Could you enjoy a simplified game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?

Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...


Sounds like OD&D or AD&D. I could enjoy that having cut me teeth in the late 70's on RPGs.

Sovereign Court

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it was handled fairly. I might wonder about the gnome and half-elf, since we're being traditional.

If the GM then introduced a GMPC with odd races/classes, I'd revolt.


It'd be a tad more boring, but it wouldn't be unworkable as there's a bajillion ways to play any one of those class combinations.

Would hope a system like that would strive to make races a bit more versatile though.


Depends on the GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My knee-jerk reaction would be "No". Mainly because that has been done to death, then undeath, then more death. But I do like dwarves, which are one of my favorite races. For a campaign or two? Sure. But I would get bored to tears and probably turned off from roleplaying for a few years afterwards.

So yes, to an extent.


Yes, yes I would.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I could make do with the class limitations (even without archetypes), but I always prefer more, more, and more options. When I have a chance to play, I like options that appeal to flavor over mechanics optimization. A solid build is all I need.

On the other hand, I would absolutely refuse to use those race options. I dealt with the human, elf, dwarf, and halfing limitations in AD&D and 3.0...never again. That exact combination just fills me with a blend of nausea and rage that would keep me from enjoying the campaign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

It'd be a tad more boring, but it wouldn't be unworkable as there's a bajillion ways to play any one of those class combinations.

Would hope a system like that would strive to make races a bit more versatile though.

One of the reasons I ask is that a group of us, not that long ago, played through a brief campaign (a single AP book) with a Human Fighter, a Dwarven Cleric, an Elven Wizard and a Halfling Rogue, and all of us were pleasantly surprised at both how effective we were and how much fun we had. One of our number was staunchly in the 'more is more' crowd and even he had to admit that he didn't miss his Tiefling Saurian Super-Shaman in the slightest.

I personally am of the opinion that the 'special snowflake' syndrome has hurt play, because so many people rely on their race/class combinations to make themselves unique when the only thing they need to be unique is their role-play. Now, I'm perfectly fine with that just being my opinion, based on my personal experience, and I have no desire to debate the matter or try to change anyone else's mind... I was just curious about what others thought on the subject.


I don't really enjoy any of those classes, so no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even when I started I was using the class building guide in the AD&D DMG to create new classes, and figuring out ways to let players be monster races.

So, no. I prefer a lot of options. More choice = more fun for me.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. Often can and do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I've always felt that more options are always better than less.

That said, in actual gameplay a lot of the fun factor is always going to be about the people you're playing with, not the ruleset. If you've got a good group of players, you can have a blast even if everyone can only play a human commoner.


Only if I was desperate for a game and this was the only one available. Or if we were playing adad or something. Then I'd give it a whirl.


Wiggz wrote:


I personally am of the opinion that the 'special snowflake' syndrome has hurt play, because so many people rely on their race/class combinations to make themselves unique when the only thing they need to be unique is their role-play.

I certainly agree that that can be a problem, but the solution presented feels sort of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And just as there's plenty of people who are defined only by weird class/race combinations there's also plenty of plain toast "human fighter" types too.


Wiggz wrote:

If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?

Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...

I could enjoy that That's not simplified though, but preventing precious snowflake races and only allowing core classes.


Kimera757 wrote:

I could enjoy that That's not simplified though, but preventing precious snowflake races and only allowing core classes.

Well not quite core. Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Sorcerer are banned too.


I could do it as a one off but as a permanent group rule no. I only play fighters when I want to keep things simple and just roll the dice. I don't care for rogues all that much. Basically I like having options and taking then away does nothing for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play

Most times when I see these kind of restrictions, I keep right on going. Been playing since the blackmoor days of d&d and I've seen more than enough of the basic races and classes.

That said, if it was a one-shot OR the game had an amazing hook, I MIGHT think about it.

Wiggz wrote:
or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?

LOL You managed to pick two races I most likely would never run. I don't need a full set of options but DO want some options past what you had.

Wiggz wrote:
Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...

Myself, I like to bring as many options to the table as possible. I hate having a cool concept and it's one i can do, but I can't use X because we aren't using that book.

If their MUST be restrictions, I prefer setting ones. By this I mean ones that don't fit the setting like no guns or androids in a no tech world. Pushing all but part of one book to the side just makes me sad for all the cool options I just threw out.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
I personally am of the opinion that the 'special snowflake' syndrome has hurt play, because so many people rely on their race/class combinations to make themselves unique when the only thing they need to be unique is their role-play.

I'd much rather have a tengu magus or catfolk gunslinger or any kind of weird race/class combo in my game than to have generic "grizzled veteran dwarven fighter who is gruff and taciturn" (because he neglected charisma) #583.

You can get good roleplay out of snowflakes just as much as any other characters. That's a function of the players and the DM, not the system.


Scythia wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
I personally am of the opinion that the 'special snowflake' syndrome has hurt play, because so many people rely on their race/class combinations to make themselves unique when the only thing they need to be unique is their role-play.

I'd much rather have a tengu magus or catfolk gunslinger or any kind of weird race/class combo in my game than to have generic "grizzled veteran dwarven fighter who is gruff and taciturn" (because he neglected charisma) #583.

You can get good roleplay out of snowflakes just as much as any other characters. That's a function of the players and the DM, not the system.

I have to agree with this. Snowflakes are trying to be unique. I find the ones that tend to blend into the background are those that you've seen a thousand times before. gruff dwarf fighter, Elf mage, halfling thief, human cleric. I'll be honest, for a while I couldn't take being around a dwarf character because they where like they'd come out of a xerox machine...


.... Depends on the GM and how the story was. Seriously, I'd enjoy a game where everyone has to play halfling fighters if the story was compelling enough.

That said, while I don't REQUIRE a multitude of options to have fun... I have a lot of fun character ideas I want to try that require more options.


For Pathfinder, no, I wouldn't really want to, mostly because I don't like any of those classes and only like humans as a race. In another system then yeah, probably, if that was what the system was based around, but for Pathfinder, nah. At least lemme play a bard.


graystone wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
I personally am of the opinion that the 'special snowflake' syndrome has hurt play, because so many people rely on their race/class combinations to make themselves unique when the only thing they need to be unique is their role-play.

I'd much rather have a tengu magus or catfolk gunslinger or any kind of weird race/class combo in my game than to have generic "grizzled veteran dwarven fighter who is gruff and taciturn" (because he neglected charisma) #583.

You can get good roleplay out of snowflakes just as much as any other characters. That's a function of the players and the DM, not the system.

I have to agree with this. Snowflakes are trying to be unique. I find the ones that tend to blend into the background are those that you've seen a thousand times before. gruff dwarf fighter, Elf mage, halfling thief, human cleric. I'll be honest, for a while I couldn't take being around a dwarf character because they where like they'd come out of a xerox machine...

I personally feel that the "special snowflake" (a term I don't really like...but whatever) have become so common that they are now the "gruff dwarf fighter, etc..." I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to play whatever race/class they want, but to me it's refreshing to see a party of core-ish races (i.e. the most Uncommon Race being Aasimar, Tengu, or Tiefling).

That being said... back to Wiggz question. I would feel perfectly comfortable with that type of gaming. Especially for a more roleplaying group as opposed to rollplaying group. I feel the characters themselves make the game, not their race/class combo that makes them unique.


Faelyn wrote:
Especially for a more roleplaying group as opposed to rollplaying group.

This one always made me scratch my head.

If you're "rollplaying" your best pick for more than half the classes in the game is going to be some sort of Elf, Dwarf or Human.

And when you add in..

Quote:
(i.e. the most Uncommon Race being Aasimar, Tengu, or Tiefling).

You've basically created a list of the five best races in the game and covered every flavor of build that doesn't rely on racial archetypes.

While it tends to be these badwrongfung races like Catfolk, Dhampir, Kobolds et al that only exist to allow one to play a different sort of character.

And if we're talking about "rollplaying" the class choices... Wizard and Cleric gives you the two best classes in the game.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, not really. As has been said, roleplay is what brings the character to life, and that can be done with any race/class. For the most part, anyway, more on that in a minute.

Realizing the character I want to play mechanically, on the other hand, does require the options outside of the ones presented. Unless you are including a massive rewrite of the rules, vanilla fighter, cleric, wizard and rouge means that I cannot make an effective unarmed warrior, gish or natural attacker. And that last one comes back to the "most of the time" thing I mentioned: If I want to play someone who is a mostly feral warrior who doesn't use manufactured weapons, but has learned to channel natural power, well, that's an instance where rollplay does intersect with roleplay, and isn't possible with the limited options presented.

Now, that's not to say that I couldn't have fun with a core race and class, I've had plenty of fun over the years with elven fighters and dwarf wizards.

I think an important thing to remember is that more options do not invalidate prior options, they just allow for more styles of play, because everyone should be able to play the type of character they enjoy.


A bit too restrictive but I have a fierce hatred of snowflake characters. Besides it depends, if we're on Golarion things are different, plenty of options, but they have to make sense.

It all comes down to who you play with, if you know your players/friends and such. I accepted some uncommon things in a game (a sorcerer who can take the cure wound/heal line of spells at level appropriate because he gave me a good background, wanted to be healer without being a divine spell-casting class and that anyway he'd have even less spells to pick since he'd have to learn every heal spell) and I've refused others, like the usual catboy snowflake character or someone insisting on playing a grippli in a desert setting or any non-normal race in a setting of highly racist humans/elves/dwarves who thought he could make them see the goodness of other races, because that was not the goal of the campaign.

But for classes, fighter is mechanically boring, rogue is under powered and equally boring, wizard and cleric have been played to death and are usually OP, I tend to put much less restrictions on classes, if any at all. For people who've played for nearly a decade, we've all played those classes, and we could still play them in an interesting flavor, but then again there are plenty of other options that are fun and not ridiculous.

Liberty's Edge

I could totally play that game. I have no problem with traditional content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like options and I like freedom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What the OP proposes is not a simplified game, and wouldn't be balanced at all.

To simplify the game would need to clean the system up, remove spell selection, feat selection, weapon selection, monster attributes, etc.

I would simplify the game by reducing class numbers though. Like, Fighter can fly but not Wizard, which involves getting too many spells. Sorcerer is much simpler to grok.


Yes, I would enjoy such a game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Galden wrote:
No, not really. As has been said, roleplay is what brings the character to life, and that can be done with any race/class.

I don't disagree with that at all. It has been my experience though, that exotic race and class selection replace good role-play at least as often as they enhance it. Usually Dwarves are played as Humans with beards, Elves as Humans with pointy ears, Tengu as Humans with feathers, Catfolk as Humans with claws and so on. The 'originality' of the concept is determined by the specific permutation of attribute bonuses and racial traits rather than how the character is actually played. With fewer options available, I imagine more effort would actually be put into how the characters are played in order to find your voice and stand out.

Like I said, I'm not out to change anyone's mind. Just making a few comments and looking to others for comments of their own. I fell in love with Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones type fantasy and intrigue where the magical was magical, the alien was alien and the 'Cantina Effect' seemed silly even in Star Wars. I'm sure many others feel very differently and that's fine - I've just never walked out of a great movie or put down a great book and thought 'that sure would have been a lot better without all of those Humans in it'. We've the capacity to be anything we want without changing our skins - I hate that becoming so accustomed to skin-changing it has replaced that potential, like our clothes defining who we are rather than our actions.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness to go forth and give players the freedom, his/her inability or unwillingness to tackle the ruleset or of him/her imposing personal tastes on player choices (note, this is different from imposing personal tastes on campaign world/story, which is perfectly fine).

So whenever I hear "You can't play a transgendered Kitsune Paladin/Monk" and there's no good reason behind that which is nested in campaign style and actually contributes to it being fun, I walk away. Kind of a litmus test of what GM am I facing.

And I'm not really blowing things up here. Last game I joined I came up with a crazed gnome First Worlder Summoner, who considers himself a druid and loved animals just a little too much. So much that they sometimes explode. Also, has a Chocobo eidolon.

So I told all the above to the GM and he was like "well that's a bit weird but then again this is going to be a 'Star Wars Empire lands on FR's Sword Coast, Drizzt duels Siths' game, so you're pretty tame on the weird spectrum here. Go ahead."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I very much like simple games (in my perfect system, there's just magicuser, cleric and fighter and I wouldnt object to combining the first two). However, I think Pathfinder's great strength is it's customisation and plethora of options. Playing a pathfinder game with lots of restrictions seems slightly counterintuitive to me - kind of like buying a set of 120 colored pencils to produce some black and white line drawings.

Having said that, my answer is yes, I'd enjoy it - but I'd rather we just play a simpler game for such a campaign (and use pathfinder for those campaigns when we want players to be able to go berserk with options).

Liberty's Edge

If you find there are too many "special snowflakes" and it's ruining the game for you, then there are other, less drastic options to take than just outright banning things.

I would personally suggest that the races and classes you want to see more of, could for example get

a) extra point buy points
b) extra +2 (or even +4) racial modifier
c) a (low-level) magic item to start with
d) start at one level higher
e) extra feat
f) tailored connection to storyline

There are ways to guide players other than forcing them. Carrot, not stick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

[nosnark]So did most of you not have any interest in Pathfinder before the Advanced Race Guide debuted?[/nosnark]

Sovereign Court

@Dustin: the OP cut 3 of the 7 CRB races as well...


I would most likely voice my protests if a PF game was proposed with those restrictions. But I have played with those race/class combos before and I had a great time.

I prefer to have the extra options available, that is why I love PF. Otherwise I prefer a system where the few options there are are less unbalanced than fighter/rogue and cleric/wizard, and that the options available would suffice for the challenges the game offers, which some GMs can forget when they limit player choices.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
[nosnark]So did most of you not have any interest in Pathfinder before the Advanced Race Guide debuted?[/nosnark]

If I'm in the mood for ice cream, and the only option available is a single plain scoop of vanilla, then I'll probably settle for that. But sometimes I would prefer a different flavor like chocolate, strawberry, or mint. And maybe I'd like the option of adding nuts, sprinkles, chocolate chips, or whipped cream to my ice cream as well.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
[nosnark]So did most of you not have any interest in Pathfinder before the Advanced Race Guide debuted?[/nosnark]

Pathfinder's main draw was 3.5-compatibility, so finding extra race stats was never an issue. Additionally, the first bestiary had drow, deep dwarf, kobold, aasimar, tiefling, hobgoblin, orc, and goblin stats. Before the third bestiary I was using catfolk mechanics from the 3.5 miniatures book, but the artwork and better stats made the exchange feel like I was trading up...then the ARG came along with its anthropomorphic cat-things and made me sad (at least until I looked back at the old art). There's so much in the ARG I'll never use.


I have never seen extra options make someone not roleplay, or even roleplay less. I have also never seen less options improve roleplay. The only limiters to RP are the GM, and the player themselves. Those that will RP will do so, others just won't.

The traditional dwarf seems to have scottish accent, drinks a lot, and are seen as "tough guys". They are basically a stereotype of humans with lack of height. The drinking is not written into PF's flavor but their lower charisma, and higher constitution fits the description of someone with a lack of social grace, but might be good in a fight. With that aside I don't think there is a wrong way to play a dwarf. And not everyone plays them like I just described either. I have only seen it twice. The dwarf/elf dislike is played up in groups, but that often brings comedy. I had an elf player put up one finger after making the first kill in a game so they made it into a competition. The dwarf did not want a "dainty elf" to out do him.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
[nosnark]So did most of you not have any interest in Pathfinder before the Advanced Race Guide debuted?[/nosnark]

When the CRB was the only book I was allowing some 3.5 options, and I knew PF would give us other options later. Playing PF without options was not an option. My players did not have to use them, but I did make them available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Couldn't enjoy that.

Would be boring as hell at this point, after decades of the same vanilla stuff.


If those were the only four classes available and they're just vanilla, cant change anything about them classes, I might consider it depending on the game. If it was supposed to be a quick pickup game then this is a fine format.

However, if the classes were modular and easily customizable then I would totally be on board.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could play in such a game (I like human clerics), but I don't see why someone is a "special snowflake" if they want to play a class or race in the core rulebook.

Liberty's Edge

Dustin Ashe wrote:
[nosnark]So did most of you not have any interest in Pathfinder before the Advanced Race Guide debuted?[/nosnark]

3.5 had plenty of races and classes ready to go with PF when it released in 2009.

Of course, the next natural followup question is, did we not have interest in 3.0 before Oriental Adventures debuted.

And to that I say, I was 14 years less jaded about dwarf fighters at that time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course I would, and I have.

A lot of RPGs don't mechanics for races or classes like PF/D&D, yet my group has always managed to have fun, even if we were "mere" humans with a bit of training. We might start off looking pretty similar in abilities, but the characters grow and become as unique as anything else in PF.

A good GM is as much a part of the game as the rules themselves, and I find that the story weaved is much more interesting than the size of the bonus on my character sheet. Sometimes KISS works remarkably well, and narrative trumps simulationism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
[nosnark]So did most of you not have any interest in Pathfinder before the Advanced Race Guide debuted?[/nosnark]

The first PF book I bought was the Advanced Players guide. So, it was the addition of more interesting classes, in addition to the improvement of existing classes, that got me interested in the game. Until the Race guide came out, I was dabbling with the monsters as PC rules in the bestiary.

If I had wanted to play with only the basic classes, and basic races, I already owned the 3.0 core books.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness to go forth and give players the freedom, his/her inability or unwillingness to tackle the ruleset or of him/her imposing personal tastes on player choices (note, this is different from imposing personal tastes on campaign world/story, which is perfectly fine).

So whenever I hear "You can't play a transgendered Kitsune Paladin/Monk" and there's no good reason behind that which is nested in campaign style and actually contributes to it being fun, I walk away. Kind of a litmus test of what GM am I facing.

I completely disagree with that opinion. Just because a GM wants to start a more traditional style group of PCs does not make them a bad or impersonal GM. Just like you seem to enjoy lots of race/combo options doesn't make you a special snowflake.

I should probably define what I consider a snowflake character; a PC created with such an imposing thematic choice as to almost force the strangeness of the character down the other player's throats. And this PC may not be something other PCs would be comfortable with in real scenario, yet the other players are expected to accept this without being able to express their own beliefs without appearing inconsiderate, or worse. It has been my personal experience that such characters tend to do nothing but become disruptive to the game as the focus is less on the story than it is how to deal with the snowflake.

And yes, a "traditional" PC can also be a snowflake as well.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As with many things it depends.

If a GM I trust, or a new GM asked that we limit the choices for a story reason or because they are still trying to become comfortable with the rules then I'd definitely go for it.

1 to 50 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Could you enjoy a simplified game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.