I got the Beginner Box a few weeks back. I like it.
Then I got the Pathfinder Core book because I wanted to compare, and I keep getting invited to actually play in a game of it.
While Pathfinder is pretty much v3.5 D&D with all the house-rules I used already in it and a few new features, it is still v3.5 in essence, which still means it has all the issues I had with v3.5.
Mostly related to complexity and game-prep time issues. For fairness and full disclosure, I don't even do a lot of 4e anymore because now it has too many books and is more complex than I bought into it for. My current games of choice are Savage Worlds (Necessary Evil, Slipstream, and Weited War II), BRP, and nWoD: Mage.
But I really do like the Beginner Box. It's what Essentials could have been if they had not screwed up the marketing and product packaging (in short, they really should have had one big Player Book for Essentials instead of 2), and actually made them a good introduction to the game.
What I'm asking, or suggesting, is that maybe the 'Beginner' line should continue. Maybe offer a second beginner book with levels 6-20 of the 4 in the box. Another book with Beginner style versions of the other classes and races, levels 1-20. And a Beginner Bestiary. All with the pared down lists of feats, spells, and the like, and the fewer combat options (but point out the golden rule, or that you can adapt rules as desired from the Core Rulebook).
Or, same concept, but keep the Beginner lines levels 1-5 only. Or maybe levels 1-10.
I'd just like to see more like this. I think that the Beginner Box is the optimal level of complexity for the v3.5 rules. Enough options to do most character ideas, but not so many that a guy with limited time to prep and run could miss vital things that could break a game.
Just my two cents.
KT
|
I really agree with you here. I looked at the core rule book and its daunting to say the least, not to mention things they left out. Cleric domains? I was unsure how to handle that since I had gone 5 levels without it already but I was afraid I would be under powered.
A revamp and purely kept to this standard even if it only went to level 10 would be awesome just put out the remaining core races and classes and it would be perfect.
BTW, the clerics in the Beginner Box actually have domains (and domain powers), they're just built into what god you choose. :)
|
I'll just throw my two cents in here. I like OperationsKT's ideas above, (as an alternative to the wilderness box and urban box expansions presented in another thread in this section, though I like those ideas, too).
Again, it's the format. I like how things are presented--monsters, items, classes, and class progressions.
I know that the creators of Pathfinder have stated that there will be no more beginner box style items, but perhaps that could be reconsidered, especially if the BB is doing well in sales...
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I'm introducing Pathfinder to my kids...Last year we played my truncated version of the rules when we pick it up again we'll be using the beginner box. I wouldn't mind seeing a box with levels 5-10 but to be fair I am actually more interested in a couple of beginner box style modules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree. My wife and 8 year old son wouldn't play the full version of Pathfinder, too many options & too many rules. But this they can play and enjoy. I would love to be able to take them beyond level 5. I think to level 10 would be good for the next box. It could also include haflings, half elves, and gnomes. And add in another four classes. Maybe paladins, druids, bards, and sorcerers?
Heck when I discovered the Beginner Box, I read lots of reviews on it. I bought the PDF version and was so impressed when I finished reading it that I went right out and bought the retail version. I have not been excited about role playing in years, but this product has brought back the joy. I look forward to playing this whenever my family has a chance.
|
|
I have a question for everyone clamouring for more of the same due to "too many options"...
Why don't you just cut out anything you don't like about the Core Rulebook?
Don't want AoOs? Leave them out. Only want your spellcasters to have a small pool to pick from? Go through the CRB and pick out the ones you'd like them to have. Set a few levels with predetermined abilities, like pre-selected feats or whatnot. If you're comfortable enough to play from levels 6-10, you're probably comfortable enough with the rules to have a fair idea of what to select from. Heck, I'm sure community members could provide you with a nice selection of simple spells and feats and abilities that would be appropriate if you're unsure.
The game fundamentally changes when you start getting closer to the teens. For example, iterative attacks at BAB +6, which also bring in some more complicated feats, spells like fly are active for much longer times allowing bypassing of many lower level threats, some powerful divinations like scrying come into effect, teleport effects, polymorph effects... And if you avoided the game changing options and effects, you might as well just stick to playing the lower levels, because you're basically still functioning at 5th level at that point. Indeed, all the clamour about "there's too many options in Core, give us BB2 for levels 6-10" seems utterly bizarre to me for this reason. Isn't adding an increase of levels exactly the type of thing that is going to add complexity and options?
I just don't get it.
|
|
But you don't have to use APG/UM/UC/etc. If people have problems with the crunch of PFRPG, they are not going to enjoy playing a Beginner Box version of it either, I don't think, because as you said, everything stacks up... feats, spells, abilities.
You honestly don't even need to do THAT much work to run an "expanded" BB campaign that goes to level 10, using restricted CRB material only. You could probably spend 15 minutes per class, tops, extrapolating the relevant abilities. Pick 10 simple spells of 4th and 5th levels for the Wizard and Cleric. Add maybe a dozen more feats. Add a couple more skill tricks for the rogue. That's it.
I'm also pretty sure Paizo wouldn't mind if you use the PRD to expand the BB set. They've achieved their goal of making you a Pathfinder player. Now you're open to buying their other products, e.g. Gamemastery tools, Adventure Paths, Modules, Pathfinder Society, etc., that you would not have bought at all before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the Beginner's Box rules because I run the game for my wife and 8 year old son. Neither of which want to learn too many rules or options. The complexity of the Corebook and determining what feats, spells, ect. to keep in our game would detract from the limited time I have to design adventures for them. A second box set would allow me to make some higher level adventures, add more class/race variety and maybe a few more rules without having to teach them alot of new stuff. For example it is a whole lot easier to teach them that at level 6 a fighter can make an extra attack and casting a spell with an adjacent enemy can evoke an attack of opportunity than it is to try and explain combat maneuvers etc. It is basically me paying Paizo to do the work of simplifying and streamlining the game for me so I have more time to play. If I had to read a 500+ page rulebook AND determine what rules I wanted to keep and omit, I wouldn't have time to play. Which would mean I would have no reason to buy any Paizo products.
|
|
But you don't need to add in attacks of opportunity or combat maneuvers, or make them learn many rules or options. Continue with the BB tradition of making some options already selected for you. Or, like I said, ask the community for help on things like appropriate simple spells/feats. You don't even need to read the majority of the CRB! Pretty much just skim the feats chapter, 2 levels of spells, and 1/4 of the class descriptions for the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard.
I understand that you want Paizo to do it for you, but it just seems like a misguided request, in my mind, because that would be unnecessarily splitting the market, as has been explained elsewhere.
I also still can't reconcile the simultaneous desire for higher level content with the complaint that the CRB has too many options/is too complex. These two factors basically conflict with one another.
There are probably commercial barriers to further products anyhow (quite apart from Paizo's understandable nervousness about developing what is essentially a competitor to their currently well-selling RP game ruleset).
Part of the reason the BB has been so well received is no doubt the price. Pretty sure they've openly stated (and it must be true if they havent) that this is on a very slim margin. A company cant make a habit of producing lots of low-margin products or they dont earn enough to survive when the market shifts, slows momentarily or when they make the inevitable flop. That means any 6-10 box is already going to need to be pricier.
Coupled with the above is the probable significant drop in sales volume. We're all RPG fans, so the proportion of us who buy both the 1-5 and 6-10 set would likely be high. Quite probably though, there'll be a number of sales to more casual gamers who play the 1-5 set (or whose kids do) and then move on, or move back to the computer games they prefer. This lower volume is likely going to increase the price even more and suddenly those clamouring for it might come to think that fifty bucks for level 6-10 doesnt stack up so well next to forty bucks for levels 6-20, no matter how much easier it is to read.
As it is, my group doesnt play PF at the moment and I suspect this would change if a 6-10 set came out. So I'm not against the idea. I just really struggle to see how anything close to the BB for levels 6-10 is feasible though. Sounds to me like an obvious 3PP market, though the production values are necessarily going to suffer - unless we can persuade WoTC to put one out, of course. As it is, my WoTC 3.5 products are now ensconced in the 3PP section of my bookcase anyhow. :)
I also still can't reconcile the simultaneous desire for higher level content with the complaint that the CRB has too many options/is too complex. These two factors basically conflict with one another.
Not really. I personally would be very happy if our only class choices were fighter, cleric, thief and magicuser. Going above 5th level doesnt necessitate more choices and/or more complexity.
The reason my group dont like high level PF is because it takes too much time to understand what choices to make and which sound cool but turn out pretty useless (or which sound dull but are close to essential). If we didnt have so many options to sift through and subsystems to learn at higher levels (if spells were simpler to grasp, for example) then that barrier would go.
Oh I can see commercial problems with it. However I will stick to my guns and say that while commercial issues might be spot on, the comment about the fragmentation of the player base is not. Oh sure some people might tune into the newer slimmer Pathfinder but this not a bad phenomenon. However I doubt this will be a significant amount as most people seem to be either as I said new or tunning in again.
The unknown is how many of those new players will now go on to PF who might otherwise go on to BB2. That's where the harm is - not in people who have already bought the PF core rules who would then go back to BB (like my group, for example).
.Lisa Stevens has often described the multiple competing product lines as being a major factor in TSR's decline. Granted that is generally understood as being multiple campaign settings rather than multiple rulesets, nonetheless I dont see why the principle doesnt apply. I've also heard it put forth (by JJ maybe?) that this is a primary reason that Paizo are unlikely to put out post-apocalyptic, future, modern or any other ruleset (in the short to medium term, anyhow).
I may be misattributing these views to them, of course and apologies if that's the case. Nonetheless, if experts think it's a bad idea, it needs good evidence to doubt them.
As for the price point - I do not think that 10 dollars more for a Pathfinder-lite set is that much if there is demand for the product. Nobody said the BB2 needs to be identical. People will pay good money for a good product - especially if they were clamoring for it.
I am utterly astonished at how often people comment on the price of RPG products. In my mind, Paizo are ridiculously cheap given their quality and the niche nature of the market. Nonetheless, people often complain about the prices as is and (from vague memory) I'm pretty sure Paizo had a keen eye on the price of the BB (though admittedly a BB2 would be a different kind of product).
.Basically I agree with you that it shouldnt matter, however prices can be relatively important when it comes to luxury products.
So all in all - I think it is a feasible option. Plus the Expert/BB2 boxset does not need to include the same things as the BB. Remember - it would be an addition, not the base for play.
Yeah, this is why I think the demand would be substantially lower (and some of it would hurt sales of the PF core book). As I said, I'd love it to happen and would love to be totally off base. But from my mind-reading attempts across the Pacific, I think the Paizo staff have good commercial reasons to be wary.
of all Paizo products are VERY cheap in relation to quality and the fact they are...well...RPG products which is a niche in a niche. As said before - people are willing to pay for product (I know being into collecting music) it's good product and they want it. Even if it's a little more expensive than the entryway product (in this case the Beginner Box).
I agree they're cheap. Yet people complain about how expensive they are. (Or say things like 'If AP instalments were $25 I wouldnt buy them'). This is the problem - RPG products are price sensitive, so if the BB2 needed to be significantly more expensive than BB1 it would probably decrease demand.
Second of all the question to ask is - how many people who bought the BB are going to move towards the full game and how many are going to stay with it. Also how many people will quit Pathfinder if they do not get their post 5th level BB-fix on. Time will tell. Ultimately what matters to Paizo is what numbers did the BB pull in. This is the potential customer base of the BB2 (plus people who will move to it seeing some support for that style of Pathfinder rules presentation). That is the kicker here.
Plus I do not see the lines as competing. Both can be based in Golarion (and are!) and both use the Pathfinder rule set. The flow between two lines (and I hesitate to use that word - two modes of play is better) is pretty seemless in my opinion.
The bolded enhances their competition. I can tell you that my group would switch to the BB line. That means Paizo lose any sales of the RPG line they're currently going to get from my group (other than me, that is).
I'm not saying it would definitely be a net loss - but there would almost necessarily be a loss of revenue in the RPG line (which currently seems to be doing well for them). They'd have to be sure that the increase in revenue/profit from this new (low-margin) venture would offset the loss in that other, established and successful product line.
Of course I value the opinion of the Paizo people as experts - they probably have legtimate reasons to stay with the full game given that it has been, by all accounts, a success story. However what I'm saying is that by doing this there lot of converts and re-converts to the Paizo/Pathfinder cause to be had.
I really hope you can persuade them, and I'm certainly not holding myself out as an expert - I may be misrepresenting their positions. However, I think it's best to be realistic about what we ask for and to frame such requests within parameters which are commercially feasible. I think a 3PP solution is far more likely (in the medium term, anyhow).
Chief Technical Officer
|
The real value of Paizo as a company is not in our rulebooks. Heck, we give the rules away for free, and anybody can drop them into their own book and sell them without even needing to consult us, much less pay us. We make money selling them, but as an actual asset, the rules themselves don't significantly add to the company's value.
As actual potential value goes, our setting and our stories are a far more important asset. Some of you have been around long enough to remember that the only reason we created the Pathfinder RPG in the first place is because Wizards stopped printing 3rd edition books, and we needed to have a rulebook in print to support our Adventure Path line.
The Adventure Path line is our bread and butter, and if I could get everyone to subscribe to one line, that would be the one. We want to sell more AP volumes, and we don't want to do anything that makes it less likely for players to buy one.
The APs need to be written for the full RPG. We need that broad range of characters, monsters, and player options to tell those stories. And that means that we need people to play the full RPG.
To be frank, the point of the Beginner Box is to bring new players to the full RPG, and to our Adventure Paths. So once people are comfortable with the basic concepts from the Beginner Box, we want them to move to the full RPG as soon as possible; anything we do that keeps them from migrating to the full RPG is therefore counterproductive to our goals, and a "Beginner Box II", whether that's adding options for Levels 1–5 or adding levels 6 and higher, works against that goal. The goal is teaching you the full game, not giving you a reason not to learn it, or a substitute for it.
Now, we *do* need to provide you tools that ease your migration to the full RPG, and that's where our focus will go with future efforts involving the Beginner Box.
So, it seems we have two factors--
1) Many folks, like me, seem to like the rules lite approach of the BB.
2) Paizo has a vested money interest in getting people into adventure paths because that pays the bills (and frankly, that makes more sense than the WotC model of system bloat to try and pay the bills).
So, perhaps a middle road idea. A 'Beginner Box 2' (or as I'd call it for the old school folks, the "Expert Box") and then a series of Adventure Paths for BB/EB that, having the same rules as BB/EB (which means, the same as CRB leaving out some stuff), would just as easily adapt to the full Pathfinder rules (and by adapt, I mean 'pretty much run as written'). I could see the main setting book (Inner Sea Guide) being useful to pretty much both. I've briefly looked through it (still debating on buy) and it seems not really crunch heavy except for NPCs.
Does that sound like a reasonable idea and compromise between the two desires? Anyone else think that sounds reasonable?
I'll be honest. I love the BB. I'd run that for my 'fantasy fix' game. But I have the CRB and I have the same issues with that that I did v3.5. I'll play if offered, but I'm not running that, and not buying adventure paths for it. I had my fill of running that intensive a prep game 5 years ago.
I would seriously consider Adventure Paths for a BB/EB line. And I would buy an EB in a heartbeat.
|
Based on what Paizo has said, I just don't see them releasing BB material past level 5. The game gets more complex at level 6 and there is no way around it. Better to just have players migrate to the Core book at that point.
While it seems they don't plan any further BB material other than aids to transition players to the Core book, I can't help but think that a Hero's Handbook II with more core races and classes up to level 5 would be possible. Provided sales of the BB are high enough to justify it.
For those wanting to advance beyond 5th using BB rules and formats, your GM will need to make the adjustments from the Core book. And it should be rather simple to use any published adventures for BB characters by ignoring rules that aren't a part of the BB.
I wouldn't be surprised if some third parties make some BB compatible products too. They just wouldn't be able to call them BB compatible or make them look just like BB material.
I very much doubt Paizo has the staff or time to launch a whole new product line on top of what they're already producing to provide APs for the Beginner's Box rules, even if they were enamored of the idea. They seem to be continually running the ragged edge of disaster keeping all their other product lines on schedule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Adventure Path line is our bread and butter, and if I could get everyone to subscribe to one line, that would be the one. We want to sell more AP volumes, and we don't want to do anything that makes it less likely for players to buy one.
That is really interesting. It slots GMs (and collectors) in as the primary demographic. Rule additions with their power creep and class profusion targeted at players should not have to be a concern if the stories and adventures keep the game fresh.
Perhaps it also means that powerful growth comes mostly from expanding your base of GMs, which is (in part) why excitement generated by the Beginner Box is a tiger's tail.
To be frank, the point of the Beginner Box is to bring new players to the full RPG, and to our Adventure Paths. So once people are comfortable with the basic concepts from the Beginner Box, we want them to move to the full RPG as soon as possible; anything we do that keeps them from migrating to the full RPG is therefore counterproductive to our goals, and a "Beginner Box II", whether that's adding options for Levels 1–5 or adding levels 6 and higher, works against that goal. The goal is teaching you the full game, not giving you a reason not to learn it, or a substitute for it.
Now, we *do* need to provide you tools that ease your migration to the full RPG, and that's where our focus will go with future efforts involving the Beginner Box.
Seeing the success of the Beginner Box as being not only its reduced scope of rules but also its presentation, I had hoped (perhaps blindly) that Sarah Robinson was being drafted to work on the Rise of the Runelords compilation, crafting a bridge between the Beginner Box and the Adventure Paths through clear and elegant formatting that helps the GM.
|
|
There are numerous problems with the "solution" OperationsKT has provided.
1) This is related to Paizo's explanation of why they don't want to do continuations of Adventure Paths, or other similar epic content. You're selling a Beginner Box 2 to a subset of the people who bought Beginner Box 1. And then you're selling the Beginner Box Adventure Path to a subset of the BB2 purchasers. By the time you've got a subset of a subset, you're not making much profit anymore.
2) Creating a BB Adventure Path would take time out of Paizo's busy schedule. What products do you propose they drop to write up a second adventure path? Why do you think a BB adventure path would sell better than whatever other product they could be making?
3) Paizo's primary market is people playing the Pathfinder RPG. There will ALWAYS be more people playing the 'full' game than people playing a scaled down intro version. But they don't provide 3.5e stats, or 4e stats, or Savage World stats--and I know people play the APs with these systems and more! The idea that players of the PFRPG would have to convert things over is kind of funny. :)
Incidentally, while I appreciate quite a lot of the BB's presentation (excluding, notably, the over-use of exclamation marks...), and the way the adventure was layed out was quite good for a newbie GM... I can't even imagine how you'd manage to fit in the entirety of an adventure path in that kind of format. I suspect it would at least double the page count, if not more!
I very much doubt Paizo has the staff or time to launch a whole new product line on top of what they're already producing to provide APs for the Beginner's Box rules, even if they were enamored of the idea. They seem to be continually running the ragged edge of disaster keeping all their other product lines on schedule.
That would be my guess too. Plus it runs directly counter to Vic's point above - providing a direct competitor to the AP line is unlikely to boost AP subscriptions, which seems so central to their success. Even if net subscribers went up, if the AP numbers drop significantly the cost per unit will necessarily go up.
I'm sure there's an upside, but when you're in business and things are going well, there's not a lot of mileage in substantially altering your core business. Slow evolution is a better way to go. I think the work required and the risk involved in such a substantial change (two closely related rulesets) is high. Plus, the paizo staff like the core rules. I daresay ensuring theyre designing adventures for a game with all the complication/customisation they enjoy is another factor in their decision making.
It would suit me down to the ground if I'm proved wrong. I'd much prefer to play in golarion using paizo rules rather than other systems. It'd be a big gamble though, in my view.
To be frank, the point of the Beginner Box is to bring new players to the full RPG, and to our Adventure Paths. So once people are comfortable with the basic concepts from the Beginner Box, we want them to move to the full RPG as soon as possible; anything we do that keeps them from migrating to the full RPG is therefore counterproductive to our goals, and a "Beginner Box II", whether that's adding options for Levels 1–5 or adding levels 6 and higher, works against that goal. The goal is teaching you the full game, not giving you a reason not to learn it, or a substitute for it.
The beginner box itself seems counter productive to this. It becomes a bait & switch or a quick dollar idea. A product is released, BB. It is slick, streamlined, and lean, a fantastic product. I purchase it and I want more. So I start to look for adventure paths, only I found that to get any more I got to get a more complex bogged down set of rules. Now I have three choices. Upgrade to a complex bulky rules set that I may not be able to understand, run, or time to play using. Switch to another system. Or just continue to play the BB over and over again. With these options, the BB has basically become a quick dollar for Paizo from my purchase. I would love to get some of the Adventure Paths, but they aren't designed for the product I have so I don't purchase them. I honestly feel that if the goal of the BB was to get players into the full game then the wrong product was developed. They should have just released a new CRB with better explanations and layout. Don't get me wrong, I love the BB and it's rules. I am quite happy with it. But at the same time there is no way I am going to try and play an adventure path, campaign etc. with my family using the full rules. And I think alot of people will feel the same way. The BB is great and was bought for its presentation, layout, and simpler rules set. Upgrading to the CRB takes away all of the advantages that the BB presents to me which is easy of play, quick look ups, and just the right amount of options for character customization.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To all those folks clamoring for more BB content in order to run APs, why not just run the first three parts of the APs ignoring the rules you don't like?
Examples with spoilers below:
council of thieves
kingmaker
Serpent's Skull
Carrion Crown
Jade Regent
|
|
I can tell you that I would immediately purchase a copy (or more) of a reworked CRB with much, much better organisation of material and many of the silly kinks worked out of the writing. But I would never, ever buy it if the language was like that in the BB (while I appreciate its use in a beginner product targeted at a younger demographic, it feels awkward reading it, personally)--or if it contained so few options. I am sure many people would feel the same way.
DM_aka_Dudemeister also gives a great example of what you can do with the BB and APs, though!
Splinting the fan base is not "More profitable". I myself would not mind a more rules light game, but that is not what we have. Anyone saying breaching the BB out into yet more boxes and a second line is not splinting the fan base and lowering profits is simply fooling themselves.
|
|
what
Being able to play an entire AP would involve using the entirety of the CRB material. How do you expect to fight against Karzoug if you don't have the details for a 20th level Wizard? Most of the APs go to AT LEAST 15th level or so.
Is it really that much work to go through the CRB and remove anything you don't like? Seriously, it'd probably take you an hour or two to copy the relevant stuff into Word.
what
Being able to play an entire AP would involve using the entirety of the CRB material. How do you expect to fight against Karzoug if you don't have the details for a 20th level Wizard? Most of the APs go to AT LEAST 15th level or so.
Is it really that much work to go through the CRB and remove anything you don't like? Seriously, it'd probably take you an hour or two to copy the relevant stuff into Word.
I don't really disagree with your main point, but I don't think constructing a home brew "simplified Pathfinder" is a good way to solve the problem of finding PF too complicated.
It would take me much longer than an hour to "go through the CRB and remove anything i dont like" and id do a terrible job - in large part because I don't know what I don't like. I would then also be left with a five hundred page book to sift through, except now I'd have to cross reference with a list of rules which don't apply (or I'd have a monstrously long printout of those which do).
The trouble i have with PF is the volume of information and the complicated ways the various different systems interact (especially when it comes to spells). It's very easy to build a character who doesn't work the way you envisioned (or who just doesnt work) and it's easy to attempt some action based on a flawed understanding of how some specific spell or subsystem operates. A misunderstanding your character would never have.
PF is not a rules lite game and approximating one by leaving stuff out is unlikely to please those looking for a quick and easy game, in my view. Far better to recognize what your group wants and go find a simple ruleset. It's pretty easy to convert Paizo flavor material and adventures into simpler systems. Ultimately, paizo are interested in making PF as good as it can be (in all it's extravagant, complicated, voluminous glory) and they're doing an exceptional job at it. As I see it, the BB is just a less intimidating and simpler introduction. It is still an introduction though - to a rules intensive game.
Asking for PF-lite is no different than requesting PF-modern, PF-Supers or any other genre as far as I can see. It diverts resources, has the potential to reduce sales of their core rules and, from my perspective anyhow, seems to be counter to the kinds of games the paizo staff want to develop.
|
|
I gamed with my newly introduced players last night (BB) and they are a session or two from completing a reworked Crypt of the Everflame. They love every aspect of the game I have presented to them. Great job on the BB!
I asked them during our 'long break' (mandatory 15 minutes away from the table. Crumb cleanup, restroom breaks, drink refills, smoke break, ad infinatum) if they would like to continue the BB characters after we complete this adventure or would they like to make new characters and what they would like it to be targeted towards. They replied new characters, BB rules, western European medieval fantasy but with a BB style Paladin and Witch. My heart sank at the last part. Talk about interesting work ahead on my part, but I have no choice. After reading Vic's post, I really do not have an option because two of things:
The Core Rule Book size and the amount of options they have to ingest, and frankly the price.
All four players Will Not (emphatic) buy a CRB or any rules book anywhere as thick. Period. They play because they are having a LOT of fun, more than I expected or hoped, but to a person they expressed disinterest in having to read that much material, or pay $50 for a book they will not read. I can't blame them really. We are mostly (my wife is in her twenties) professional adults with our tweens and twenties long past. Careers and family take priority. We play once every two weeks roughly, in the evening hours; usually 6 to 9:30 or so. We do not have a single common day off.
They love the BB. Simple, sweet, NOT 4e or WoW, and $35 and a group of 5 has fun for months. I was planning on running an AP but there really is no point. I am not going to cull all my books (by all I mean all... damn Piazo killing my wallet) for bits to use. I do not have the time.
While I appreciate the direct candor of Vic's post and I fully understand his statement from a business standpoint, it is frustrating because it is hard to stomach because I really wanted an addon/next step Bbox. Two to four more basic classes, enhanced to 10
OR
to be a level 5 to 7 conversion into Core. By level 8 they should be ready to soak in the rules even if only what we use and I describe to them.
I can only hold on to the few words where he (Vic) implied their only real direction in the future regarding the BB may be into easing conversion into full Core.
Parting thought with a sad face... We drew you in with checkers, but we only care to make money off of our Chess/Stratego blended story books at $20 a pop. Thanks for the $35. Enjoy your pawns. (Mostly sarcasm. Mostly) I still cannot fathom why/how/whatever it was assumed non-gamers, regardless of age, would go from a nice fully explained 2 page character sheet to BAM $50 400 whatever page rulebook with no tie in planned. $35 BB $40 BB2/tie in. $50 CRB seems like a better sell than $35 and {WALL} or pay $50 and figure it out.
|
|
Splinting the fan base is not "More profitable". I myself would not mind a more rules light game, but that is not what we have. Anyone saying breaching the BB out into yet more boxes and a second line is not splinting the fan base and lowering profits is simply fooling themselves.If the BB brings in players who have not, and will not, play 'full' PF, it is *not* 'splintering' the fan base. This is because these additional customers and players were not, and will not, be part of the 'core' PF fan base.
Does having both Coke and Diet Coke 'splinter' the Coke 'fan base'? If Diet Coke drinkers would never drink regular Coke it does not. Making Diet Coke available *expands* the fan base. (And the converse is also true. I would never drink Diet Coke.)
In any case, I find these worries over 'splintering' the fan base ridiculously overwrought.
You bring me Coke and Diet Coke, I give you 32X vs. Sega CD vs. Saturn :)
I can only hold on to the few words where he (Vic) implied their only real direction in the future regarding the BB may be into easing conversion into full Core.
I sympathize with this. Our group are long time gamers but they don't have the time or budget to get into PF either.
I share your hope for some steppingstone products, as I think a lot of the barriers are perceived rather than inherent to to PF. (bite sized, class specific PDFs would be enough for many graduating players, I suspect).