| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
2) The AP's being produced are now less usable. The last AP I subscribed for was Mummy's Mask, and I found it frustrating to even read through with the magic items from many varied books and monsters from sources I had no interest in buying (ToHC etc). Yeah, I can work around anything as a GM, but the more work it requires the more likely I am to reach a point where I'd rather just convert to 5E.
...
I find this sort of complaint bizarre when almost everything is OGL. Don't want to buy Tomb of Horrors? Don't. Google the item and copy the stats off of d20pfsrd. You don't need to spend a cent. Heck, I don't even read the sources I actually do own. Online references are just so much easier.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only problem with book bloat is how heavy my backpacks(s) get. That's always been the problem in the past. But with PDFs and the PRD I this problem doesn't exist for Pathfinder. The PRD in particular is the most useful. PDFs for stuff not in the PRD that is referenced infrequently works great me. No more lugging a ton of books as game matures to a friends house.
I personally love more options. It's just more in my GM tool box that I can dig into and use creatively. Saves me a ton of time not having to come up with my own systems for downtime, armies, intrigue, and such.
The classes are great. There are enough classes to play all martial character, no spell casting, if I want. I can do all full casters or partial casters or martial with sprinkle of magic. It's all there to use and was severely lacking with just core rules.
For me bloated complaints have less to do with you, and more to go with my personal preference that I not have to keep up with additional rules systems. For me, Occult was the end, and even then I wasn't particularly enthralled. It is entirely a personal preference, with no right or wrong option.
My personal choice is not to buy future hardcovers.
I will say though, that objectively, one issue with the hugely expanded number of classes is that, as with wizards before them, paizo has to hang some classes out to dry with regard to archetypes and other future support, which is frustrating.
So, less option, more system bloated. Fifty bloodlines bother me much less than 6 New classes with unique spell lists, power types, spellcasting methods, and so forth.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this sort of complaint bizarre when almost everything is OGL. Don't want to buy Tomb of Horrors? Don't. Google the item and copy the stats off of d20pfsrd. You don't need to spend a cent. Heck, I don't even read the sources I actually do own. Online references are just so much easier....
2) The AP's being produced are now less usable. The last AP I subscribed for was Mummy's Mask, and I found it frustrating to even read through with the magic items from many varied books and monsters from sources I had no interest in buying (ToHC etc). Yeah, I can work around anything as a GM, but the more work it requires the more likely I am to reach a point where I'd rather just convert to 5E.
...
Any time they use anything from another source they give all the rules for using it, even player companions and campaign setting books. So the claim that one must have the TOHC is false, and disingenuous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this sort of complaint bizarre when almost everything is OGL. Don't want to buy Tomb of Horrors? Don't. Google the item and copy the stats off of d20pfsrd. You don't need to spend a cent. Heck, I don't even read the sources I actually do own. Online references are just so much easier....
2) The AP's being produced are now less usable. The last AP I subscribed for was Mummy's Mask, and I found it frustrating to even read through with the magic items from many varied books and monsters from sources I had no interest in buying (ToHC etc). Yeah, I can work around anything as a GM, but the more work it requires the more likely I am to reach a point where I'd rather just convert to 5E.
...
It's not a question of buying, but a question of finding/reading.
In theory, civil law isn't that hard. All of the relevant laws and cases are on-line; you don't need to buy anything (including a law degree)..... While Pathfinder isn't quite to that point of complexity, it's getting closer with every additional Player's Companion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely a "personal-level" problem, and not a problem of the products itself. If you don't like how crazy some of the character concepts are getting in your group, talk to your friends and fellow players about doing a few games that possess a more traditional fantasy outlook.
If you're all sensible adults who understand that you're all looking for the same thing (fun) then they should at least meet you halfway on the matter.
|
A decent internet connection removes many barriers. Our current campaign is featuring players from New Jersey, New York, California, and London. Scheduling is kind of tricky, but it works.
I have two online campaigns with people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona. I'm quite aware of online tabletops.
And now there is PFS "Core" (or whatever the official name is) to cater to those exact players who don't want the bloat.
Almost as if there is an option that works (even within organized play) for both player who want lots of options and those who do not.
If you can find people who want to play Core that you are willing to sit down with. Here in Phoenix we have a Core gameday that only manages a single table a week. Before that there was nothing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There really isn't much point to these threads. Telling a publishing company to stop making material isn't going to get much traction. Especially if the fact of the matter is that a significant part of the market demonstrates an endless appetite for new mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There really isn't much point to these threads. Telling a publishing company to stop making material isn't going to get much traction. Especially if the fact of the matter is that a significant part of the market demonstrates an endless appetite for new mechanics.
For some of us, at least, complaining about "bloat" isn't telling a publishing company to stop making material, it's asking that they change from producing one type of material to another.
It's already been proven to work in Paizo's case - they responded to regular criticism of the map folios by changing their format significantly.
Paizo have to sift through that feedback, examine sales figures and try to deduce what people will actually buy (rather than what they say they'll buy) all the time filtering it through the kinds of products they're interested in making. It's not an easy job, I'm sure, but these sorts of threads aren't pointless - they are a good way to communicate directly with the publisher about what's working for you and what isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you ask me, the term "bloat" has negative connotations - if the system is getting a lot of new products with insubstantial or poorly-written and unbalanced content then the system is getting bloated. So far I've been impressed with Paizo's quality, especially with the Player Companions in the past few months - Weapon Master Handbook in particular was amazing. Since my feelings on recent content have been largely positive I don't see a bloat problem.
In the end it's all about your perception of their content and its quality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently my DM told me he was considering trying out a 5e game after our current pathfinder campaign ends. So, I decided to give the book a once over and came back feeling one thing really. Uninspired. Personally, I think that's because of the lack of options. The options given in pathfinder and likely those to come in the future often tend to inspire me in character creation. This is just me of course, after all, it's also how I prefer to play. With plenty of options and versatility open to my characters (let's just say I've not played a "mundane" martial for quite a while).
All that said, I'll still play 5e, despite how unexciting and uninteresting it seems right now. Maybe it'll be fun (there is much doubt here currently) or maybe not. Either way, I go where the game is, even if it's into game systems that interest me far less.
Bloat is a thing. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine, but I don't see the point of bashing people you disagree with. We already have politics for that. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat is a thing.
debatable
"One man trash is another man treasures."One man's bloat is another man's options.
So yes, it does exist.
One man's meat is another man's poison.
Bloat is a thing.debatable
They are people who literally believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. EVERYTHING is debatable.
That doesn't mean everything is worth debating.
I'm fine with bloat as long as I can make some fun concepts out of it or if it helps out a weaker class. What I'm not fine with is stuff that steals another class's gimmick. LOOKING AT YOU INQUISITOR!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking at it because it has 3 archetypes that have class features that are direct rip offs from other classes. Namely Slayer's Studied Target, Hunter's Animal Focus, and Summoner's Summon Monster. Also because this stuff isn't banned at a lot of tables unlike those summoner archetypes.
It doesn't help that I feel the class has too many toys for a "caster rogue."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat does and doesn't exist, it's a completely subjective thing that will be different for each individual.
I personally don't see any bloat in Pathfinder, I still see all the material up to this point as simply options and tools. Personally I have a bigger issue with 5e's shrivel-ness.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The other characters are often stupid and/or bizarre.
Then tell your other players your preferences, just because Androids and Kitsune exist doesn't mean you have to use them. I mean, it's like suggesting that just because there is an evil alignment that you have to have a PC in each party who is evil in alignment. Though if your playing 5e.... it has the same problem already. Dragonborn, Goliaths, Tiefling, Avoracka or whatever they are called are rather.... not Lord of the Rings.
2) The AP's being produced are now less usable. The last AP I subscribed for was Mummy's Mask, and I found it frustrating to even read through with the magic items from many varied books and monsters from sources I had no interest in buying (ToHC etc). Yeah, I can work around anything as a GM, but the more work it requires the more likely I am to reach a point where I'd rather just convert to 5E.
.... It's all free to read on the internet.
3. With each new chunk of rules released, there comes a chance of power creep and unfortunate (from a non-munchkin's POV) rules interactions. Paizo seems to have done a reasonable job of combating power creep, but it is...
Actually the power has been seeping not creeping. Things in later books are on average more balanced than the core rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think bloat is personal era dependent. Back in the dim dark past there was really only the red books, and then Expert. From there I moved to 1st ed. and brought all the books (PHB, UA, DMG, MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, and Deities and Demigods). I guess you could class UA as 1st ed. bloat? Then moving onto 2nd ed. I brought EVERYTHING that TSR spat out, campaign settings, 'complete' books the works. That was bloat of the first order. Even the author of The Complete Book of Elves has an apology on YouTube video for that piece of crap. Still I was in my early twenties and bloat was good, more options, more rules, more, more, more!!!
Now in my mid-40's bracket I can't be bothered with all that b@~!$@*s, I want simple straight forward rules. If I was twenty again I would be begging Paizo to release more 'bloat'. As it is I care little for the splat books these days, interesting to read but I don't really care to learn the new rules. Back then I had no money but shed loads of time, now I have money but no time. Ironic...
20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'.
2 cents,
S.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'.
2 cents,
S.
The tech team is working on it.
I also think bloat is personal era dependent. Back in the dim dark past there was really only the red books, and then Expert. From there I moved to 1st ed. and brought all the books (PHB, UA, DMG, MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, and Deities and Demigods). I guess you could class UA as 1st ed. bloat? Then moving onto 2nd ed. I brought EVERYTHING that TSR spat out, campaign settings, 'complete' books the works. That was bloat of the first order. Even the author of The Complete Book of Elves has an apology on YouTube video for that piece of crap. Still I was in my early twenties and bloat was good, more options, more rules, more, more, more!!!
Now in my mid-40's bracket I can't be bothered with all that b&#$@+$s, I want simple straight forward rules. If I was twenty again I would be begging Paizo to release more 'bloat'. As it is I care little for the splat books these days, interesting to read but I don't really care to learn the new rules. Back then I had no money but shed loads of time, now I have money but no time. Ironic...
20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'.
2 cents,
S.
My story is exactly the same, except that I love all the bloat options from Paizo.
As for the "Caster Rogue" thing, I think that Rogue is severely underpowered.
I know, that's why I said caster rogue. It's in league with the bard, investigator, and mesmerist. 3/4 BAB classes with 6 levels of spellcasting, 6+int skills per level, a few martial weapons and an exotic weapon or two, and class features that boost up skills.
They're supposed to shine out of combat while still having the stuff to keep up in combat with enough offense to keep them from being helpless and several support abilities and spells.
I'll list my problems with inquisitor later, right now I need to sleep.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the book options.
Part of the reason I chose pathfinder was because 5th edition was just coming out at the time and I liked the look of the rich and developed rules ecosystem and 3rd party support that pathfinder has (3rd parties cinched it for me) in addition to the online support materials. I also loved 3.5 and liked the idea that it would be reasonably possible to port stuff from 3.5 into pathfinder.
Also the quality for $$$ is just so much better with pathfinder. That sword coast book for example. I took a looksie. Something like $55 for a book half the size of any of Paizo's hardcovers... ewww no thanks.
I will eventually pick up the 5th ed DMG to give it a looksie and to steal any ideas I like as potential houserules, but every time I consider it, I find a cool new pathfinder book to pick up instead!
Seriously though I love books. And I don't get why people who don't want books just don't buy them and don't use them. And if you can't stand people having fun with different races and classes at your table - why don't you DM? and if no one else wants to play with you with your rules, then maybe more people like the options than not. Which is great for Paizo, because you make a lot more money making stuff and selling it than not making it and not selling it.
Seriously, it's just bizarre to argue that just because you don't like options they shouldn't be available to anyone because if they are available people will want to use them. If people want to use the options, they are clearly appreciated by the player base at large. To argue Paizo should deliberately make less products (therefore less money) so that other people don't get to enjoy things that you don't like is awfully selfish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thing is that so far the only class to COMPLETELY invalidate a class that came before it has been Unchained Rogue, which is simply a better Core Rogue.
Other than that, nothing has invalidated previous classes entirely.
Rather, new classes have opened up options and led for better fitting class options for certain characters.
For example, when just Core was around, my buddy and I jokingly made the Westcrown Avengers as a direct parody of the Avengers (honestly, who didn't?).
Some of them were easy enough.
Black Pather is a Monk.
Thor is a Cleric.
Black Widow is a Rogue.
Hawkeye is a ranger.
Others were not so easy.
Ok, so Hulk is an ex-monk barbarian? He needs increased unarmed damage and rage.
Iron man is...um... an Eldrich Knight evoker wizard?
Captain America is... a fighter I guess?
As the years went on and books were released, the hard to fit characters got their pieces.
Hulk is a Brutal Pugalist barbarian with a number of newer rage powers. Nope, even better, he's this Giant Slayer's Handbook barbarian archetype.
Iron Man is a Synthesist Summoner or a heavy armor Magus, take your pick.
Captain America is this shield throwing brawler archtype.
This "bloat" was actually making these character concepts viable.
And while these were of course joke concepts, there have been plenty of other characters that were reliant on new rules to see play in any form like their concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my rule: Players, you are limited to Pathfinder books that I own. That's Core, APG, Unchained, Beastiary 1-4.
I think I'll pick up Ultimate Campaign with some Christmas money, but that's it for a while. As I master the books I have, I'll add more.
This rule ensures that the source material is always on hand and players aren't catching me flat-footed with things from left field.
Some new players will balk at the beginning of the campaign, but if the rule is in place [i]before[/b] they make their characters, they shouldn't squawk too much.
I HIGHLY recommend Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Gods
Very cool, fleshes out the religions a LOT and adds a few new feats/prestige classes.
Totally worth a read, and purchase. Currently my favorite of the published books!
Thor is a Cleric.
Ok, so Hulk is an ex-monk barbarian? He needs increased unarmed damage and rage.
Iron man is...um... an Eldrich Knight evoker wizard?
Captain America is... a fighter I guess?As the years went on and books were released, the hard to fit characters got their pieces.
Hulk is a Brutal Pugalist barbarian with a number of newer rage powers. Nope, even better, he's this Giant Slayer's Handbook barbarian archetype.
Iron Man is a Synthesist Summoner or a heavy armor Magus, take your pick.
Captain America is this shield throwing brawler archtype.This "bloat" was actually making these character concepts viable.
And while these were of course joke concepts, there have been plenty of other characters that were reliant on new rules to see play in any form like their concept.
I'd say Thor's an oracle, I mean, he doesn't pray to himself for spells right?
And hulks totally an alchemist/master chymist, I mean... It has you transform in stressful situations and gives your mutagen form a different personality.
I'd also peg Black Widow as a Slayer personally, and Hawkeye as a Fighter with that archetype from Occult Adventures that gives you better senses.
Hulk is a lycanthrope variant with a scaling strength score...
Hulk is a lycanthrope variant with a scaling strength score...
hmm.... Might actually have a use for Megaprimatus now....
Thor is a Cleric.
Ok, so Hulk is an ex-monk barbarian? He needs increased unarmed damage and rage.
Iron man is...um... an Eldrich Knight evoker wizard?
Captain America is... a fighter I guess?As the years went on and books were released, the hard to fit characters got their pieces.
Hulk is a Brutal Pugalist barbarian with a number of newer rage powers. Nope, even better, he's this Giant Slayer's Handbook barbarian archetype.
Iron Man is a Synthesist Summoner or a heavy armor Magus, take your pick.
Captain America is this shield throwing brawler archtype.This "bloat" was actually making these character concepts viable.
And while these were of course joke concepts, there have been plenty of other characters that were reliant on new rules to see play in any form like their concept.
I'd say Thor's an oracle, I mean, he doesn't pray to himself for spells right?
And hulks totally an alchemist/master chymist, I mean... It has you transform in stressful situations and gives your mutagen form a different personality.
I'd also peg Black Widow as a Slayer personally, and Hawkeye as a Fighter with that archetype from Occult Adventures that gives you better senses.
Heh, yeah, you could build them any number of ways these days.
My point was, they were do-able with just Core.With more than Core, they are do-able better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, when just Core was around, my buddy and I jokingly made the Westcrown Avengers as a direct parody of the Avengers (honestly, who didn't?).
It's not clear to me that this is the kind of activity that is worth supporting in Pathfinder. If you're going to be making a superheroes game, there are other superheroes games out there. Similarly, I'm not going to be using the Pathfinder chassis to run a Saving Ryan's Privates 20th century war scenario, nor will I be using it to run a hardboiled Sicilian Falcon detective adventure featuring Sam Diamond.
There are lots of speciality games out there that focus on specific genres, and there are also lots of games out there that focus on being universal and supporting any genre. The universal games (e.g. GURPS, Hero) generally don't work as well as the specialist ones for any particular genre. Pathfinder specifically focuses on high fantasy, and does it well. Adding rules support for Star Trek, The Shadow, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Guardians of the Galaxy is, at a minimum, a substantial effort outside of the core focus (arguably wasted) and arguably detracts from the core game because now all these new rules are going to be creeping in to future scenarios and APs.
It's very rarely a good idea to try to be all things to all people; the effect of chasing three or four rabbits at a time is generally that you catch none of them.
Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20?May I ask if you do know and understand the term "jokingly"?
I don't mind all those rule options per se. In fact, in my own games I'm generally allowing everything the players want to use from any 3rd party publisher or even from former editions. It's hard to keep track of all the options, but as long as my players can choose, I opnly have to look at the particular sections of a book, not read the complete book by myself.
So the only thing, I'm worried about is that it may keep the designers and authors from publishing other stuff I might prefer. Big Setting books for example, from which I would love to have more ( I loved the 3E Realms region books). Though I somehow doubt that those would happen if Paizo stopped publishing rules books.
Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20?May I ask if you do know and understand the term "jokingly"?
I do. But it's hard to publish a book "jokingly," and expensive if you do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not clear to me that this is the kind of activity that is worth supporting in Pathfinder. If you're going to be making a superheroes game, there are other superheroes games out there.
I dunno, with Mythic you can feel pretty superheroy. My mythic phalanx soldier feels a lot like the 300 version of Leonidas.
Not to mention it's pretty easy to be a Sorcerer Supreme straight outta core.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, when just Core was around, my buddy and I jokingly made the Westcrown Avengers as a direct parody of the Avengers (honestly, who didn't?).
It's not clear to me that this is the kind of activity that is worth supporting in Pathfinder. If you're going to be making a superheroes game, there are other superheroes games out there. Similarly, I'm not going to be using the Pathfinder chassis to run a Saving Ryan's Privates 20th century war scenario, nor will I be using it to run a hardboiled Sicilian Falcon detective adventure featuring Sam Diamond.
There are lots of speciality games out there that focus on specific genres, and there are also lots of games out there that focus on being universal and supporting any genre. The universal games (e.g. GURPS, Hero) generally don't work as well as the specialist ones for any particular genre. Pathfinder specifically focuses on high fantasy, and does it well. Adding rules support for Star Trek, The Shadow, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Guardians of the Galaxy is, at a minimum, a substantial effort outside of the core focus (arguably wasted) and arguably detracts from the core game because now all these new rules are going to be creeping in to future scenarios and APs.
It's very rarely a good idea to try to be all things to all people; the effect of chasing three or four rabbits at a time is generally that you catch none of them.
Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20?
I...I think you missed my point.
These were joke characters, but the point was that having support for additional concepts is a good thing.Take for example:
After watching Pirates of the Caribbean, the Princess Bride, and Robin Hood Men In Tights, I want to play a fancy swordsman.
In Core, my options are slim.
I have a slew of feats (Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Dodge, mobility, etc) and the Duelist prestige class.
I pretty much NEED to be a fighter to hit all the feats I need, but then I net nearly nothing out of feinting.
So I need to be some form of fighter/rogue.
I end up with some non-compatible options (such as Evasion and Heavy Armor Prof).
In the end, I will always be outshined by Bob the Barbarian, who has a class dedicated to the one thing he does.
Well, along comes Not-Core.
Hey, here's Swashbuckler. My name is Inigo Montoya.
A little less martial, a little more tricksy? Unchained Rogue. Johnny Depp, eat your heart out!
I still kinda like the idea of being Robin Hood, who is obviously a Ranger. Caydenite weapon style for rangers!
The swashbuckly character is a very serious, very setting appropriate that just didn't have the support it needed in Core, now doable in a variety of ways via additional resources.
It's not clear to me that this is the kind of activity that is worth supporting in Pathfinder. If you're going to be making a superheroes game, there are other superheroes games out there.I dunno, with Mythic you can feel pretty superheroy.
You can, and a lot of people complain about that (or about the anime creeping into their Tolkien). The question is whether Pathfinder Superhero Edition is a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm of the opinion that if you want superheroes, Champions is a better system, just as if you want low fantasy, Ars Magica is a better system. (I'm also a firm believer that if you have a lot of screws to tighten, you want a real screwdriver and not just a Leatherman.)
Just because you can do something with improvised tools doesn't mean you should, and it definitely doesn't mean that people should spend more time allowing you to do half-assed jobs with improvised tools instead of using the real, fit-for-purpose ones.
Which gets back to the question I posed earlier: Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20? I'm not sure that the Pathfinder chassis is really fit-for-purpose to running, for example, chthonic horror in the Roaring 20s, any more than it's fit-for-purpose for building economic models. It's not supposed to be SimCity, and it's not really supposed to be Call of Cthulhu, either.
For example, when just Core was around, my buddy and I jokingly made the Westcrown Avengers as a direct parody of the Avengers (honestly, who didn't?).
It's not clear to me that this is the kind of activity that is worth supporting in Pathfinder.
[...]Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20?
I...I think you missed my point.
These were joke characters, but the point was that having support for additional concepts is a good thing.
I don't accept that. I think it depends strongly on what the additional concepts are, and I think a lot of the recent additions are not worth supporting, because they're too far out of the core business.
There's a reason that GM makes cars, Giant makes bicycles, and Boeing makes planes. Trying to combine all three -- bolting a pair of wings and some pedals onto a Corvette chassis -- is not going to result in a useful vehicle.
I'll grant that the Swashbuckler is a classic fantasy trope, and of course the Rogue needed all the love it can get, but the entire occult sourcebook exists to support Victorian spirituality and/or chthonic horror. With pedals, and a transmission salvaged from a 2013 Corvette ZR1.
You keep using Gurps as a slur, whereas I'd love Pathfinder to grow into something like Gurps.
Which gets back to the question I posed earlier: Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20? I'm not sure that the Pathfinder chassis is really fit-for-purpose to running, for example, chthonic horror in the Roaring 20s, any more than it's fit-for-purpose for building economic models. It's not supposed to be SimCity, and it's not really supposed to be Call of Cthulhu, either.
No, I'm not. But GURPS already exists and does a better job of handling generic role-playing than anything you're going to build on the d20 chassis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
any more than it's fit-for-purpose for building economic models. It's not supposed to be SimCity
You haven't played Kingmaker, have you?
I must admit, I love Mythic. I was getting bored with vanilla Pathfinder.
Anyway, you say Pathfinder shouldn't be everything. This is true. But since d20 was used for just about everything (including Mutants and Masterminds, which I'd take over Champions any day), Pathfinder can be the chassis for a lot of things. Sure, it doesn't need to be everything in core. But being expandable into the game you want it to be? That's the magic of the OGL.
Also, I hate when Tolkien creeps into my heroic fantasy, because D&D/Pathfinder have always been terrible games to simulate Tolkien.
It's not clear to me that this is the kind of activity that is worth supporting in Pathfinder. If you're going to be making a superheroes game, there are other superheroes games out there.I dunno, with Mythic you can feel pretty superheroy.You can, and a lot of people complain about that (or about the anime creeping into their Tolkien). The question is whether Pathfinder Superhero Edition is a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm of the opinion that if you want superheroes, Champions is a better system, just as if you want low fantasy, Ars Magica is a better system. (I'm also a firm believer that if you have a lot of screws to tighten, you want a real screwdriver and not just a Leatherman.)
Just because you can do something with improvised tools doesn't mean you should, and it definitely doesn't mean that people should spend more time allowing you to do half-assed jobs with improvised tools instead of using the real, fit-for-purpose ones.
Which gets back to the question I posed earlier: Do we really want Pathfinder to become GURPS d20? I'm not sure that the Pathfinder chassis is really fit-for-purpose to running, for example, chthonic horror in the Roaring 20s, any more than it's fit-for-purpose for building economic models. It's not supposed to be SimCity, and it's not really supposed to be Call of Cthulhu, either.
JUST a Leatherman?! I take it all back, I meant every word I said when I asked you about H. Beam Piper!! DO YOU EVEN?!
Speaking seriously, I think you're right, but there are so many 3pp out there that you don't even have to go outside the d20 system to find whatever genre you want; the d20 system all told is pretty close to GURPS d20 at this point. (Nothing against Champions.)
Edit: Ninja'd by deinol.
any more than it's fit-for-purpose for building economic models. It's not supposed to be SimCityYou haven't played Kingmaker, have you?
I have, which is why I can make that statement with some authority. My gaming group is actually rather into economic models and quickly abandoned that idea because it is so easy simply to break Kingmaker across ones fingers like a saltine cracker.
Anyway, you say Pathfinder shouldn't be everything. This is true. But since d20 was used for just about everything (including Mutants and Masterminds, which I'd take over Champions any day), Pathfinder can be the chassis for a lot of things.
But typically not all at once. Mutants and Masterminds, for example, took the d20 chassis and rewrote it (eliminating hit points, for example) to the point where Mutants and Dragons doesn't work.
GURPS, by contrast, explicitly allows you to pull any rule from any sourcebook and use it with any other rule, and that's basically the Pathfinder design philosophy as well.