The "too much books and bloat" argument.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hitdice wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
deinol wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
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.)

But Pathfinder is not equal to d20 system.

And personally I still feel that d20 doesn't really work for everything.
d20 Cthulhu never worked for me as well as BRP Call of Cthulhu.

Sure, you can extend d20 to cover any genre, but it works better for some than for others.
Even more so, if you're trying to make them all compatible options to play in the same game - ie more options for Pathfinder.


Hitdice wrote:


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.)

Shrug. There are also lots of third-party mechanics that will put pedals and wings onto your Corvette, but GM doesn't need to follow their example -- and won't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the GM might, that depends on the GM, right? My point was, Paizo knows it customer base pretty well, and is going to serve them with the products they produce. I personally prefer a rules lighter system, but I don't think Paizo would be badly served by suiting my preferences.

. . . Oh wait, General Motors, not Game Master, I get it. Don't Corvettes come with 2 or 3 pedals already, though?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
There are also lots of third-party mechanics that will put pedals and wings onto your Corvette, but GM doesn't need to follow their example -- and won't.

Well, luckily it's not on you to decide what Paizo will or will not do.


There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

Honestly, I have similar problems even with generic systems like GURPS and Hero. They work best within a range of genre. They have very different feels from each other.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I found d20 Traveller to be a perfectly functional system. It was just that the Traveller fanbase (among whom I count myself) couldn't get past the 2d6 to d20 conversion. It had the D&D 4E problem: fine system, with mechanics that undercut the brand, if see what I mean.

Does anyone remember the crazy rock star d20 mini game published in Polyhedron in, like, 2002, I want to say? As I remember it, performance by bands functioned exactly like combat in 3.x/PF. I really enjoyed such a robust social interaction d20 system, but think that Paizo would do better for itself keeping by Pathfinder, Pathfinder.

I'm looking forward to Ultimate Intrigue, but feel that bloat is a concern; take that as you will.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

While Talislanta released a d20 book they had their own line still going. But it had been a niche, small press game for a long time anyway.

Although I always think its funny how much d20 took from Talislanta. Attribute modifiers came from there first. Considering Jonathan Tweet worked on 3rd edition Talislanta before he built 3rd edition D&D, it is no coincidence that they are really quite similar.

Now I want to run Talislanta again.


NO ELVES.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I found d20 Traveller to be a perfectly functional system. It was just that the Traveller fanbase (among whom I count myself) couldn't get past the 2d6 to d20 conversion. It had the D&D 4E problem: fine system, with mechanics that undercut the brand, if see what I mean.

Well, if we're specifically discussing d20 Traveller -- it was a playable system, but it didn't have the Traveller feel. For example, one of the key aspects of Traveller, going back to the Little Black Books, is that combat is dangerous. When someone pulls out a pistol, there's a very good chance that someone's going to die. The abstract hit point system of d20 Traveller didn't work because an Nth level character could simply eat the hit point loss, the same way that pointing a musket at a 20th level Pathfinder fighter won't even cause him to slow down.

But if the problem was just with the avid Traveller fans,... why didn't any of the other d20 SF games do well? (Think d20 Star Wars, d20 Future, d20 Fading Suns, d20 Beyond the Farthest Stars,....) I think the answer is that d20 doesn't necessarily handle other genres.

There's a general problem with the d20 chassis; it doesn't really support dark-and-gritty well, even in fantasy (hence E6 and such). Which is fine -- my screwdriver doesn't work well for pounding nails, and my hammer doesn't work well for driving screws, and my chisel doesn't do ether of those.

The problem is when someone has a claw hammer and tries to turn it into an anytool. There are even anytools out there (Victorinox and Leatherman both sell them), but you're not going to make a good one yourself at home, especially not starting with a hammer.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:


Does anyone remember the crazy rock star d20 mini game published in Polyhedron in, like, 2002, I want to say?

We played the WWII d20 rules that were published in Polyhedron for a while, was perfectly fine for a one-off game. There were some interesting concepts in those mini-d20 rule sets. Shame they were killed off in the loss of Dragon/Dungeon to print.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I found d20 Traveller to be a perfectly functional system. It was just that the Traveller fanbase (among whom I count myself) couldn't get past the 2d6 to d20 conversion. It had the D&D 4E problem: fine system, with mechanics that undercut the brand, if see what I mean.

Well, if we're specifically discussing d20 Traveller -- it was a playable system, but it didn't have the Traveller feel. For example, one of the key aspects of Traveller, going back to the Little Black Books, is that combat is dangerous. When someone pulls out a pistol, there's a very good chance that someone's going to die. The abstract hit point system of d20 Traveller didn't work because an Nth level character could simply eat the hit point loss, the same way that pointing a musket at a 20th level Pathfinder fighter won't even cause him to slow down.

But if the problem was just with the avid Traveller fans,... why didn't any of the other d20 SF games do well? (Think d20 Star Wars, d20 Future, d20 Fading Suns, d20 Beyond the Farthest Stars,....) I think the answer is that d20 doesn't necessarily handle other genres.

There's a general problem with the d20 chassis; it doesn't really support dark-and-gritty well, even in fantasy (hence E6 and such). Which is fine -- my screwdriver doesn't work well for pounding nails, and my hammer doesn't work well for driving screws, and my chisel doesn't do ether of those.

The problem is when someone...

Wait, d20 Beyond the Farthest Stars? That's the only one on the list that I haven't purchased and played! What can I tell you, I'm a sucker for D&D in space. Now that you've listed them all in a row, I've realized that I've confused my personal enjoyment of a d20 product with a successful business model.

Not to derail the thread into d20 Traveller, but that system is still available on OneBookshelf.com as SciFi20; the original adapter lost the license and renamed his own work. I think T20 would have done better with the Traveller fans if the Prior Service System had gone all the way to level 20, if it had integrated BAB with skill advancement like 5e, and if it had replaced hit points with ability score damage.

I guess I'm saying, if think there's a dark and gritty d20 ruleset out there, the level advancement probably only goes to 1. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've made a document of third party classes that I've reviewed or analyzed enough to decide that I'll allow them for use in my games. In that document there are 170 third party base classes. I laugh in the face of bloat.

Granted I don't allow all these things at once, because that would be chaos, but combined with Pathfinder's 36 classes I'll allow about 50 classes per campaign. I think at some point I need to make a guide to navigate options because some sources like to mix subjects so if you're using TWF you could have several sources of books to deal with. I also don't feel bloat very much because I'll also withhold options for the purpose of discovering them in game, like a hedge mage that invented a new spell or an old fencer that knows a secret super technique.

As for Paizo's stuff, they're pretty neatly divided into subjects so I normally don't really need to go feat hunting unless I'm purposely power gaming or making something insanely stupid. Spells on the other hand can be pretty scattered throughout the hardcovers while the softcovers are more neatly divided.

Archetypes can be another headache if you're hunting to build something specific. Typically what happens is that I'll come across an archetype and remember to make that one of these days, rather than have an idea and dig around for archetypes that facilitate it. That is unless I have in my head something like "I want to be a ghost hunter" and pick up Undead Slayer's handbook to find something.

I do find it somewhat annoying when something comes out that 'fixes' a previous problem because it's hidden away in some product or another instead of up front and somewhere where I'd actually look for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

d20 Star Wars did quite well. Wizards isn't stupid enough to make 10 years of products for a failing game line. They are probably kicking themselves for having let the license go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deinol wrote:
d20 Star Wars did quite well. Wizards isn't stupid enough to make 10 years of products for a failing game line. They are probably kicking themselves for having let the license go.

If you're referring to Star Wars Saga, then yes, it was absolutely amazing! The RCR before that weren't too shabby either.

I don't think WotC just "let" the license go. I think the option to renew it was denied them; probably because George Lucas was getting ready to sell everything over to Disney.


Ravingdork wrote:
deinol wrote:
d20 Star Wars did quite well. Wizards isn't stupid enough to make 10 years of products for a failing game line. They are probably kicking themselves for having let the license go.

If you're referring to Star Wars Saga, then yes, it was absolutely amazing! The RCR before that weren't too shabby either.

I don't think WotC just "let" the license go. I think the option to renew it was denied them; probably because George Lucas was getting ready to sell everything over to Disney.

It should be noted that the Saga line wasn't D20 based, from what I remember of it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
deinol wrote:
d20 Star Wars did quite well. Wizards isn't stupid enough to make 10 years of products for a failing game line. They are probably kicking themselves for having let the license go.

If you're referring to Star Wars Saga, then yes, it was absolutely amazing! The RCR before that weren't too shabby either.

I don't think WotC just "let" the license go. I think the option to renew it was denied them; probably because George Lucas was getting ready to sell everything over to Disney.

It should be noted that the Saga line wasn't D20 based, from what I remember of it.

It absolutely was d20 based. You rolled a d20, added your modifiers, and compared it to a DC, just as before.

Sovereign Court

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't know all those - but I read through Big Eyes Small Mouth. Most of the issues were a couple things.

1. They tried just slapping new powers only 3.5 style d20. They didn't actually rebuild the system at all to do what they wanted it to.

2. They used at least semi point-buy. I like point-buy in theory (though I've never seen a crunchy point-buy system with decent balance) but point-buy doesn't work AT ALL in a 3.5 based d20 system.

But basically - they relied upon 3.5 d20 as their baseline and just slapped a coat of paint on it rather than using it as the foundation and building a new system on it. Didn't work well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis.

That must be why the core rules say "Pathfinder Wargame Core Rulebook" on the cover. And why the system has had built in support for mass combat since its original release in 2000, and not as an add-on in the Miniatures Handbook supplement three years later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I found d20 Traveller to be a perfectly functional system. It was just that the Traveller fanbase (among whom I count myself) couldn't get past the 2d6 to d20 conversion. It had the D&D 4E problem: fine system, with mechanics that undercut the brand, if see what I mean.
Well, if we're specifically discussing d20 Traveller -- it was a playable system, but it didn't have the Traveller feel.

Yeah, you couldn't die in character creation. You needed to make a new feat "Dead" for that. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
NO ELVES.

I wouldn't hate that tagline so much if they didn't have like 20 variations of elf. *facepalm*


While I won't disagree that Pathfinder is not equally suitable for all types of genres and games, any sort of view that such and such class/race/mechanic is unsuitable for the game or fantasy in general is going to be completely subjective. I love the occult book and thing waterbenders, people with ghost buddies, and ritual magicians are all perfectly serviceable concepts to have alongside wizards, bards, and barbarians.


MMCJawa wrote:
IIRC, PFS did just create a core rulebook only play category, so that seems to address some concerns over bloat in that venue.

I am DEElightED to hear this. Seriously amazing.


MMCJawa wrote:
While I won't disagree that Pathfinder is not equally suitable for all types of genres and games, any sort of view that such and such class/race/mechanic is unsuitable for the game or fantasy in general is going to be completely subjective. I love the occult book and thing waterbenders, people with ghost buddies, and ritual magicians are all perfectly serviceable concepts to have alongside wizards, bards, and barbarians.

Pathfinder can stretch pretty far though. I'm running a Sci-fi campaign, I plan to run steampunk later along with post apocalyptic deiselpunk and superheroes. I even have a campaign in mind where the players are from the 1940s and wind up on a Land of the Lost island full of dinosaurs, lizardmen and alien Nazis. Granted this takes a liberal use of third party material and/or Pathfinder Unchained/Ultimate Campaign but as long as exploring and killing increasingly bigger things is in the picture d20/Pathfinder can do it well enough.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't know all those - but I read through Big Eyes Small Mouth. Most of the issues were a couple things.

1. They tried just slapping new powers only 3.5 style d20. They didn't actually rebuild the system at all to do what they wanted it to.

2. They used at least semi point-buy. I like point-buy in theory (though I've never seen a crunchy point-buy system with decent balance) but point-buy doesn't work AT ALL in a 3.5 based d20 system.

But basically - they relied upon 3.5 d20 as their baseline and just slapped a coat of paint on it rather than using it as the foundation and building a new system on it. Didn't work well.

Having played with it some, and knowing people who played a full campaign, I can confirm that BESM d20 is terrible. It's three times worse than un-houseruled, unrestricted Mythic.

They only got through it with the GM basically making things up as she went. I think the universe ended three times in the last session (universe-breaking wishes from a Dynamic Sorcerer, killing all the gods due to paradox, etc.).


I like the idea of Pathfinder acting like a fantasy-GURPS. If you want to play something related to swords and sorcery, the Pathfinder system probably has the rules for it somewhere.


Malwing wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
While I won't disagree that Pathfinder is not equally suitable for all types of genres and games, any sort of view that such and such class/race/mechanic is unsuitable for the game or fantasy in general is going to be completely subjective. I love the occult book and thing waterbenders, people with ghost buddies, and ritual magicians are all perfectly serviceable concepts to have alongside wizards, bards, and barbarians.
Pathfinder can stretch pretty far though. I'm running a Sci-fi campaign, I plan to run steampunk later along with post apocalyptic deiselpunk and superheroes. I even have a campaign in mind where the players are from the 1940s and wind up on a Land of the Lost island full of dinosaurs, lizardmen and alien Nazis. Granted this takes a liberal use of third party material and/or Pathfinder Unchained/Ultimate Campaign but as long as exploring and killing increasingly bigger things is in the picture d20/Pathfinder can do it well enough.

It can stretch pretty far, although some things require extensive modifications to pull off. If you wanted to do Space Opera you would have to rely almost entirely on 3rd party resources and heavily modify the core rules, since so many of the tropes there don't work that well with default Pathfinder. If you wanted to do a Call of Cthulhu type story, where the PC's are expected to die and/or go insane, than you probably would find it easier with a game less focused on combat and leveling.

That said you could totally run a John Carter of Mars campaign with the rules as is, or run Lovecraftian horrors in the vein of Robert E. Howard rather than H.P. Lovecraft. Pathfinder rules are incredibly flexible and can accommodate quite a bit, and this improves with every release.


MMCJawa wrote:
Malwing wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
While I won't disagree that Pathfinder is not equally suitable for all types of genres and games, any sort of view that such and such class/race/mechanic is unsuitable for the game or fantasy in general is going to be completely subjective. I love the occult book and thing waterbenders, people with ghost buddies, and ritual magicians are all perfectly serviceable concepts to have alongside wizards, bards, and barbarians.
Pathfinder can stretch pretty far though. I'm running a Sci-fi campaign, I plan to run steampunk later along with post apocalyptic deiselpunk and superheroes. I even have a campaign in mind where the players are from the 1940s and wind up on a Land of the Lost island full of dinosaurs, lizardmen and alien Nazis. Granted this takes a liberal use of third party material and/or Pathfinder Unchained/Ultimate Campaign but as long as exploring and killing increasingly bigger things is in the picture d20/Pathfinder can do it well enough.

It can stretch pretty far, although some things require extensive modifications to pull off. If you wanted to do Space Opera you would have to rely almost entirely on 3rd party resources and heavily modify the core rules, since so many of the tropes there don't work that well with default Pathfinder. If you wanted to do a Call of Cthulhu type story, where the PC's are expected to die and/or go insane, than you probably would find it easier with a game less focused on combat and leveling.

That said you could totally run a John Carter of Mars campaign with the rules as is, or run Lovecraftian horrors in the vein of Robert E. Howard rather than H.P. Lovecraft. Pathfinder rules are incredibly flexible and can accommodate quite a bit, and this improves with every release.

Well with Space Opera what you have to change depends on your tastes. Things like giant robots that aren't magic simply aren't around and spaceships are doable if you don't try to fiddle with it too much because there are no actual stat blocks. But even with the Technology Guide in play the base game is very focused on magic as an excuse for everything so if you want a less magical setting then you're going to have to pretty much replace all the classes with third party classes. A quick and dirty way to do it is go with Anachronistic Adventures for the mundane classes, Ultimate Psionics for more mystical classes that still have a foot in science fiction, one or more of the various technomancer classes like Machinesmith, Tinker, Cyborg or Technician for your heavy tech users. The only actual rule change I found was needed to function as opposed to change the pace of an aspect of the game was giving out the Technologist feat for free.

In terms of Lovcraftian horror, you can still have that, I think there's some insanity rules lying around the base game, but as I said before, the structure of the classes revolve around eventually killing something. You can investigate and go crazy and all that good junk but your end goal is to fight Cthulu or anyone who wants to set him free as opposed to investigate cthulu and tell the cops on whoever wants to set him free. Basically at it's heart d20, and thus Pathfinder is an action game that gets incrementally crazy, and the limitations to that descriptor are the real limitations of the system. You can do romance, horror, investigation, steampunk, scifi, superheroes or whatever but by the end of the day something is getting stabbed, punched in the face or zapped or almost everything the classes do is worthless.

BTW: be careful with romance. From my experience this causes out of character fights between players that will cause your friends to hate each other.


Kalindlara wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There were many who bet the farm on hitching their niche game to D20... Talislanta, Superworld, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Traveler, etc. It didn't pay out for any of them.

At it's heart, D20 is a class/level based system whose parts were specifically built out of a fantasy wargaming chassis. It's not suited to be the beall and endall for everyone.

At best, Pathfinder can be a craptastic GURPS. At that point, you might as well switch to the real thing.

I don't know all those - but I read through Big Eyes Small Mouth. Most of the issues were a couple things.

1. They tried just slapping new powers only 3.5 style d20. They didn't actually rebuild the system at all to do what they wanted it to.

2. They used at least semi point-buy. I like point-buy in theory (though I've never seen a crunchy point-buy system with decent balance) but point-buy doesn't work AT ALL in a 3.5 based d20 system.

But basically - they relied upon 3.5 d20 as their baseline and just slapped a coat of paint on it rather than using it as the foundation and building a new system on it. Didn't work well.

Having played with it some, and knowing people who played a full campaign, I can confirm that BESM d20 is terrible. It's three times worse than un-houseruled, unrestricted Mythic.

They only got through it with the GM basically making things up as she went. I think the universe ended three times in the last session (universe-breaking wishes from a Dynamic Sorcerer, killing all the gods due to paradox, etc.).

To be fair, a terrible system where you had to make things up as you go and where the characters could easily end the universe on a whim all also accurately describes the previous non-d20 version of BESM.

Turns out when the subject matter is things like Tenchi Muyo and Akira breaking the universe is working as intended.


Malwing wrote:
by the end of the day something is getting stabbed, punched in the face or zapped or almost everything the classes do is worthless.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'd also add to that, for a combat-heavy system, the combat rules themselves are very light and very abstract. The game presumes a lot of combat against mooks with the end result of Conan standing there atop a small heap of the bodies of his enemies.

As a result, d20 doesn't really support things like chambara or chop socky films very well, where the actual fighting techniques are of key importance. There's no real difference between a kick and a punch, let alone a difference between an axe kick, a roundhouse kick, and a snap kick. And while you could add more rules to cover that, this kind of detail is the sort of thing that D&D has systematically stripping out since the 1970s. Use Chartmaster instead....


That too. The system basically expects you to go from scrub to superhero and although there are ways to remove some abstraction it does more to smooth over combat than it seems some people think. This comes up when new players want to do something weird for the game like climb a colossal monster despite that not ending too well for the spider that crawled on me the other day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
I'm happy Pathfinder gives me options. Do I use everything? No I do not, but I have sense enough to pick and choose what I want used in my games.
I'm happy it works for you. It doesn't work for other people.

Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.

I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I swear to f$&~ing god, you better roll for Bluff here, or I don't know what will happen!

...yeah, that's what I thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hyperbole - It's what's for illustrations!


Bold italics work damn it!


Malwing wrote:
That too. The system basically expects you to go from scrub to superhero and although there are ways to remove some abstraction it does more to smooth over combat than it seems some people think. This comes up when new players want to do something weird for the game like climb a colossal monster despite that not ending too well for the spider that crawled on me the other day.

The scrub to superhero thing is one big reason I don't think PF works well for a lot of genres. That's actually not too common a trope.

You can hack PF with things like E6, but that gets a bit weird, especially if you're doing something like E10, starting at 10th level. Which might work for a low-level superhero game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

JUST REMEMBER THAT IF YOU TALK ABOUT BRIAN BLESSED, IT HAS TO BE BOLD, LARGE TEXT AND ALL CAPITALS.


thejeff wrote:
Malwing wrote:
That too. The system basically expects you to go from scrub to superhero and although there are ways to remove some abstraction it does more to smooth over combat than it seems some people think. This comes up when new players want to do something weird for the game like climb a colossal monster despite that not ending too well for the spider that crawled on me the other day.

The scrub to superhero thing is one big reason I don't think PF works well for a lot of genres. That's actually not too common a trope.

You can hack PF with things like E6, but that gets a bit weird, especially if you're doing something like E10, starting at 10th level. Which might work for a low-level superhero game.

One thing that I never really agreed with was the assumptions behind levels. There are adventures designed to start at level X and end at level Y so why is it weird to stop leveling or end a campaign for the sake of the adventure thematically being about the power range of X-Y instead of 1-20 plus or minus mythic tiers.

I never liked most examples of E6 or whatever because it seems like a complicated resolution to a simple premise; people in this setting are only so powerful so this number is the highest level. Its mostly people wanting to get more levels but not get more levels. People want to progress but don't want what that entails. A simple patch, much like mythic would have sufficed in most cases. Have a series of boons that represent levels past wherever you stopped leveling without actually escalating the numbers just diversify.

Basically I think levels are a tool that is underutilized for the purpose of storytelling. We just assume that we start at 1 and try to reach 20 despite adventure design routinely saying otherwise, when it should work more like Mutant and Mastermind power levels where we have X and will progress or not. So I don't agree that the system doesn't support it, just that nobody does it.


I think it comes down to levels are too large of steps-some people probably want closer to twice as many levels, but keep the number endpoints the same (Abilities, BAB 1-20, etc), so you can feel more progress, but let the math stay pretty close.


Malwing wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Malwing wrote:
That too. The system basically expects you to go from scrub to superhero and although there are ways to remove some abstraction it does more to smooth over combat than it seems some people think. This comes up when new players want to do something weird for the game like climb a colossal monster despite that not ending too well for the spider that crawled on me the other day.

The scrub to superhero thing is one big reason I don't think PF works well for a lot of genres. That's actually not too common a trope.

You can hack PF with things like E6, but that gets a bit weird, especially if you're doing something like E10, starting at 10th level. Which might work for a low-level superhero game.

One thing that I never really agreed with was the assumptions behind levels. There are adventures designed to start at level X and end at level Y so why is it weird to stop leveling or end a campaign for the sake of the adventure thematically being about the power range of X-Y instead of 1-20 plus or minus mythic tiers.

I never liked most examples of E6 or whatever because it seems like a complicated resolution to a simple premise; people in this setting are only so powerful so this number is the highest level. Its mostly people wanting to get more levels but not get more levels. People want to progress but don't want what that entails. A simple patch, much like mythic would have sufficed in most cases. Have a series of boons that represent levels past wherever you stopped leveling without actually escalating the numbers just diversify.

Basically I think levels are a tool that is underutilized for the purpose of storytelling. We just assume that we start at 1 and try to reach 20 despite adventure design routinely saying otherwise, when it should work more like Mutant and Mastermind power levels where we have X and will progress or not. So I don't agree that the system doesn't support it, just that nobody does it.

Possibly because we want growth and progress but not on the same scale PF provides. Sure, you could start a campaign at 5 and stop when you reach 8, but what if you want to play longer with those characters or that plot?

And E6, while it may be a little more complicated, basically is a patch where you get "boons that represent levels past wherever you stopped leveling without actually escalating the numbers".


default wrote:
I think it comes down to levels are too large of steps-some people probably want closer to twice as many levels, but keep the number endpoints the same (Abilities, BAB 1-20, etc), so you can feel more progress, but let the math stay pretty close.

At that point why not just do incremental leveling from Unchained? but that's probably besides the point but slow rolled progression isn't that difficult to do and that's not an argument against the system and how it works exactly exactly but preferences of the pace of progression, which again I think its not as supported because nobody does it rather than the system being unable to contain it.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.

I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.

With f+%~ing who?

We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f*#~ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.

"Play something else" is f*+*ing useless advice.

Liberty's Edge

default wrote:
I think it comes down to levels are too large of steps-some people probably want closer to twice as many levels, but keep the number endpoints the same (Abilities, BAB 1-20, etc), so you can feel more progress, but let the math stay pretty close.

5e D&D sort of does this with its bound accuracy. Not to say that this hasn't been done before - looking at the level progression in the D&D Cylcopedia (the one RPG to rule them all), they level from 1-36 and each level isn't a huge leap in power. Stops the game going from Fantasy to Superheroes as levels progress.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.

I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.

With f&!+ing who?

We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f!$@ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.

"Play something else" is f#+~ing useless advice.

Its the VHS vs Beta Max argument all over again...

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Stefan Hill wrote:
Its the VHS vs Beta Max argument all over again...

Man, that is such a good comparison. I'll have to remember that in the future.


Yeah, see, I've never encountered that problem, much as I said a while back in the "Problems encountered only on the forums" thread. Not once. Pathfinder was out for two years beforw I'd even heard of it. The Meetup group in my city has over 500 members, and Pathfinder only makes up about half of the games. It is easily the plurality and possibly majority, with D&D being another huge chunk, but I discovered so many other systems through the people I meet.

Don't you make friends with the people you play with, or have other friends who game? Can't you just talk to them like adults and say "hey, lets try something else, for once". Anyone who isn't up to that would make ANY RPG toxic, let alone PF, and contrary to popular belief, a s***ty group is worse than no gaming.

My latest group always played Pathfinder before I met them, so I just ran a Savage Worlds game, they fell in love, and then after a couple months I let someone else take over because I prefer being a player.

Barring that, it's 2016. Skype, Facetime, and many other means of hosting virtual games with people outside of your physical locale exist to widen your circle of players. If you can read this, you can do that.

Silver Crusade Contributor

TOZ wrote:
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.

I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.

With f+&$ing who?

We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f!##ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.

"Play something else" is f&!*ing useless advice.

I've always wondered... are you typing out the little symbols, or does the forum do that for you?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.

I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.

With f#&#ing who?

We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f#~+ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.

"Play something else" is f*~%ing useless advice.

I'd say the other people at your table?

IMO the best tables are either 3 players and a GM or 4 players and a GM.

If you want a different game, are willing to run it, and can't get 3 or 4 other people who you play with to give it a try for at least one session you either aren't trying, or play with very close minded people.

And if you have a group of exactly 5 people, and four of them refuse to try ANYTHING that isn't Pathfinder. . . well, that might be a pretty good indication that a new edition of Pathfinder isn't needed.

If you only play in organised play, then its easy-- ask to start a game of something else at the store, and talk to the other people at the PFS and sell them on why what you want to play is so exciting and find your 3-4 other people.

In my experience if you have only one other person excited about a system, you can both usually convince one more to try it, and there you have your four.

It isn't rocket science really.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Its the VHS vs Beta Max argument all over again...
Man, that is such a good comparison. I'll have to remember that in the future.

Network externalities.


I never got the argument though. Pathfinder is popular, yes but its not like jumping to a new system is hard when there are so many rules lite or book lite systems out there. In the end I keep feeling like the game is simultaneously great and complete garbage at the same time according to the forums. Its a Schrodinger cat of games. Or better yet, 5th edition is out so I would have figured that anyone who wasn't satisfied with PF would have jumped ship by now since the D&D is pretty much synonymous with Roleplaying in the public's mind so it has a bigger name.

101 to 150 of 617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The "too much books and bloat" argument. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.