re: what Vic wrote, I think it's definitely reasonable for Paizo to do a 'Pathfinder, Revised Edition' or Pathfinder 1.5, with the PRIME goal merely to improve grammar and such RAW issues related to it, while retaining compatability with all PRPG material published... Perhaps minor functionality tweaks could be implemented, but that would be few and far between.
Besides an easier to use product, what would be the impetus for fans to use this? Well, crunch/equipment options from other sources could be integrated (e.g. from APG), in a way giving the product more of a stamp of identity from Paizo (rather than just miming the 3.5 player's guide).
When people discuss Monk Flurry and 2 Weapon Flurry, the specifics of weapon enhancment for UAS come up... By now, Paizo has released a kazillion different ways to somehow enhance some time of Unarmed Strike Attack (fist wraps, cesti, etc) spread across various different products. Now it seems reasonable for one of these to satisfy players' desire for an option to enhance ONE single Unarmed Strike (i.e that couldnt deliver ALL flurry attacks per the latest Paizo statement on Flurry) at a price more like one single weapon and not like Amulet of Mighty Fist (which I think is priced OK when you are using it for 2 or more attacks). If 2 Weapon Flurry is Core RAW/RAI, then it makes sense for Weapon using Monks to have a Core Option to Enhance ONE single UAS strike to combo with that weapon... So in PRPG Revised, ADD ONE OF THOSE WEAPONS! Same goes for other classes, Barbarian and Rogue could probably have some (current) non-Core options brought into the Core Rules Book (Revised).
Just changing WHERE in the book certain subjects are discussed would enhane readability, the Combat chapter is nuts (touch attacks never defined, a section dedicated to describing all the actions... yet some actions are still spread out outside that section... delay should be right next to Initiative itself, while Ready should be in the action section, etc...)
It just seems unnecessary to develop standardized terminology for the sake of rules interpretation. The game has been built to be flexible so the game can be customized to the groups liking.
vague is not necessary to be flexible. spring attack not working with vital strike is 100% clear per RAW, that doesn't stop any group from being flexible and allowing that combo to work.
whether or not ready is really finicky in it's triggers or not doesn't help anybody be flexible, it just impedes those who care about following the RAW, whether they are playing PFS, they prefer not to diverge from RAW because it could have unintended balance consequences, etc.
the game DOES in fact use standardized terminology, e.g. action, it just doesn't present that as clearly as it could, nor is the editing fully up to par (which isn't really a standardized terminology issue per se).
Keep in mind that we've inherited a system that's essentially compiled from decades of material by countless authors and editors, and when we created the Pathfinder RPG, there was definitely a big question in our minds about how much we could change without driving people away. (And I'm not just talking about rules, but about the presentation of those rules—decisions like italicizing spell names, and not capitalizing all game terms—these are decisions that were made before us, and we decided not to mess with them.*) Hindsight indicates to me that we chose wisely, but I also believe that we could go further in some future iteration.
However, that's what it's going to take to make the types of changes you're asking for—a future iteration.
*Personally, I happen to think that both of those were very good decisions, and I wouldn't change either of them given the chance. However, applying very consistent game terminology would definitely be high on my own wish list.
Hey Vic! Thanks for chiming in, always interested in thoughts coming directly from the source. I hope that you consider this criticism constructive rather than destructive.
I understand the reasons you've done what you've done up to this point. The inception and viability of Pathfinder and audience retention are/were all incredibly important concerns at the time. I don't know the numbers for sure, but I believe Pathfinder has successfully created its own fan base and become viable without needing to attach itself quite as closely to the legacy of 3.5 or older rule sets as it once did.
What I would say is that I know Paizo is constantly attempting to retool and make things better (rules wise, format wise, etc) and I think that it is perhaps time to seriously consider the implementation of new formatting and ensure consistent game terminology in PFRPG. I am glad to hear that this is also something that you feel is important.
I know there was some attempt at this (see: the paused Stealth Redesign Blog) but so far any inroads made to realize this goal of redesign have been unsuccessful. However, my viewpoint is that of an outsider so I am not aware of any internal developments.
I disagree with both of the OP's examples, because they just aren't an example of this.
Quandary, thanks for adding to the discussion. I'll admit that my initial examples weren't as... concrete.. as I'd like them, but they were meant to get the ball rolling.
It is undeniable that those subjects cause disagreement because huge forum wars have errupted from topics surrounding those central issues. Even if you are firmly on one side or the other, there are divergent viewpoints.
But, ow, man.. ow.
the game DOES in fact use standardized terminology, e.g. action, it just doesn't present that as clearly as it could, nor is the editing fully up to par (which isn't really a standardized terminology issue per se).
As usual, you're making good points and good sense. This is an example.
|
A game based on house rules will fail in the end.Have you ever taken a look at the original edition of Dungeons & Dragons? It was far FAR more based on house rules/DM discretion than anything d20 or Pathfinder. If a game that was based on house rules was really doomed to fail, then pen'n'paper RPGs as they exist today wouldn't exist, period.
I have played every edition of D&D to date but I'm afraid what was done then has nothing to do with what's happening now. RPG's are designed to be as balanced as they can be with the option of house ruling because you don't agree with a rule etc... Game designers don't try and create games that they know will be house ruled because the game is broken.
House ruling is there because of opinion and should never be there out of necessity.
|
|
Um, no. I've played every edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and it never "used to be a game without miniatures." In fact, it started as roleplaying rules grafted onto a miniatures game with no rolelplaying (Chainmail). If anything, D&D has gradually removed miniatures elements over time (with occasional reversals). For example, read some spell ranges in the AD&D PHB; note how they all refer to the distance between miniatures on the tabletop, not the in-game distance experienced by the character casting the spell.Thing is, with some editions, it wasn't assumed and outright required that you have minis.
That is correct. Mini's were mentioned as an option. We just used graph paper back in 1st and 2nd edition.
Dungeons and Dragons was not based on house rules. Now if you house ruled the game then that's your business but that is not what the game was based on.I think Dungeons and Dragons would like to have a word with you.
A game based on house rules will fail in the end.
You had to use house rules in 1st edition. If you don't believe me, try and determine initiative.
|
|
You had to use house rules in 1st edition. If you don't believe me, try and determine initiative.Dungeons and Dragons was not based on house rules. Now if you house ruled the game then that's your business but that is not what the game was based on.I think Dungeons and Dragons would like to have a word with you.
A game based on house rules will fail in the end.
From what I remember we didn't have to house rule initiative.
|
From what I remember we didn't have to house rule initiative.
Your memory is accurate. The first edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide explicitly spells out the sequence of combat including the surprise round and rolling initiative (pp 61-63 in my copy).
The original 3-volume D&D boxed set, of course, doesn't contain rules for combat sequence and the like because it was supposed to be used in conjunction with the Chainmail rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original 3-volume D&D boxed set, of course, doesn't contain rules for combat sequence and the like because it was supposed to be used in conjunction with the Chainmail rules.
Noooo!!! I see now that this problem of muddled rules has plagued us from the very beginning... let us strike down this problem my friends!
Let us not rely so heavily on using outside rulesets/rulings to shape the rules of our game. Let us blaze the trail as... Pathfinders!*
*Too much? I think it might be a bit much -_-;
My concern with the idea of designating certain words as keywords is that the game eats Words already. It devours them.
The words "witch" or "sorcerer" are inapplicable except for very specific kinds of spell-casters. That kind of takes away the word "sorcery" as well. A powerful "warrior" is apparently someone who took a whole lot of levels in a not-good-enough-for-PCs class.
"Enchant," and "enchanted," and "enchantment" are used for a very specific school of magic, so the phrases "enchanted weapon," or "enchant a weapon" which feel very iconic in fantasy fiction, have still received gripes by judges for Superstar.
The Bestiary alone has devoured oodles of words which used to be general or regional terms for folkloric, mythic, and legendary things. You can't really talk about "demonic" influence, possession, or anything else unless it specifically has to do with Demons from the Abyss. And a "ghost" isn't even a ghost unless it's really a "ghost." Say the word "specter" or "wraith" and people have very specific expectations. I'm hoping they don't name a specific incorporeal undead an apparition, because that would be another evocative word for spiritual haunting off the table. Oh. Hmm. "Haunt" is another one whose use gets iffy outside the specific phenomenon.
A keyword system by which the writers aren't able to use words like "proficient" or even something so fundamental as "action" except for very specific rules seems very hazardous to me, in terms of constraining the narrative tool-set.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, stop the RFC-speak madness. ;)
Honestly, though: Which do you prefer?
- Petrifying Gaze (SU): Target is PETRIFIED (with PERMANENT duration), RANGE 30, FORTITUDE SAVING_THROW DC 16 NEGATES. CHARISMA based SAVING_THROW.
- Petrifying Gaze (Su): Turn to stone permanently, 30 feet, Fortitude DC 16 negates. The save DC is Charisma-based.
The first one might be clearer, but the later gets the same point across without both screaming at me, and an ever-bloating list of reserved words.
Well, if you replace all-capitals with some fancy color, like, I don't know, maybe emerald green, it could look quite good :D
From what I remember we didn't have to house rule initiative.You had to use house rules in 1st edition. If you don't believe me, try and determine initiative.Dungeons and Dragons was not based on house rules. Now if you house ruled the game then that's your business but that is not what the game was based on.I think Dungeons and Dragons would like to have a word with you.
A game based on house rules will fail in the end.
When the books are rereleased, check out the differences in how various creatures roll initiative. There was a lot of inconsistency. Maybe tomorrow I'll look it up. I've got too much going on today. I'm headed out for a 12 hour shift to work.
EDIT: I had a chance to reread it. It's certainly not simple. It's about 2 pages long. There are several steps for the GM to determine initiative. Of course the book gives the easiest scenario as its example. How would you determine initiative if the party has a 2 in 6 chance and the opponents have a 1 in 8 chance of being surprised?
@TerraNova: Your 'nice' version of Petrified in fact ends up capitalizing (the first letter, ala proper nouns) 'Charisma', which was one of the ways to emphasize rules terms being advocated for... Of course, Paizo's style DOES capitalize the ability stats like that, along with Armor Class, while not capitalizing things like 'alignment'. Abbreviations vary widely, from 'hp' to AC and HD. Nobody advocated 'all caps' as you lovingly mis-represented there. Words like range and negate aren't really Rules Terms, they don't have any rules-specific meaning/function assigned to them, the rules just uses them with their standard English meaning... Same goes for permanent (duration), really.
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: I had a chance to reread it. It's certainly not simple. It's about 2 pages long. There are several steps for the GM to determine initiative. Of course the book gives the easiest scenario as its example. How would you determine initiative if the party has a 2 in 6 chance and the opponents have a 1 in 8 chance of being surprised?
Who changed the debate to being whether the rules were simple or not?
That is totally tangential to whether the RAW functions or not, or REQUIRES house-ruling.
While I don't necessarely agree we need a keyword system of everything, and there are problems related to those (break of immersion being the first one), I got splatted-eyes when I read in this thread people advocating *against* clear rules.
" if rules are so clear that every human understands them and each other, it's too simple."
So we should have rules that not everybody can understand them? How is that helpful?
Please Paizo, utilize a strict keyword system in the ruleset of PFRPG! These words should be off-limits to employ as normal rules description or example text. It would be helpful in discerning the meaning behind certain rules text and remove some of the confusion.
An excellent idea for Pathfinder 2.0, but it's a little late to start now!
Quandary, just know that no matter how many people say "EVERYTHINGS PERFECT IT CAN GET NO BETTER!" there are others out here like you who think, yes, it can be better.
Some of us are even cautiously awaiting new versions of other games to see if they serve our needs and tastes better.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
@TerraNova: Your 'nice' version of Petrified in fact ends up capitalizing (the first letter, ala proper nouns) 'Charisma', which was one of the ways to emphasize rules terms being advocated for... Of course, Paizo's style DOES capitalize the ability stats like that, along with Armor Class, while not capitalizing things like 'alignment'. Abbreviations vary widely, from 'hp' to AC and HD. Nobody advocated 'all caps' as you lovingly mis-represented there. Words like range and negate aren't really Rules Terms, they don't have any rules-specific meaning/function assigned to them, the rules just uses them with their standard English meaning... Same goes for permanent (duration), really.
Unless I am entirely mistaken, the call was for a clear, obvious delineation of rules terminology from terms with no set meaning. I merely illustrated what a mess that would be with the method I am most familiar with (RFC 2119).
As for which terms carry rule implications, I choose a liberal approach - anything that could be confusing ("range" can mean a whole lot of things...) should be made distinct from its everyday use whenever it appears as its rules construct. The horrific mess that resulted was predictable, sure... but that was my point. A rulebook is not a standard, and turning it into one just makes 90% of things harder for all players, safe a very small minority.
|
|
Although my sense of irony would absolutely love an attempt to make the game SEEM more simple actually driving people towards other games that actually ARE rules-light.
Again, Pathfinder is already not rules light...
Obviously. My point was that I would find it rather ironic and amusing if Paizo did start underlining/highlighting/italicizing key words in an attempt to make the game seem simpler drove people away from Pathfinder and towards other games...games that actually ARE much more rules-light. Like, say, Swords & Wizardry.
|
|
Please Paizo, utilize a strict keyword system in the ruleset of PFRPG! These words should be off-limits to employ as normal rules description or example text. It would be helpful in discerning the meaning behind certain rules text and remove some of the confusion.An excellent idea for Pathfinder 2.0, but it's a little late to start now!
Or make it look like the game was written by someone with ADD and a set of crayons.
I removed a post. Eww. Also, flag it and move on.
But then the table at the end of the paragraph which calculates that formula out is labeled "Wand Costs".
Cost and price are not used interchangeably, they are separate terms. The table name you mention is an error. It should be named "wand base price".
Chief Technical Officer
|
I know there was some attempt at this (see: the paused Stealth Redesign Blog) but so far any inroads made to realize this goal of redesign have been unsuccessful. However, my viewpoint is that of an outsider so I am not aware of any internal developments.
Doing this properly is more than just capitalizing all game terms (which, again, I'm not a fan of, as lots of capitals makes Things Seem Shouty and Breaks the Flow of Reading). And even just templating everything (by which I mean the process where you go through every line of the book to make sure that the same concept is worded the same way every time, and that similar-but-different concepts are worded similarly-but-differently) would take more time than we're prepared to invest in a refit; that's the kind of time that we can afford to spend only on a whole new iteration of the game. (And we're also not going to make major changes like that just for new products, as it complicates how they relate to existing material.)
But even templating isn't the complete solution to the problem—to do it right, the graphic presentation also needs to be reconsidered. There are ways to provide context through layout that does a much better job of communicating similarities and differences than even templating does—if you've seen the Beginner Box, you may know what I mean. In short, doing it right requires a ground-up rebuild, and that's just not going to happen all that soon. Until then, we're generally going to remain consistent with what has come before.
|
At what level does a caster gain a new spell level and how does the level affect their caster level for that spell level? (It'd be nice to have a word other than level to help keep these three categories a bit clearer and easier to read).
Some tables have their own 'in-character' language for 'class level' and 'spell level,' such as 'my wizard has pierced the third Circle of Mystery, and can now cast spells of the second Order,' or something like that.
You could also, in-game, have some sort of identification system that wizards of a certain land or culture or 'wizard's school' or guild use, such as a non-magical signet ring bearing their local crest worn on a specific finger, depending on what spells they can cast, from 1st level to 8th level (with wizards capable of casting 9th level spells being considered 'masters' and no longer wearing rings, because they are past the 'training wheels' stage of magic). A sigil of different metals (going up in alchemical 'value', from tin to copper to silver to gold to orichalum or whatnot) could also be used as such an identifier, worn on a pendant around the neck, or based on color and quality of gemstone pressed into the forehead, etc.
Cultures who use something like this might refer to their wizards as 'Master of the Third Ring' (third-level spells) or 'Silvered Seeker after Truth' (wears silver, because he can cast fifth-level spells) or 'Ruby Incantator' (has a ruby bindi-stone, can cast seventh level spells).
Monte Cook, in the Book of Experimental Might, went an entirely different direction and broke the zero to ninth level spells down into 1st to 20th level spells, so that a 5th level Wizard was casting '5th level spells' (made up from what were mostly formerly 3rd level spells). Under that rules set, spell level would basically be the same thing as class level, in the end, since you'd be casting 'second level spells' at your second class level in your casting class.
He also took a stab, in an earlier product, of designing PrCs that used the exact same spell levels for the spells they gained, rather than having their own abbreviated spell list of spells moved to lower levels, like the Paladin, Bard, etc. have, eliminating the sometimes funky corner-cases where a Paladin could make a potion of lesser restoration for 1/3rd the price that a Cleric could or a Summoner could make a wand of haste at a significant savings over a Wizard, who, in theory, would be a more dedicated and effective spellcaster in general (since it's a spell level lower, and he can make it one caster level before the wizard gets it).
But even templating isn't the complete solution to the problem—to do it right, the graphic presentation also needs to be reconsidered. There are ways to provide context through layout that does a much better job of communicating similarities and differences than even templating does—if you've seen the Beginner Box, you may know what I mean. In short, doing it right requires a ground-up rebuild, and that's just not going to happen all that soon. Until then, we're generally going to remain consistent with what has come before.
I agree with this so much. So when Paizo finally does do a new edition that organizes and cleans up the language and terminology, I will support it whole-heartedly.
Although Pathfinder can be considered it's own game, it's still bridged to 3.5 thus many of the confusing issues are innately tied to artifacts the game (D&D) has acquired through its long history.
|
I'm certainly not against the idea of keywords, or typesetting game terms to distinguish them from the plain English meaning of the words... but I think the end result would mostly be that the rules would need to be reprinted and we'd still have rules debates.
Even if you add keywords and so on, there will still be situations where rules require interpretation. If you want a rule system which allows no ambiguities and requires no interpretation, you'll either need to strip the rule system down to a basic and only minimally functional set, or else you'll need the core rulebook to come in three volumes, written by lawyers, carefully footnoted and annotated... and it will still be only minimally functional, because it will be unreadable. The moment you require interpretation, you introduce rules debates. That's not something we should be afraid of.
You simply need a few old stile boardgamers. Things like Squad leader had every key term bolded when it had a specific in game meaning.
The problems are:1) the quantity of work needed to do that
2) the ease of reading of the finished material.
While it is possible to play even after reading only the character creation and combat chapters the GM should have read all the chapters up to the spell section and have at least an idea of what the lowest level spells do. Reading 250 pages of rules to play a game isn't something that most people is willing to do, especially people that is used to put a game in a PC and start playing without even reading the game manual.
So the reason why it is not done is very simple: there isn't the market for the product.
|
|
From what I remember we didn't have to house rule initiative.You had to use house rules in 1st edition. If you don't believe me, try and determine initiative.Dungeons and Dragons was not based on house rules. Now if you house ruled the game then that's your business but that is not what the game was based on.I think Dungeons and Dragons would like to have a word with you.
A game based on house rules will fail in the end.
When the books are rereleased, check out the differences in how various creatures roll initiative. There was a lot of inconsistency. Maybe tomorrow I'll look it up. I've got too much going on today. I'm headed out for a 12 hour shift to work.
EDIT: I had a chance to reread it. It's certainly not simple. It's about 2 pages long. There are several steps for the GM to determine initiative. Of course the book gives the easiest scenario as its example. How would you determine initiative if the party has a 2 in 6 chance and the opponents have a 1 in 8 chance of being surprised?
Surprise and initiative were two different rolls in the first edition of AD&D, so what kind of dice you used in one had no effect on the other.
Surprise and initiative were two different rolls in the first edition of AD&D, so what kind of dice you used in one had no effect on the other.
I read it several times and it's very confusing which is why it was house ruled away in most games. It's why 2nd Edition changed how it worked.
Who changed the debate to being whether the rules were simple or not?That is totally tangential to whether the RAW functions or not, or REQUIRES house-ruling.
This was why it required house ruling though. It was far more complex than it needed to be and most people didn't bother with it. Yet DnD continues to live. That was the point I was trying to make to those who think a system that needs house rules is destined to fail. 1st Edition is still played and most of those groups probably still have a bunch of house rules. And that's ok.
@Ross: Thanks for your efforts to keep things civil.
@Bob: There will always be a place for house rules in PF/D&D but I think that if it is necessary to implement house rules because things are vague, nebulous, or difficult to understand then the rules system and/or organization is failing. House rules should be something that you add to put your personal touch on the system, not enable it to function.
I have no doubt that PF will survive without any of the steps that have been suggested in this thread, but there are ways to improve the game system. You'll note that Vic has said that he sees areas in which improvements could be made.
But even templating isn't the complete solution to the problem—to do it right, the graphic presentation also needs to be reconsidered. There are ways to provide context through layout that does a much better job of communicating similarities and differences than even templating does—if you've seen the Beginner Box, you may know what I mean. In short, doing it right requires a ground-up rebuild, and that's just not going to happen all that soon. Until then, we're generally going to remain consistent with what has come before.
@Vic: I agree with your idea that this could be a lot of work. Really, it's as much work as Paizo would like to devote to the project. What I mean to say is that if you feel that this is a problem then you can take intermediary steps. Phase one could just be capitalization. Yes, it is an inelegant solution, but it is a progressive step towards the goal.
Similarly, a solution might be to complete the overhaul of a self-contained system such as Stealth or Crafting might be in order so that a transition to the revised edition of PFRPG (whenever that may be) would be much that much easier for you to implement.
I enjoy the progressive steps taken with the beginner box to make content much more digestable and I hope you keep up the progress :).
@Bob: There will always be a place for house rules in PF/D&D but I think that if it is necessary to implement house rules because things are vague, nebulous, or difficult to understand then the rules system and/or organization is failing. House rules should be something that you add to put your personal touch on the system, not enable it to function.
Does Pathfinder really require house rules to function though? Other than corner cases (which players are notoriously good at finding) and probably Stealth & Craft, how many house rules are necessary for the game to function? I use 4 house rules and I am probably going to drop one. Three are just for fun and one isn't really so much of a house rule as my way to enforce a current rule that is intentionally left vague by the devs.
I have no doubt that PF will survive without any of the steps that have been suggested in this thread, but there are ways to improve the game system. You'll note that Vic has said that he sees areas in which improvements could be made.
I never said that it couldn't be improved. There are lots of things that could improve especially with the layout and organization. My argument was in reference to shadowsoul's (and others) comments implying that PF won't survive because it requires too many house rules. I have found the incredibly high number of house rules that people use are because they either don't understand the rules or they use a house rule not realizing the impact that rule has.
I just don't think rules being explicitly clarified to the umpteenth degree will actually help with such problems as players and gm's having chronic disagreements on how things should be done. The framework needs to be loose enough to bend, and if you build it to lock in one interpretation, you lose a lot of that inherent flexibility in a system that is, especially compared with others out there, remarkably concise and clear.
No rules clarification can guarantee that a character from another game will work the same way at my table, because I might decide that that build is under or overpowered for my game. I may not like the class, or the race. I might not think the concept is a good fit. The player and I may simply have incompatible personalities, in which case, rules are just a single catalyst for problems that are inevitable.
And having the rules clarified to that umpteenth degree, locking in One True Interpretation of the system, does not actually help with the house-rules problem. It INCREASES it. The more rigidly you define a system, the fewer people play that strict vision. People like to tweak, they like to adjust and fine tune their experience. Giving the rules room for interpretation allows for those small adjustments to remain valid interpretations under the RAW.
I am okay with this. But I also do not believe that designing a game with the goal of making sure that there is absolutely NOTHING people can argue about in its framework is an ideal focus. It's losing the forest for the trees, getting lost in the minutia, and becoming caught up in trying to conceive of the million different ways every statement could be interpreted. While attempting to be as clear as possible is always an ideal goal, micromanaging it to this extent is not a productive way of spending time that could be better spent on creating a product that is flexible but solid.
Part of the job of a GM is being able definitively state "This is my table. This is how the rules work, here. Accept or don't accept as is your predilection."
It also takes work, and the willingness to interpret circumstances as they arise. No ruleset, I repeat, NO ruleset, can account for every possible situation.
Does Pathfinder really require house rules to function though? Other than corner cases (which players are notoriously good at finding) and probably Stealth & Craft, how many house rules are necessary for the game to function? I use 4 house rules and I am probably going to drop one. Three are just for fun and one isn't really so much of a house rule as my way to enforce a current rule that is intentionally left vague by the devs.
When you have to start making judgement calls on if this is a game term or this is a fluff term, yes you do need to make House Rules (not so much rules but house judgements). Sometimes the judgements that we make are not what are intended (see: the FAQ on Tripping and the Flurry of Blows debate, where folks are bringing a little too much 3.5 to pathfinder). A reasonable person can make things work, of course, but the issues arise when the devs ideas are not communicated to the players properly and they get garbled in the interpretations.
Here's another weird example: Does color spray generate its own light in a dark room? The spell specifies it makes light, but there is If a character is "blinded" (cant see) in the area of darkness are they affected by Color Spray since they can't see it (mechanically)? I'd like for it to generate light, but this is a strange case. Guidance on if spells (like held charges) generate light in any meaningful way would be wonderful.
While these descrepancies do not plague the system to the point that it is unplayable or anything close to that, they are there and in my opinion they should not be. You need only check the Rules forum for the amount of confusion that can abound in reading the rules. (Cut the number by 30% because some of the questions arise when people don't read everytihing involved in the rules question. For example, a questioner with a concern about Trip should read the Trip Property (Equipment Chapter), Trip Maneuver (Combat Chapter), Combat Maneuvers in general (Combat Chapter) and attacks.)
As I've said before, I'd be ok with holding off a new splatbook for Core Rules II, although that may not be the best financial decision for Paizo.
Which is exactly the point of identifying the keywords by typesetting not just language. Currently when a writer uses the word proficient regarding a weapon they could be commiting a faux pas because they are making it hard to understand which meaning they have. But if a reference to the specific game world meaning is always italic or capitalised* or etc then it is clear which meaning they have.
*Don't use capitalisation, just capitalising the first letter doesn't work because the word could start a sentence, and doing the whole word looks ugly.
I agree with this whole heartedly. Differentiation in typesetting could really help and it wouldn't have some words be "off-limits". The captialization was a suggestion, but I am sure that the collective editing minds at Paizo could come up with something that is much more elegant.
Attempts at a more absolute standardization is one of the ways the US legal system developed. Lawyers and writers-of-law are afraid to change or update a phrase because its meaning is specifically established.
In other words, the language stagnates and over time, becomes convoluted.
We can do a lot with going in and simplifying the format, and removing redundant text. Give it the Beginner Box treatment.
What you're asking for is to bring in the wisdom of the US Legal System, and the US Tax Law.
This should keep you up at night.
Attempts at a more absolute standardization is one of the ways the US legal system developed. Lawyers and writers-of-law are afraid to change or update a phrase because its meaning is specifically established.
In other words, the language stagnates and over time, becomes convoluted.
We can do a lot with going in and simplifying the format, and removing redundant text. Give it the Beginner Box treatment.
What you're asking for is to bring in the wisdom of the US Legal System, and the US Tax Law.
This should keep you up at night.
And? What's your point? Paizo is not beholden to other governing bodies so they can at anytime modify or codify the rules sets as they see fit - and they have issued many updates, FAQs and blog articles. Again, I will state to you (and others) that wave the idea that the rules will become something that is not understandable, the rules already are thick; already have parts that aren't quite clear and already have parts that require interpretation.
If Paizo simply wanted to recreate 3.5 they could have done so, without complaint from me. However they remained some parts of it. They strove to improve things, streamline and make things better. I think that is admirable however it seems there is still much more that can be done.
What are you saving the rules from? What are you saving the players from? Have you looked at the rules forum or read the FAQs? There is a healthy amount of misunderstanding. I don't understand your stance. You state the terror of stagnation in documents then advocate for it?
The beginner box treatment is fine, but it isn't dealing with the more complex game issues that arise. I dont know how it will work for the entire CRB. However, I am confident that from the number of Paizo dev/designers that I have seen that reference PF 2.0 that they are indeed thinking about modifications to the system that could be made. However, most treat it as a far off endeavor. The best time for action is now, even small steps forward are still considerable progress.
When you have to start making judgement calls on if this is a game term or this is a fluff term, yes you do need to make House Rules (not so much rules but house judgements). Sometimes the judgements that we make are not what are intended (see: the FAQ on Tripping and the Flurry of Blows debate, where folks are bringing a little too much 3.5 to pathfinder). A reasonable person can make things work, of course, but the issues arise when the devs ideas are not communicated to the players properly and they get garbled in the interpretations.
If people are bringing in other game systems to understand Pathfinder, that's not really a fault of Pathfinder and no amount of codifying is going to stop people from doing that. I don't think that most games are suffering all that much from the lack of perfection with codifying the rules. The GM should be able to just make a judgment call on what works best for their game. Every other system takes this approach. There is no way to cover all circumstances. Attempting it will turn gamers away, not bring them in.
Here's another weird example: Does color spray generate its own light in a dark room? The spell specifies it makes light, but there is If a character is "blinded" (cant see) in the area of darkness are they affected by Color Spray since they can't see it (mechanically)? I'd like for it to generate light, but this is a strange case. Guidance on if spells (like held charges) generate light in any meaningful way would be wonderful.
I don't think it's that hard of a question. If the color spray creates it's own light, then the room is no longer dark. Those in the area are not blinding during the time the spell is cast. There is no need for more description on spells when the GM can just take a few moments to think about what's happening. Is my ruling perfect? I doubt it. Does it move the game on without being unreasonable? Yes. Do we need every possible situation covered? Nope. Could it be dealt with by adding a small line: this generates light equal to a torch? Probably. When does Paizo stop adding lines and when does the GM just do what they are supposed to do?
While these descrepancies do not plague the system to the point that it is unplayable or anything close to that, they are there and in my opinion they should not be. You need only check the Rules forum for the amount of confusion that can abound in reading the rules. (Cut the number by 30% because some of the questions arise when people don't read everytihing involved in the rules question. For example, a questioner with a concern about Trip should read the Trip Property (Equipment Chapter), Trip Maneuver (Combat Chapter), Combat Maneuvers in general (Combat Chapter) and attacks.)
I've noticed that most of the confusion comes in either because someone didn't read the rules or they are dealing with corner cases. There are some interesting situations that people bring up, like two-weapon fighting without using the feats or getting an extra attack, but those situations are not common occurrences. I do agree that some things need to be better organized. I also do agree that when describing the same thing, there should be consistency. However, sometimes it is better to describe the same thing in multiple ways to help with understanding.
As I've said before, I'd be ok with holding off a new splatbook for Core Rules II, although that may not be the best financial decision for Paizo.
I would really like to see something like the Rules Compendium that has the FAQ in it. I think this would help a lot without having to rewrite the rules.
If people are bringing in other game systems to understand Pathfinder, that's not really a fault of Pathfinder and no amount of codifying is going to stop people from doing that.
But the lack of consistency is affecting players and those that write for Paizo. Since pathfinder was based on the foundations of 3.5 I believe people aren't sure what's different and what's the same. So they guesstimate that it's all the same and this can lead to wonky reasoning or writing. I think it's a bigger issue than you do, it may not be a major issue yet, but it seems to be growing as Paizo's material grows and its writers continue to work from a slightly skewed perspective.
I don't think it's that hard of a question. If the color spray creates it's own light, then the room is no longer dark. Those in the area are not blinding during the time the spell is cast. There is no need for more description on spells when the GM can just take a few moments to think about what's happening. Is my ruling perfect? I doubt it. Does it move the game on without being unreasonable? Yes. Do we need every possible situation covered? Nope. Could it be dealt with by adding a small line: this generates light equal to a torch? Probably. When does Paizo stop adding lines and when does the GM just do what they are supposed to do?
While I think you or I or some other reasonable person could also come to this conclusion, there are many who did not. The problem (for me) is that if you the GM needs to think if spells generate light, you now have to consider how much light, if they give away enemy positions, etc. That's a lot of thinking that's about to ambush the unsuspecting GM. I personally think the rules should be cut and dry so the GMs can focus on the thematic, story, background and other multitude of elements they juggle in the campaign without also having to create rulings on the fly that might come back to bite them in the butt because they didn't think things all the way though.
Not game breaking no, but adding enough judgement calls to a game can really slow things down.
I do agree that some things need to be better organized. I also do agree that when describing the same thing, there should be consistency. However, sometimes it is better to describe the same thing in multiple ways to help with understanding.
I think perhaps a beefier index in the CRB or an improved cross reference linking system in the PRD can alleviate some of these Organizational problems. One of my personal peevs with Pathfinder is having to read bits from a few chapters and combine the info together to make sense of things.
I would really like to see something like the Rules Compendium that has the FAQ in it. I think this would help a lot without having to rewrite the rules.
Yes, a more accessible version of the FAQ would be nice because there are tons of people that ask questions on the forums that have already been handled in the FAQ, but they didn't chack there. People unfamiliar with the Paizo site or its system might not find the FAQ.
Perhaps the FAQ should be stickied as the first post in the Rules Forum?