The Dragon's Demand. He found that BG3 had "the best of two game styles," with its open and interactive world as well as "the deep character writing and storytelling and encounter design of the very best traditional isometric RPGs."

On the character writing front, Scull assured me that Dragon's Demand won't be an Icewind Dale or Fallout: Tactics sort of RPG where you have a party of blank slates, but will instead go for that whole hog BioWare-style experience with "companions, romances, character arcs, quests" and "surprising revelations" that weave into the main narrative.

Though Scull allowed that it will require "an incredibly large amount of writing and scripting," he believes the team at Ossian will replicate that open-ended Larian magic at a smaller, indie scale. "Baldur's Gate 3 has raised the bar," Scull argued, "and I think players would expect more in terms of player options and world reactivity and world interactivity moving forward from the very best RPGs.

"That's what we're trying to do, be a DM that enables any player's play style."

Pathfinder: The Dragon's Demand is currently working toward its fundraising goal on Kickstarter, where you can still back the project. You can also follow Ossian Studios on Twitter or Facebook.