The biggest intrinsic issue with PF (and TTRPG in general)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

If it wasn't for rule lawyers, I would forget that my rogue gets (x)d6 of damage when I am able to pull of a sneak attack with my ninja.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quote:


I said, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs.

No, I understand that.

I'm stating that: by definition, that is an incorrect statement.

I think you misunderstand. Something like a billion people in the world play chess. I'd suggest that chess, and not PF, is the most popular table-top game in the world, with Go a close second. Or perhaps Tic-Tac-Toe/Noughts and Crosses.
If it's the case that I have grossly misunderstood the scope of these arguments then that's my mistake.

I believe that QB is saying that rules-light games are generally considered more fun than rules-heavy games, irrespective of the types of games. Certainly Monopoly is much more popular than Risk, and Risk, in turn, is more popular than any TTRPG with which I'm familiar, and (I believe) that the complexity of the game is one of the reasons for this. The rules for Monopoly fit onto a single sheet of paper; the rules for Risk fit into a slim booklet, and the rules for Pathfinder barely fit onto two shelves, and that's considering only Paizo products.

That said, there are a lot of games even simpler than Monopoly that are not as popular, and there are a few games that are both more complex and more popular than Monopoly (like chess). So reality is, in my opinion, much more complicated than "fewer rules == more fun."

When we focus our attention to TTRPGs,.... as I said, I consider PF to be fairly rules-heavy, but I believe it also has the largest player base of any currently published TTRPG. (5e may be doing better in sales, but that's partly because it's newer and people aren't able to use their copy of the 53 rules that they got for Christmas 2006.)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quote:


I said, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs.

No, I understand that.

I'm stating that: by definition, that is an incorrect statement.

I think you misunderstand. Something like a billion people in the world play chess. I'd suggest that chess, and not PF, is the most popular table-top game in the world, with Go a close second. Or perhaps Tic-Tac-Toe/Noughts and Crosses.
If it's the case that I have grossly misunderstood the scope of these arguments then that's my mistake.

I believe that QB is saying that rules-light games are generally considered more fun than rules-heavy games, irrespective of the types of games. Certainly Monopoly is much more popular than Risk, and Risk, in turn, is more popular than any TTRPG with which I'm familiar, and (I believe) that the complexity of the game is one of the reasons for this. The rules for Monopoly fit onto a single sheet of paper; the rules for Risk fit into a slim booklet, and the rules for Pathfinder barely fit onto two shelves, and that's considering only Paizo products.

That said, there are a lot of games even simpler than Monopoly that are not as popular, and there are a few games that are both more complex and more popular than Monopoly (like chess). So reality is, in my opinion, much more complicated than "fewer rules == more fun."

When we focus our attention to TTRPGs,.... as I said, I consider PF to be fairly rules-heavy, but I believe it also has the largest player base of any currently published TTRPG. (5e may be doing better in sales, but that's partly because it's newer and people aren't able to use their copy of the 53 rules that they got for Christmas 2006.)

I'd say that TTRPGs are sufficiently different from other games that such direct comparisons aren't very useful.


The trend I find is that rules heavy games are more fun for people who like/are okay with learning the rules of a game before playing and can and care to remember these rules while playing. When these people play a game they are there to play the game.

rules-light games are played more often because many people don't care to learn any rules and that in these settings it's not the game that's the focus for most of the participants but just having a group activity.

As far as using the term "table-top game" I believe most wouldn't associate board games under the label "table-top". My understanding is the more common definition of "Table-top games" are games use the table, games like warhammer, star wars, and TTRPGs. table-top under this definition is pretty closely linked with having models and big "maps" and don't have a box that contains the entire game for all the players.


thejeff wrote:
I'd say that TTRPGs are sufficiently different from other games that such direct comparisons aren't very useful.

I disagree. I've seen the size and complexity of TTRPGs act as a barrier to people getting into the hobby. I can pull a chess board or a deck of cards out of my pocket and amuse one of my smallish relatives on a long trip very easily -- I can't do that with PF.


Chess Pwn wrote:
As far as using the term "table-top game" I believe most wouldn't associate board games under the label "table-top". My understanding is the more common definition of "Table-top games" are games use the table, games like warhammer, star wars, and TTRPGs. table-top under this definition is pretty closely linked with having models and big "maps" and don't have a box that contains the entire game for all the players.

The contrast of computer games, particularly those that are computer versions of board games, has definitely linked the term table-top game with board game as well as RPGs, miniature wargames, and even card games. It's widely used in the gaming community.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I believe that QB is saying that rules-light games are generally considered more fun than rules-heavy games, irrespective of the types of games. Certainly Monopoly is much more popular than Risk, and Risk, in turn, is more popular than any TTRPG with which I'm familiar, and (I believe) that the complexity of the game is one of the reasons for this. The rules for Monopoly fit onto a single sheet of paper; the rules for Risk fit into a slim booklet, and the rules for Pathfinder barely fit onto two shelves, and that's considering only Paizo products.

That said, there are a lot of games even simpler than Monopoly that are not as popular, and there are a few games that are both more complex and more popular than Monopoly (like chess). So reality is, in my opinion, much more complicated than "fewer rules == more fun."

When we focus our attention to TTRPGs,.... as I said, I consider PF to be fairly rules-heavy, but I believe it also has the largest player base of any currently published TTRPG. (5e may be doing better in sales, but that's partly because it's newer and people aren't able to use their copy of the 53 rules that they got for Christmas 2006.)

In the interests of time, I won't disagree with any of that.

I'll note that one can always rule-up a rules-light game with house rules quite easily if one is so inclined.

To rule-down a rules-heavy game requires far more finesse since the rules system is often highly integrated.

FWIW - I think 5E has another two years of dominance from commercial tie-in (redressing prior popular content, the next D&D movie, and Stranger Things season 2), and then after that it will be interesting to see which marketing mode wins out. I know from Black Diamond Games's perspective Paizo is not looking so good. It may be just his situation but he claims to have feelers out into other areas of the country regarding the FLGS business situation.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


FWIW - I think 5E has another two years of dominance from commercial tie-in (redressing prior popular content, the next D&D movie, and Stranger Things season 2), and then after that it will be interesting to see which marketing mode wins out. I know from Black Diamond Games's perspective Paizo is not looking so good. It may be just his situation but he claims to have feelers out into other areas of the country regarding the FLGS business situation.

Hopefully the movie & other media combined with 5e being a lighter game will work to expand the TTRPG market as opposed to TTRPGs continually fighting over such a small niche.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
As far as using the term "table-top game" I believe most wouldn't associate board games under the label "table-top". My understanding is the more common definition of "Table-top games" are games use the table, games like warhammer, star wars, and TTRPGs. table-top under this definition is pretty closely linked with having models and big "maps" and don't have a box that contains the entire game for all the players.
The contrast of computer games, particularly those that are computer versions of board games, has definitely linked the term table-top game with board game as well as RPGs, miniature wargames, and even card games. It's widely used in the gaming community.

But we started this thread with TTRPGs, not all table top games. Much like there are computer games and computer RPGs as a subset.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd say that TTRPGs are sufficiently different from other games that such direct comparisons aren't very useful.
I disagree. I've seen the size and complexity of TTRPGs act as a barrier to people getting into the hobby. I can pull a chess board or a deck of cards out of my pocket and amuse one of my smallish relatives on a long trip very easily -- I can't do that with PF.

Yeah, they fill a different niche. That's kind of the point.

It would be hard to use even a rules light rpg for that. At least without some preparation.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
FWIW - I think 5E has another two years of dominance from commercial tie-in (redressing prior popular content, the next D&D movie, and Stranger Things season 2), and then after that it will be interesting to see which marketing mode wins out. I know from Black Diamond Games's perspective Paizo is not looking so good. It may be just his situation but he claims to have feelers out into other areas of the country regarding the FLGS business situation.
Hopefully the movie & other media combined with 5e being a lighter game will work to expand the TTRPG market as opposed to TTRPGs continually fighting over such a small niche.

I hope you are right. I'm Hipster Cynical so can't fully commit to lofty ideals such as that.

Hiding why I too secretly want the niche to grow:
I did look over the Emerald Spire super dungeon at a FLGS two weeks past and was impressed most, in the few minutes I paged through it, with James Jacobs' and Richard Baker's contributions. Collaborative works like that have high potential for awesomeness. As it turns out I didn't pick it up since, for my purposes, the levels are too small. Contrast that with what I've seen of Rappan Athuk, where the whole thing is just too big for me to think about running (not to mention the copies are priced at "collector value" so I can't afford it). I need to find something in between or make it up myself.

OTOH I was watching a compare/contrast video of Battlefield 1942 with Battlefield 1 today and I can see why PC/console gaming keeps creeping in on the TTRPG market. The improvements are just astounding. Plus there is comparatively little required social commitment in the FPS/MMORG worlds.

At any rate I see very little cannibalism among the various TTRPG enthusiasts. What I see as most detrimental is attrition. Just look at these boards whenever a thread gets necro'd, at how many of the posters are (apparently) no longer active after only 18-30 months.

Re-building the D&D brand on a lighter chassis may very well work but, given the fall off in TTRPG stock I've seen at my local FLGS's over the past two years, I can't say as I've seen anything yet move the market as a whole.


Alzrius wrote:
Guy St-Amant wrote:
Do you even know what a simulation is?

Do you? I'm seriously asking, based on what you wrote following this.

Quote:
The problem is representation, "picking and choosing what/how to model", the more contradictions in representations, the more likely the simulations won't work.
Questioning the efficacy of simulationism is moving the goalposts; no one is arguing for an RPG to create a full-scale model of a fantasy universe in its entirety. Rather, this is a discussion about the correct definition of what "representation" - as "the problem" with RPGs - is. More specifically, I pointed out that it wasn't an issue of "why you can't model a fantasy universe," since taking that sort of holistic approach to modeling a setting (which is what that line of thinking does) is a simulationist stance, whereas representation means figuring out which bits and pieces to model and why.

Well, we are kinda saying the same thing then, the "What?", "How?" and "Why?", pick badly, and even a small scale simulation can fail, a universe scaled simulation probaly would hit "Failure of Mythological Proportion".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.
/breaks out the Rolemaster books and the spreadsheets.
Much as I love RM, combet is one of the less fun parts of the game unless you seriously fudge to lighten the burden and calculations.

I issued personalized tables to each player.

I also had a 3" binder with copies of all the tables, tabbed and cross indexed.

I had way too much time on my hands before marriage and children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


FWIW - I think 5E has another two years of dominance from commercial tie-in (redressing prior popular content, the next D&D movie, and Stranger Things season 2), and then after that it will be interesting to see which marketing mode wins out. I know from Black Diamond Games's perspective Paizo is not looking so good. It may be just his situation but he claims to have feelers out into other areas of the country regarding the FLGS business situation.
Hopefully the movie & other media combined with 5e being a lighter game will work to expand the TTRPG market as opposed to TTRPGs continually fighting over such a small niche.

Around the time Black Diamond Games put out their blog highlighting 5E's efficiency at generating sales and speculating that it was capturing a larger market share than Pathfinder, one of the paizo powers that be (I think it was Erik Mona, but could have been Vic Wertz) commented that they had still seen an increase in sales over that period.

So it did look like a "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario, which is promising. I doubt either WotC or Paizo care about winning market share, personally. I suspect all their performance indicators are self-focussed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


This is also a main point made by Gygax in a number of different ways*. It's why 5E goes back to his way of gaming - relatively rules-light and DM-ruling heavy with an eye towards group fun.

Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light. With more rules come more opportunities for rule conflicts (rules vs rules like the aforementioned reflex saves for a paralyzed PC - what?!?) and for conflicts with verisimilitude (the aforementioned 20th level PC falling 10km and merely scuffing the shine on his boots). In the latter case, why is there a rule for falling damage when it gets so handily ignored?

* having not played any of the editions where he was involved but talked with those who have (and read enough here on this and other forums), the various game mechanics for 1E were essentially optional; Gygax even expected DMs to come up with their own house rules and would consider anyone who didn't to be negligent

Well, I was around back then, and Gygax LOVED rules (Arneson like to make stuff up as he went along). 5E is no more Gygax style than PF is.

You can have fun playing Chivalry and Sorcery (super heavy) or T&T (very light), it's the DM and the players that make the fun. Yes, sometimes heavy rules do get in the way, but very light rules are just as open to debates.

Why can a lvl 20 Fighter get away with that fall in a fantasy Universe? Note that word Fantasy", A Deity saves him, Fate saves him, he is supernaturally lucky or supernaturally hard to kill.

Why is it so hard to believe a 20th Fighter can fall 1000' when a low level wizard can do the same with Feather Fall?


I'm going to approach this subject as : The issue that keeps TTRPGs from being more mainstream.

1. The steep learning curve: as others have pointed out Pathfinder is rather rules heavy. Even after learning the basics it's like chess, you might know the basics of character building, but do you have enough system mastery to make effective or powerful characters?

Another aspect of the learning curve is the role playing aspect, some people come into the game with more knowledge of this than others and it's something that needs to be learned to have fun in an TTRPG.

Even going from one game group to another can feel like a learning process: each game group has it's own (often unwritten) set of home rules and social contract (for lack of a better term).

2. Time: As has been mentioned these games often require (in my experience) multiple hours of game time every game session. In the games I've been in they work best when played at least twice a month, games more infrequent than that tend to fall apart.

3. Medieval (ish) fantasy: There have been noticeable exceptions, such as Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings, but I think that the genre is too small to be main stream. There have been TTRPGs focusing on other genres, and I don't think they've had more success, such as Call of Cthulu, Star Wars RPG, so this may only be a small hinderence.

4. Stigma: Either plain nerdy or Satanic, there have been various negative things attached to the game and the players of the game.

5. Finding other players: As a multi player game you need the other players and they need to have similar game styles (or be flexible). Online Role playing can help, but it's probably off topic since this is specifically for TTRPGs, although it's also for Pathfinder in general, so not entirely off topic perhaps.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChaiGuy wrote:

3. Medieval (ish) fantasy: There have been noticeable exceptions, such as Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings, but I think that the genre is too small to be main stream. There have been TTRPGs focusing on other genres, and I don't think they've had more success, such as Call of Cthulu, Star Wars RPG, so this may only be a small hindrance.

While I agree with your other points, I don't think this is one, at least in the US. Besides the two you mentioned, there are a plethora of rather mainstream video games which use such settings without issue (Warcraft/Skyrim/Total War/Witcher/Diablo/Dragon Age/etc.) and their very existence makes such worlds a known quantity.

Actually, there being so many and such a large shared trope base to draw upon is arguably the biggest reason that fantasy TTRPGs tend to do so much better than other RPG genres. After all, while there are a good chunk of sci-fi things which most people know, most of them are locked behind copyrights.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChaiGuy wrote:

Another aspect of the learning curve is the role playing aspect, some people come into the game with more knowledge of this than others and it's something that needs to be learned to have fun in an TTRPG.

I disagree with the latter part of this statement.


Officially Strange wrote:
ChaiGuy wrote:

Another aspect of the learning curve is the role playing aspect, some people come into the game with more knowledge of this than others and it's something that needs to be learned to have fun in an TTRPG.

I disagree with the latter part of this statement.

I guess it's poor form to tell people how to have fun, so I can see why you'd disagree. I'd remove it from my post, but it's been too long to modify.


NenkotaMoon wrote:
Game over is a failure of the game designer XD

Why hello fellow s*%$lords watcher!

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The biggest intrinsic issue with PF (and TTRPG in general) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.