Modules in the style of the Beginner's Box


Beginner Box

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:


I like complex and robust rules for PAthfinder. If I want to play a rules system that is light, I will play one, but I would not demand a particular rules set gets more robust because I want to play a particular game and don't like it NOW.

I believe there is an inherent risk in assuming what you, the experienced veteran, likes and what the newbie needs are the same thing.


mcbobbo wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:


I like complex and robust rules for PAthfinder. If I want to play a rules system that is light, I will play one, but I would not demand a particular rules set gets more robust because I want to play a particular game and don't like it NOW.

I believe there is an inherent risk in assuming what you, the experienced veteran, likes and what the newbie needs are the same thing.

I didn't, in fact I am well aware of it. In fact I am probably one of the best DM's for a newbie to play with as I am one of the best teachers of RPG's. I am just good at teaching it to people. Beginners Box saves me alot of work, but whether its Pathfinder or AD&D I will get the noob to understand it. Probably better than a flashy new rules system could alone.

If you read my comment above though, I addressed I am not demanding all rules systems be robust. I play some rules light systems like traveller. I love Traveller. I am not asking that to be more complex because I want more rules.

The same I like PAthfinder because of the system.

Of course I do not see how you can really make Pathfinder any easier. You could maybe just re-organize the book, I am Ok with that, but there is not a lot of complexity to the Pathfinder Rules.

Asking it to be 'easier' means that stuff will be eliminated from the rules. I had one publisher do that to a game I like and I saw the result. I am not anxious to see the same thing happen to another game I like.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I for one plan on using the Beginner's Box as a start for my own version of E5.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

Mournblade94 wrote:
Yes please don't split the publishing down the middle. Beginner's Box should be a tool, not a new system. I intend to use it to pad BEGINNERS getting into Pathfinder core, not as a substitute.

I think that's the whole purpose. Unlike D&D with the Basic and Expert sets, where you had legions of fans who actually gamed with those rules exclusively, I am not aware of Paizo having any desire to do that.

I think this fear of "splitting the publishing" is really unfounded. There is nothing to split. After level 5 what choice do they have but to go to the core rules? People aren't just going to over and over play 1st to 5th level characters.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Clark Peterson wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
Yes please don't split the publishing down the middle. Beginner's Box should be a tool, not a new system. I intend to use it to pad BEGINNERS getting into Pathfinder core, not as a substitute.

I think that's the whole purpose. Unlike D&D with the Basic and Expert sets, where you had legions of fans who actually gamed with those rules exclusively, I am not aware of Paizo having any desire to do that.

I think this fear of "splitting the publishing" is really unfounded. There is nothing to split. After level 5 what choice do they have but to go to the core rules? People aren't just going to over and over play 1st to 5th level characters.

Dunno, out of 4 groups that I DM on a semi-regular basis only one has so far gone above level 5.

One could also look at why are there so many low-level standalone modules and why the low-level AP episodes garner the most reviews. It's often hard to keep a group running forth beyond the first couple of levels.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Mournblade94 wrote:
Yes please don't split the publishing down the middle. Beginner's Box should be a tool, not a new system. I intend to use it to pad BEGINNERS getting into Pathfinder core, not as a substitute.

This sentiment is something to pay attention to. I firmly believe that one of the biggest mistakes TSR made with D&D in the early days was the "split" marketing challenge they had while supporting multiple versions of the same game. Starting with Basic, moving to Advanced, then on to Expert was not the logical progression it appeared to be by name.

Happily, Vic has already spoken to this:

Vic Wertz wrote:

To be frank, we don't want to encourage our audience to split themselves into Core Rulebook players and Beginner Box players; we want to encourage most Beginner Box players to eventually move on to the Core Rulebook so that they can fully interact with our existing community, play in the Pathfinder Society, and expand their game with the hundreds of PFRPG products that are already out there.

Our own support for the Beginner Box will generally include stuff designed to ease the transition to the Core Rulebook; for example, the free Beginner Box GM Kit we're about to release has a section on how to use published low-level Pathfinder RPG adventures with the Beginner Box.

I predict good things for this set. I hope Paizo is prepared for the deluge of new players that will be flooding their game.

I'm very excited...

Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:


Of course I do not see how you can really make Pathfinder any easier. You could maybe just re-organize the book, I am Ok with that, but there is not a lot of complexity to the Pathfinder Rules.

Grab the free content and check it out. They really did make it easier. The simplicity of it is pretty elegant by comparison. It's awesome.

Mournblade94 wrote:


Asking it to be 'easier' means that stuff will be eliminated from the rules.

Well...

PZO1119GME.pdf wrote:

THE BASIC RULE: IGNORE THE UNKNOWN
The game is designed to be very modular—all the pieces work
together, and you can add or subtract most pieces and it’ll
keep working just fine. If you see something in an adventure
that isn’t explained in the Beginner Box, don’t worry about
it—just ignore that rule and keep playing!

'Eliminated'? No. More like 'glossed over', which is a good thing.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Clark Peterson wrote:


I think this fear of "splitting the publishing" is really unfounded. There is nothing to split. After level 5 what choice do they have but to go to the core rules? People aren't just going to over and over play 1st to 5th level characters.

Further I think everyone forgets that Basic and Advanced weren't compatible. Beginner's and Core are. Beginner's has less, sure, but nothing presented in Core contradicts it in any way (as far as I'm aware).

Basic had things like Elves only being fighter-mages, different stats for the same creatures, things like that.

It's like comparing apples and steak tips.

EDIT: Actually, it just occurred to me. Beginner's does nothing more than turn Core into a supplement book. That's the extent of the damage. Just as how you'd ignore Gunslingers and Ninjas if you didn't like those, Beginner's ignores rules that complicate things. That's all.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My original post was asking for some material for newer/crossover GMs that took into account the way this material was posted, specifically inclusion of the encounter mini-map, npc stats and treasure section in a nice clear manner. After reviewing the recent APs, the main thing I'd want as a a cross-system gm, aside from a page reference for potentially obscure rules would be a mini-map for the various rooms.

With regards to Clark Peterson and other content authors, I would be quite happy to buy material that has a simple experienced GM version and a newbie GM version wherein there are l extra pages of extra information, including maps, npc tactics, rules reminders, etc. I'm not sure if that's asking too much or not.

And with regards to the maps included with Jade Regent, they're nice, but horrible for memory on my MacBook and blank on my iPad.

I'd love a PDF that was pages and pages scaled room images, suitable for projecting or printing. Preferably with a GM cheat sheet on every second page of a mini-map and legend. Those would be incredibly useful to me, but I suspect that it would be more work than would be reasonable. It would just be far easier for you to create those with your raw files than for me working from the PDFs.


mcbobbo wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:


Of course I do not see how you can really make Pathfinder any easier. You could maybe just re-organize the book, I am Ok with that, but there is not a lot of complexity to the Pathfinder Rules.

Grab the free content and check it out. They really did make it easier. The simplicity of it is pretty elegant by comparison. It's awesome.

Mournblade94 wrote:


Asking it to be 'easier' means that stuff will be eliminated from the rules.

Well...

PZO1119GME.pdf wrote:

THE BASIC RULE: IGNORE THE UNKNOWN
The game is designed to be very modular—all the pieces work
together, and you can add or subtract most pieces and it’ll
keep working just fine. If you see something in an adventure
that isn’t explained in the Beginner Box, don’t worry about
it—just ignore that rule and keep playing!

'Eliminated'? No. More like 'glossed over', which is a good thing.

Ok perhaps I was not clear. I do not see how the RULES could be easier. It can definitely be PRESENTED in an easier way.

That part from the PDF i have no problem with. Yo usee glossing over that is what I would expect from a beginners set. When they master the beginning skills they can start on the new ones.

There is NOTHING I think bad about the Beginner Box. I think it an absolute good thing. My point above which I probably failed at conveying was the crunchy pathfinder does not have to be made LESS crunchy to be made EASIER. You can present it in such a way to retain its scope and its robustness(?how odes one say robustness), yet still make it EASY to learn.

Contributor

mcbobbo wrote:
Does this same preference apply to fan content as well as for-dollars content? I was pretty excited about writing up some stuff for the new GMs to use, but this statement makes me less so. As in, if you don't want (or think the new players need) my help, then I suppose I'll save the effort...

There's no reason why you shouldn't create new content suitable for the Beginner Box! One of the reasons the GM Kit has the section on using PF materials is because we don't have any supplemental material for the Beginner Box. If other people want to pro-publish or fan-publish to support that niche, go for it!

mcbobbo wrote:
EDIT: Actually, it just occurred to me. Beginner's does nothing more than turn Core into a supplement book. That's the extent of the damage. Just as how you'd ignore Gunslingers and Ninjas if you didn't like those, Beginner's ignores rules that complicate things. That's all.

YES! That was our intent--to create a slimmed-down version of the rules that's easy to learn, that didn't contradict the Core Rulebook, and allowed you to add the Core Rulebook content when you were ready.

Shadow Lodge

mcbobbo wrote:
Further I think everyone forgets that Basic and Advanced weren't compatible. Beginner's and Core are. Beginner's has less, sure, but nothing presented in Core contradicts it in any way (as far as I'm aware).

Basic D&D and AD&D may not have been perfectly compatible, but they were a no further than PF is from 3.5. And there's FAR more compatibility between 0E, 1E, 2E, and the Basic variants than between any of those and 3.X/PFRPG.

Shadow Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
There's no reason why you shouldn't create new content suitable for the Beginner Box! One of the reasons the GM Kit has the section on using PF materials is because we don't have any supplemental material for the Beginner Box. If other people want to pro-publish or fan-publish to support that niche, go for it!

And while I haven't seen it yet, I really doubt the included adventure takes characters all the way from 1st to 5th. :P


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
There's no reason why you shouldn't create new content suitable for the Beginner Box! One of the reasons the GM Kit has the section on using PF materials is because we don't have any supplemental material for the Beginner Box. If other people want to pro-publish or fan-publish to support that niche, go for it!

Thanks for the understanding. I am really glad Paizo made the PFBB and its design looks inspired. You have definitely succeeded here as I plan to use a lot of additional PF product with it.

I do still hope that someone will support the niche further and expand it so that I can more readily use even more PF content. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mournblade94 wrote:

There are plenty of rules light systems out there. I have no problem with them. The problem occurs when a rules system works really well, and than it is made simpler ('accessible' if you will) because some people want it to be simpler. The assumption is, NO BODY rules for things.

I like complex and robust rules for PAthfinder. If I want to play a rules system that is light, I will play one, but I would not demand a particular rules set gets more robust because I want to play a particular game and don't like it NOW.

There are a lot of good rules light systems. Though there are very few good, modern D&D RPGs with Pathfinders support though.

Fortunately, as said above, this is not a "PF BB or PF full" situation. PF Full continues untouched. If Paizo or some one develops further support for the PF BB then we all win, even Paizo.

I think that is what makes the design of the PF BB inspired. It remains pretty much compatible with PF. So the main impact will be for PF Fulll gains a whole new audience for many of its products, along with Paizo or a 3PP having some new successful products.

In fact I think that is probably one of the greatest incentives for Paizo to expand the PFBB, rather than leaving to a 3PP. That way they can ensure compatibility remains and not risk someone splitting the fan base in an undesirable way.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
mcbobbo wrote:
Further I think everyone forgets that Basic and Advanced weren't compatible. Beginner's and Core are. Beginner's has less, sure, but nothing presented in Core contradicts it in any way (as far as I'm aware).
Basic D&D and AD&D may not have been perfectly compatible, but they were a no further than PF is from 3.5. And there's FAR more compatibility between 0E, 1E, 2E, and the Basic variants than between any of those and 3.X/PFRPG.

Don't let any 1E fan catch you on a notion of compatibility with 2E (or vice versa). One word: THAC0.

Also, PF and 3.5 are much closer than BECMI and AD&D were. Class=race vs. class=!race is one big ravine, and there are several others.


Gorbacz wrote:

Also, PF and 3.5 are much closer than BECMI and AD&D were. Class=race vs. class=!race is one big ravine, and there are several others.

Also, PFBB and PF are even closer. PFBB is really just an edited version of PF which is great as it means that all the PF adventures are pretty much compatible, as recognised by Paizo in the GM add on for the PFBB.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:


Don't let any 1E fan catch you on a notion of compatibility with 2E (or vice versa). One word: THAC0.

Thac0 was just a shortcut, taking one line out of the giant chart that used to be used. So it really is just a different way of expressing the exact same mechanic.

Gorbacz wrote:


Also, PF and 3.5 are much closer than BECMI and AD&D were. Class=race vs. class=!race is one big ravine, and there are several others.

Yes all the players needed to make PCs from the same book. On the other hand, it was really easy to run Basic modules for AD&D. Probably just as easy to do the reverse, but I can't say I have experience with that. I had the B1-9 module collection and the AD&D handbooks. I don't think I realized they were different games until many, many years later. Because 1 HD 4 hp damage 1d4+1 runs the same in both games.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Don't let any 1E fan catch you on a notion of compatibility with 2E (or vice versa). One word: THAC0.
Thac0 was just a shortcut, taking one line out of the giant chart that used to be used. So it really is just a different way of expressing the exact same mechanic.

That's not the layman's point of view, though. When new enough to RPG's to believe that THAC0 was a game mechanic itself, rather than just a shortcut, you're going to look at a statblock that doesn't have it and say, 'not compatible'.

deinol wrote:


Gorbacz wrote:


Also, PF and 3.5 are much closer than BECMI and AD&D were. Class=race vs. class=!race is one big ravine, and there are several others.
Yes all the players needed to make PCs from the same book. On the other hand, it was really easy to run Basic modules for AD&D. Probably just as easy to do the reverse, but I can't say I have experience with that. I had the B1-9 module collection and the AD&D handbooks. I don't think I realized they were different games until many, many years later. Because 1 HD 4 hp damage 1d4+1 runs the same in both games.

I'm pretty sure that your bar for 'really easy' is higher than PFBB's target audience. It is, comparatively, 'really easy' to adapt an episode of your favorite TV show into being an adventure as well. Do a rip/replace of all characters in that story for ones you have stats for and run against that framework. But doing that takes more experience than we're talking about here. Same for running Basic/Advanced modules in the wrong sub-system.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mcbobbo wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:


This is deliberate. To be frank, we don't want to encourage our audience to split themselves into Core Rulebook players and Beginner Box players; we want to encourage most Beginner Box players to eventually move on to the Core Rulebook so that they can fully interact with our existing community, play in the Pathfinder Society, and expand their game with the hundreds of PFRPG products that are already out there.

Our own support for the Beginner Box will generally include stuff designed to ease the transition to the Core Rulebook; for example, the free Beginner Box GM Kit we're about to release has a section on how to use published low-level Pathfinder RPG adventures with the Beginner Box.

Does this same preference apply to fan content as well as for-dollars content? I was pretty excited about writing up some stuff for the new GMs to use, but this statement makes me less so. As in, if you don't want (or think the new players need) my help, then I suppose I'll save the effort...

(I'd like to start my response off by noting that there's a distinction between what you *can* do under the OGL and what Paizo would *like* to see third parties do, and the rest of this post only addresses the latter, since that's what mcbobbo is asking about.)

I'd say that, in general, if your product idea would generally increase the amount of time that a typical group stayed with the Beginner Box, that would, to some degree, run contrary to Paizo's goals. On the other hand, if your product idea helps transition people to the Core Rulebook, that's something we'd like.

Some might note that there's a product type that falls between those two gaps: products that keep BB players occupied during their exploration of the Beginner Box, such as level-appropriate adventures. What I'd say to that, though, is that you'd be better served to write that adventure so that it works just as well for Core Rulebook players as it does for BB players. If you want to tailor the presentation for newbie GMs, that's fantastic... so why not approach it in a way that would *also* benefit new Core Rulebook GMs? That is, after all, the point of the BB: It's fundamentally still the Pathfinder RPG, minus a bunch of complicated options, and so you *can* write adventures that work for both groups.

Shadow Lodge

Vic Wertz wrote:
What I'd say to that, though, is that you'd be better served to write that adventure so that it works just as well for Core Rulebook players as it does for BB players. If you want to tailor the presentation for newbie GMs, that's fantastic... so why not approach it in a way that would *also* benefit new Core Rulebook GMs?

Well, specifically, I can certainly see an advantage in scripting encounters that will only be faced by a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue or Wizard. The same can be said for a limited amount of spells and items. You can preface the GM on what to expect within the content of the module. 'If, then, else' type stuff.

I'm imagining someone the age of my son, and remembering the pitfalls that I ran into when first entering the hobby. Fewer 'oh crap' moments when running a game are definitely better.

Not that I'd mind more experienced GMs taking my work and adapting it to Core. Not at all. It's just that I know what the Core rules do to the nine-year-old brain, and he's not going to be twelve for quite a while yet. He, and others like him, could use more content than what's here, in my opinion. And guidance, too.

The plus-side is, I'd get a kick out of providing both.

Finally, there's also the issue of this being new territory. There's opportunity here to make work that others might actually use. By comparison, my PFS submission, as far as I know, has yet to be read. 'Months' was the estimate I got back, if I recall correctly. So there's clearly lots of content of that type. Could be there's less here...


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
mcbobbo wrote:
deinol wrote:


Thac0 was just a shortcut, taking one line out of the giant chart that used to be used. So it really is just a different way of expressing the exact same mechanic.

That's not the layman's point of view, though. When new enough to RPG's to believe that THAC0 was a game mechanic itself, rather than just a shortcut, you're going to look at a statblock that doesn't have it and say, 'not compatible'.

I guess. Thac0 was in several 1E modules before 2E was released. 2E just formalized a shortcut that was already being used. But I concede that it may have been confusing to new players.

mcbobbo wrote:


deinol wrote:


Gorbacz wrote:


Also, PF and 3.5 are much closer than BECMI and AD&D were. Class=race vs. class=!race is one big ravine, and there are several others.
Yes all the players needed to make PCs from the same book. On the other hand, it was really easy to run Basic modules for AD&D. Probably just as easy to do the reverse, but I can't say I have experience with that. I had the B1-9 module collection and the AD&D handbooks. I don't think I realized they were different games until many, many years later. Because 1 HD 4 hp damage 1d4+1 runs the same in both games.
I'm pretty sure that your bar for 'really easy' is higher than PFBB's target audience. It is, comparatively, 'really easy' to adapt an episode of your favorite TV show into being an adventure as well. Do a rip/replace of all characters in that story for ones you have stats for and run against that framework. But doing that takes more experience than we're talking about here. Same for running Basic/Advanced modules in the wrong sub-system.

Creating an adventure from a TV plot is far more difficult than running a basic D&D module with AD&D.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. When I was 7 AD&D was the first RPG I ever played. The only adventures I had were Basic D&D modules. Nobody taught me how to play. It was just me and my cousin and three books. I never even realized they were different game systems until years later. I guess I had a lot of system mastery straight out of the box.

But from what I hear, a lot of people used the Basic modules with AD&D. In fact, for quite some time there far were more Basic/Expert modules than AD&D modules.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

deinol wrote:

But from what I hear, a lot of people used the Basic modules with AD&D. In fact, for quite some time there far were more Basic/Expert modules than AD&D modules.

Yup. I did exactly that. In both directions. (In fact, I've recently used 3 different Basic/Expert modules—"Keep on the Borderlands," "Temple of Death," and most recently "The Lost City" as adventures in Pathfinder with very little time spent converting.)

My first year or two of playing D&D back in the day was more or less with the Monster Manual and the Red Box and modules—the first module I bought was "Queen of the Demonweb Pits."

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Clark Peterson wrote:
Bottom line: My daughter is getting this under the tree this Christmas....Let the unicorn adventures begin!

I demand that you run Realm of the Fellnight Queen for this child!

Spoiler:
It even has unicorns! Despite your objections in 2009, I might add... ;-P

Shadow Lodge

My favorite rules set for a fantasy game is currently Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules, based on 0E. I'm pretty sure that I could run any D&D/AD&D adventure published prior to 3.0 with those rules, and make any needed adjustments on the fly.

Can you say the same for 3.X -> Pathfinder?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

My favorite rules set for a fantasy game is currently Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules, based on 0E. I'm pretty sure that I could run any D&D/AD&D adventure published prior to 3.0 with those rules, and make any needed adjustments on the fly.

Can you say the same for 3.X -> Pathfinder?

Actually, yes. Practically the only time I need to calculate something is on the rare chance someone wants to do a combat maneuver. I've run plenty of 3.X modules for my Pathfinder game. I use quite a few 3.X monster resources too.

The only time I make extensive conversion notes is when I want to run a 1E/2E modules in Pathfinder.

Edit to add: I would expect you could do most 3.X adventures in S&W on the fly too. Since all you really need to know about a monster is HD and AC. Ok, you probably need to tone down the damage higher level monsters do. Mostly just cut out the static modifier.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kthulhu wrote:

My favorite rules set for a fantasy game is currently Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules, based on 0E. I'm pretty sure that I could run any D&D/AD&D adventure published prior to 3.0 with those rules, and make any needed adjustments on the fly.

Can you say the same for 3.X -> Pathfinder?

Absolutely. I do it all the time.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

My favorite rules set for a fantasy game is currently Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules, based on 0E. I'm pretty sure that I could run any D&D/AD&D adventure published prior to 3.0 with those rules, and make any needed adjustments on the fly.

Can you say the same for 3.X -> Pathfinder?

Absolutely. I do it all the time.

Well, my question was more aimed at the type of person who thinks there needs to be a comprehensive conversion between an attack matrix and THAC0. :P

Hell, other than having my Monster Book and Tome of Horrors handy for the 0E monster stats, I don't think I'd really have any trouble running a Pathfinder adventure with S&W on the fly, either.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
On the other hand, if your product idea helps transition people to the Core Rulebook, that's something we'd like.

That is my goal, for sure.

"Hey, you are new to gaming, maybe new to GMing, wanted to try this whole roleplaying thing with your friends--fighting monsters, winning treasure. Well here is something for you! And here is how to continue the fun with the core rules!"

Remember, one of my passions is getting people started, getting them to try a new system. Necromancer got its start with the award winning Wizard's Amulet, a freebie pdf designed to help people new to 3E get up and running an adventure using 3E within 15 minutes. I love that idea.

Clark

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There is a great niche open for adventures to teach rules in the core book that aren't in the beginner box. Attacks of Opportunity ability score damage etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Clark Peterson wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
On the other hand, if your product idea helps transition people to the Core Rulebook, that's something we'd like.

That is my goal, for sure.

"Hey, you are new to gaming, maybe new to GMing, wanted to try this whole roleplaying thing with your friends--fighting monsters, winning treasure. Well here is something for you! And here is how to continue the fun with the core rules!"

Remember, one of my passions is getting people started, getting them to try a new system. Necromancer got its start with the award winning Wizard's Amulet, a freebie pdf designed to help people new to 3E get up and running an adventure using 3E within 15 minutes. I love that idea.

Clark

I'm really looking forward to what you put out, and thanks for letting me know about Wizard's Amulet.

I assume you're already doing this, but it would be great if the new modules also were compatible with the existing pawns in the Beginner Box, too.

Grand Lodge

Clark Peterson wrote:
After level 5 what choice do they have but to go to the core rules? People aren't just going to over and over play 1st to 5th level characters.

I don't know. Some might reach level 5 and say, "We won the game." And then box it up and put it on a shelf. :-P

Liberty's Edge

Clark Peterson wrote:
Lilith wrote:


Ponyfinder.
Luckily with my daughter she will want a sword and to be able to kick butt but she will also want a unicorn to ride or to have as a pet or friend. That is a huge factor that table top gaming doesnt do well that many modern gamers have come to really enjoy--the pet, or sidekick.

Clark,

Maybe she could play a cavalier and be a member of the Order of the Unicorn :)

Back on topic, my son is 17 and has been playing Pathfinder in my group for at least 2 or 3 years so this box is not for him (he's actually a very good player) ... my oldest nephew, however, will be fining this under the tree this Christmas!


I think the adventure format would work quite well for what are essentially dungeons, so no more than 16 rooms. They can be trap, social, etc but lots of space used in APs, with all the background, heavy NPC detail, links to the future, etc wouldnt be needed

I guess a bit like the final few 3.5 mods by Wotc (the yaunti trilogy thingey)

maybe some 3rd party pub, just on pdf.

Shadow Lodge

thenovalord wrote:
I think the adventure format would work quite well for what are essentially dungeons, so no more than 16 rooms. They can be trap, social, etc but lots of space used in APs, with all the background, heavy NPC detail, links to the future, etc wouldnt be needed

That's not a dungeon....THIS is a dungeon!


TheeGravedigger wrote:

I love the way the module in the Beginner's Box Game Master's Guide is laid out. It's clear and easy to read, easy for a newbie/multi-system gm to understand what needs to happen in each room. I'd love to see this spin off into a series of Pathfinder beginner modules.

Maybe I'm the only one who'd buy a series like that, but I could see it being nice for GMs who are working their way up to more complicated products like the APs.

I'm pleased to announce that 0one Games have such product on schedule for November 24.

The line is called "Basic Paths". It will be an all-stars product with module written by none other than Tito Leati, full-color artwork by Roberto Pitturru and maps (must I say that?) by 0one Games.

More details to come...


Master of the Zero One wrote:

I'm pleased to announce that 0one Games have such product on schedule for November 24.

The line is called "Basic Paths". It will be an all-stars product with module written by none other than Tito Leati, full-color artwork by Roberto Pitturru and maps (must I say that?) by 0one Games.

More details to come...

Awesome.


FWIW: The 1st ed DMG had one line statblocks for dozens of monsters, each with a "THACO" entry. In no way, shape or form did THACO originate with 2nd ed.


Crypt of the Everflame is a solid choice for continuing players beyond the Beginner Box. It is also suggested toward the end of the Beginner Box GM Kit (DLC). You can use the same characters as those in the Beginner Box as they are also included at the back of the Everflame module, but start introducing players to some of the rules in the Core Book such as CMB and CMD. Explanations are included in the module and a flip-mat (GameMastery Flip-Mat: Dungeon) is available specifically for Everflame.

ronaldsf wrote:

What I think needs to happen is some more output from Paizo that "ramps up" to the full Core Rules. "Intermediate" materials, if you will.

I'm thinking of the following as "intermediate" items:

1. "Graduating from the BB to the Full Rules" material. When Pathfinder was released, there was a PDF for how people could transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. What I'm thinking of is based off the same idea, but would be somewhat more extensive.

First, there would be a brief summary of the main differences: combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity, skills not included in the BB, etc.

Second, these subsystems would be given more treatment and new/young GMs can incorporate them into their campaigns as optional additions. Each rule subsystem could be an "add on" to the rules. They would be both a "reading guide" to the Core Rulebook with page references to the CRB, but also include illustrative examples, with accompanying math, that show how a charge is resolved by the GM, or how an attack of opportunity is resolved, etc., etc. In fact, if these are available on the Paizo site, they can be useful to new GMs who start with the Core Rulebook who want to see the different rule subsystems play out in actual examples.

2. Some ADVENTURES that build upon the "lessons" built into the BB's GMG. There are other aspects of simply how to run a game that are useful for GMs to know. For examples, when the characters approach a door, how do you determine whether the monster behind the door hear them approach? How do you resolve a rogue trying to backstab a sleeping ogre?

My first GMing experience (and tabletop roleplaying experience period) was running my friends through Crypt of the Everflame. That module is a good one for new GMs in that it's straightforward to run compared to other Paizo modules, but I STILL had questions. For example ** spoiler omitted **... or ** spoiler omitted **...

Dark Archive

deinol wrote:
I for one plan on using the Beginner's Box as a start for my own version of E5.

I think it would make a great basis for an E5. But I'd miss combat maneuvers. combat gets petty boring with all regular attacks (its why I play so many spellcasters.)

I think for an e5 type game, you need more granularity though.

Something like Mutants and Masterminds for levels. Or like WoD/Unisystem.

Let them buy individual options in between levels since youre going to spread the levels out thinner.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
DΗ wrote:
deinol wrote:
I for one plan on using the Beginner's Box as a start for my own version of E5.

I think it would make a great basis for an E5. But I'd miss combat maneuvers. combat gets petty boring with all regular attacks (its why I play so many spellcasters.)

I think for an e5 type game, you need more granularity though.

Something like Mutants and Masterminds for levels. Or like WoD/Unisystem.

Let them buy individual options in between levels since youre going to spread the levels out thinner.

Right, I'd very likely expand the Beginner's Box to include more rules as needed. But I'd want to start with the basics and add complexity as needed based on the player's needs and wants.

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Beginner Box / Modules in the style of the Beginner's Box All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Beginner Box