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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Curious about opinions on this. I'm thinking things like inevitable gaps in the rules, applying realism to a fantasy environment, abstractions like hit points and how to explain them, etc.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say the biggest issue with PF, with TTRPG, and indeed, with games in general, is representation. Basically, it's not possible to represent an entire fictional universe in less than another entire universe.

You can even see this in traditional counter-base war games. I'm reminded of The Campaign for North Africa, where Italian units had a greater water requirement than other nationalities, to represent the fact that they needed to use water to cook their pasta in their field kitchens. My understanding is that that is actually historically accurate, but it's also the sort of stupid detail that makes even most hardcore gamers, and almost all of the casual ones, want to claw their eyes out.

There's not a single paragraph in the PF rulebook that's not a tremendous oversimplification of reality. What's the difference between a long sword, a bastard sword, and a two-handed sword, given that in the real world, we can find swords of nearly any length you like? How many different mental attributes are grouped under the heading "Wisdom"? Why is it that being 6'2" doesn't give you an advantage in a fight over a person who is 5'8" (it certainly does in any combat sport from aikido through fencing to yaw-yan)? Has a "gold piece" of unspecified purity ever been a unit of currency?

The problem is that everyone has a different place they're willing to draw the line in terms of simplification, which is why we get questions like "how can a paralyzed person make a Reflex save?" or "how come I can't drop my weapon as a free action if I'm nauseated?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As with pretty much anything else, the human element is always the biggest challenge. But that's an easy target. I think one of the challenges that I personally have a hard time overcoming is getting people out of their comfort zones to try and play other games than what they're used too. PF/DnD is fun and all, but I still want to have the chance to try out Anima or Exalted or even more obscure games and entirely different genres.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The players, really.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Game over is a failure of the game designer XD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The absurdity of some rules for certain (that a lvl 20 anything can survive a fall of 10 kilometres, dust himself off and just walk away comes to mind).

But also that the very structure of the 20 level system precludes a lot of stories from being told and also forces stories always into certain pathways for a campaign to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disparate expectations amongst the player base.

If everyone wants the same thing, they can find a system that will work fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm partially with Orfamay Quest on this one. For a GM, it can be difficult to keep tabs on what's going on in a fictional universe. Missing that one monster in the bestiary which could have tied it all together, forgetting about some races altogether, making fallable excuses for how various in-game systems and politics work... Basically, there will Always be something missing. For it to work, I've seen people rely far too much on the game mechanics instead of interesting roleplay, or even compromising one for the other to account for what players invested in.

How often does one remember that undead carcasses are ripe with disease, or that their stench should be smelled a half mile away before someone's 60ft darkvision spots them? How often will a player completely botch a roleplayed diplomatic attempt, but get away with it anyways because they chose to play a high-charisma character? Who keeps track of the weather until someone plays a Sylph, or thinks about Otyughs in the sewers before finding them in the bestiary? There wil Always, Always be more to add that the GM simply has to reason into/out of existence.

Player drama is otherwise by far the most prevalent problem. If it does happen, it tends to rip a whole game apart.

Third place goes to rule-mongers and rule conflicts. Everyone's always encouraged to follow and interpret the RAW, as that's what's going to be the most likely agreement between any two people that play the game. At least a GM can straight up veto or fudge this, usually in favor of keeping players together or happy.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'd say the biggest issue with PF, with TTRPG, and indeed, with games in general, is representation. Basically, it's not possible to represent an entire fictional universe in less than another entire universe.

As a nitpick, I've usually heard that referred to as "simulationism" rather than "representation."


Alzrius wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'd say the biggest issue with PF, with TTRPG, and indeed, with games in general, is representation. Basically, it's not possible to represent an entire fictional universe in less than another entire universe.
As a nitpick, I've usually heard that referred to as "simulationism" rather than "representation."

No, simulationism is one proposed solution to the representation problem.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Games are designed to be fun first above all else. Games abstract concepts to make them more playable and enjoyable for the same reason movies and novels don't show you every time Frodo takes a dump or other boring stuff. This is not a flaw in the medium.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'd say the biggest issue with PF, with TTRPG, and indeed, with games in general, is representation. Basically, it's not possible to represent an entire fictional universe in less than another entire universe.
As a nitpick, I've usually heard that referred to as "simulationism" rather than "representation."
No, simulationism is one proposed solution to the representation problem.

No, I don't think that's true. Simulationism is the issue of simulating a game world with the greatest fidelity that's (practically) possible, which sounds exactly like what you're calling "representation."


Alzrius wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'd say the biggest issue with PF, with TTRPG, and indeed, with games in general, is representation. Basically, it's not possible to represent an entire fictional universe in less than another entire universe.
As a nitpick, I've usually heard that referred to as "simulationism" rather than "representation."
No, simulationism is one proposed solution to the representation problem.
No, I don't think that's true.

<shrug> Well, you're wrong.

Quote:
Simulationism is the issue of simulating a game world with the greatest fidelity that's (practically) possible

... which is one approach to the problem of representation, but not the only one. Another approach is to incorporate only those elements which are important to the narrative, and you may or may not want to incorporate them realistically, which is the approach that people usually call "narrativist."

Of course, that's actually a false dichotomy; no one is actually a hard-core simulationist, as the failure of Campaign for North Africa illustrates, but almost every successful RPG incorporates some elements of simulation into the game (rather than going through a purely narrative approach -- the only purely narrative RPG I can think of is The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen).

So, to recap, representation is the problem. How much, how accurately, and in how much detail? There are a lot of proposed solutions, of which "simulationism," to wit, "represent as much as you can as faithfully as you can" is a bad but often cited solution.


magnuskn wrote:

The absurdity of some rules for certain (that a lvl 20 anything can survive a fall of 10 kilometres, dust himself off and just walk away comes to mind).

But also that the very structure of the 20 level system precludes a lot of stories from being told and also forces stories always into certain pathways for a campaign to work.

Can you elaborate on this position Magnuskn? What exactly IS a level 20 character if not a Super Hero on par with Wonder Woman or Doctor Strange?

Which part of the 20 level structure interferes with the stories you want to play? There's no law forbidding a GM from selecting a level to start and/or a level to cap leveling at. Once I ran a 6 month campaign start to finish at level 8, because that was right for the game in question.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Failure of the game design is failure of the game designer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

MyTThor wrote:

Curious about opinions on this. I'm thinking things like inevitable gaps in the rules, applying realism to a fantasy environment, abstractions like hit points and how to explain them, etc.

If you think any of these are "intrinsic issues", then either you don't know what "intrinsic" means or your experience with RPGs is even narrower than mine.


I think the biggest problem in TTRPGs in general is a lack of unification between the players and the GM. Every single RPG I've played, from D&D to Apocalypse World, seems to favor one over the other. I'd like to see advice that instead unified the GM and the players as one group that is looking to make a good game and have run. Rather than empowering one side over the other with advice that equates to social enginneering and manipulation. I feel like some of the indy games come close, but veer too far into players empowered over the GM.

We're in this hobby together. There shouldn't be social stratification enforced within our groups. We need advice on better communication and transparency for both sides.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
<shrug> Well, you're wrong.

*sigh* Except that I'm not.

Quote:
... which is one approach to the problem of representation, but not the only one. Another approach is to incorporate only those elements which are important to the narrative, and you may or may not want to incorporate them realistically, which is the approach that people usually call "narrativist."

The thing about that is that it doesn't actually "represent" the game world, which is at the core of your position. On the contrary, the narrativist approach deliberately eschews the aspects of the wider game universe that aren't necessary to the meta-game construct of the story that's being told, and so flies directly in the face of issues of representation.

Quote:
Of course, that's actually a false dichotomy; no one is actually a hard-core simulationist, as the failure of Campaign for North Africa illustrates, but almost every successful RPG incorporates some elements of simulation into the game (rather than going through a purely narrative approach -- the only purely narrative RPG I can think of is The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen).

The failure of this line of thinking is that it relies on imprecise terms such as "hardcore" simulationism, to say nothing of loaded terms like "failure," despite games with a high approach to simulationism still being made and played. In other words, this entire premise relies on weasel words.

Quote:
So, to recap, representation is the problem.

Except now we've definitively shown that it's not.

Quote:
How much, how accurately, and in how much detail? There are a lot of proposed solutions, of which "simulationism," to wit, "represent as much as you can as faithfully as you can" is a bad but often cited solution.

This is a moving of the goalposts; you previously talked about "represent an entire fictional universe" as being the problem, but are now moving away from that to talk about issues of "the narrative," which is inherently unconcerned with representing an "entire fictional universe" to begin with, because the entirety of said universe isn't important to the narrative. Hence, issues of representation as you've defined it are no longer an issue at all.

So you're wrong on that one.


@ Alzrius, he/she is right, the problem is representation, the problem with simulationism come from the problems of representation.

Also, developers not being able to make their minds on what they want and make.

And the universe is important to (the type of) narrative, you don't narrate Golarion, Marvel, DC, Exalted, Dragonlance, A Song Of Ice And Fire, Lord of the Rings, Dragonball, Final Fantasy, etc, in the same way.


Odraude wrote:

I think the biggest problem in TTRPGs in general is a lack of unification between the players and the GM. Every single RPG I've played, from D&D to Apocalypse World, seems to favor one over the other. I'd like to see advice that instead unified the GM and the players as one group that is looking to make a good game and have run. Rather than empowering one side over the other with advice that equates to social enginneering and manipulation. I feel like some of the indy games come close, but veer too far into players empowered over the GM.

We're in this hobby together. There shouldn't be social stratification enforced within our groups. We need advice on better communication and transparency for both sides.

From what I've seen so far from FATE core (and I assume regular FATE rules too), it makes for a fairly abstracted, narrative driven gaming experience that grants both players and GM a lot of say on how the narrative goes.

One of the basic mechanics of the game is that the players get presented with various narrative situations (both good and bad) and in addition to solving them with their characters capabilities, they can expend a limited narrative resource to effectively suggest some kind of narrative twist. After some discussion in the group to get players and GM all on board with whatever twist it is, it goes into effect. It works in reverse too: A DM can suggest some kind of unexpected twist, and if the player agrees to accept the consequences, they can gain back the narrative resource. It gives the players quite a bit of power in dictating the flow of the narrative, beyond what is explicitly provided as part of the game's normal systems.

I haven't had a chance to play a game with it yet, but in an easygoing group it looks like a fun way to do some structured collaborative storytelling. It definitely also seems to narrow the gap between Player and GM.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Guy St-Amant wrote:
@ Alzrius, he/she is right, the problem is representation, the problem with simulationism come from the problems of representation.

I disagree. Defining "representation" as "can't model an entire fictional universe in anything less than another universe" - which was the term that Orfamay used - is an issue of simulationism, which is concerned with portraying the holisticity of the game world as best it can. By contrast, "representation" is a question of "picking and choosing what to model," which is entirely different from how to showcase an entire universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cellion wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I think the biggest problem in TTRPGs in general is a lack of unification between the players and the GM. Every single RPG I've played, from D&D to Apocalypse World, seems to favor one over the other. I'd like to see advice that instead unified the GM and the players as one group that is looking to make a good game and have run. Rather than empowering one side over the other with advice that equates to social enginneering and manipulation. I feel like some of the indy games come close, but veer too far into players empowered over the GM.

We're in this hobby together. There shouldn't be social stratification enforced within our groups. We need advice on better communication and transparency for both sides.

From what I've seen so far from FATE core (and I assume regular FATE rules too), it makes for a fairly abstracted, narrative driven gaming experience that grants both players and GM a lot of say on how the narrative goes.

One of the basic mechanics of the game is that the players get presented with various narrative situations (both good and bad) and in addition to solving them with their characters capabilities, they can expend a limited narrative resource to effectively suggest some kind of narrative twist. After some discussion in the group to get players and GM all on board with whatever twist it is, it goes into effect. It works in reverse too: A DM can suggest some kind of unexpected twist, and if the player agrees to accept the consequences, they can gain back the narrative resource. It gives the players quite a bit of power in dictating the flow of the narrative, beyond what is explicitly provided as part of the game's normal systems.

I haven't had a chance to play a game with it yet, but in an easygoing group it looks like a fun way to do some structured collaborative storytelling. It definitely also seems to narrow the gap between Player and GM.

I've played some FATE and while I feel it comes close to bridging the gap, there are still aspects of it that seem to favor the players over the GM in decision making. Also, I'm not a fan of the elevation of the story over the group. In games of FATE and books under the Apocalypse World engine, I've seen games grind to a halt because a situation that happened to their character didn't fit their perception of their character's story.

I think I'd like less mechanics empowering one side or the other, and would rather have advice on how to come together as a group and make the game fun for everyone involved. Often, you see tons of DM advice. Rarely, you see player advice. And even more rare you see group advice. I'd like to see more of the last one. It'd be hard, especially with different groups having different group dynamics. I'd also like to see more advice that treats RPGs as a social activity and not as a game, story, conversation, or simulation. I feel it would fix a lot of issues


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We should all just say to heck with it and play FATAL.

Sovereign Court

Snowlilly wrote:
We should all just say to heck with it and play FATAL.

I must say - I have wondered how many copies of that game sell just because people are curious about just how bad it is due to it being referenced as an example of a horrid game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
We should all just say to heck with it and play FATAL.

No. Oh dear, sweet, merciful gods no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
We should all just say to heck with it and play FATAL.
I must say - I have wondered how many copies of that game sell just because people are curious about just how bad it is due to it being referenced as an example of a horrid game.

Rumor has it that a few print copies were produced, before the author was torn to shreds by invisible attackers in broad daylight on a crowded street in Damascus, and survive in private collections and archives to this very day.


The game is an abstraction, so it keeps some, oversimplifies others, and gets rid of the rest. What it should keep, what it should oversimplify, and what it should get rid of is different from person to person.

Dark Archive

Easily torn apart gynoids are a failure the game designer!


Alzrius wrote:
Guy St-Amant wrote:
@ Alzrius, he/she is right, the problem is representation, the problem with simulationism come from the problems of representation.
I disagree. Defining "representation" as "can't model an entire fictional universe in anything less than another universe" - which was the term that Orfamay used - is an issue of simulationism, which is concerned with portraying the holisticity of the game world as best it can. By contrast, "representation" is a question of "picking and choosing what to model," which is entirely different from how to showcase an entire universe.

Do you even know what a simulation is?

The problem is representation, "picking and choosing what/how to model", the more contradictions in representations, the more likely the simulations won't work.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


As Orfamay Quest said, height matters in every martial art one cares to name. Hell, there's 17 weight classes in professional boxing between 105 pounds and 201+ pounds. Size does matter. It matters a great deal. Most TTRPGs merely abstract this fact of the real world, if not outright ignore it.

Choosing what to represent and what to ignore; which fantasy elements to include/exclude; etc. That is the social contract for the game being played. Its why the Same Page Tool is a useful idea for any campaign. You should check out that link.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.

Oh boy


Quark Blast wrote:


Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.

Well, that's part of the issue. Some people prefer rules-heavy games, some prefer rules-light ones, and I suspect the vast majority prefer neither, but have some sort of golden Goldilocks zone in the middle. (For what it's worth, I consider Pathfinder to be on the rules-heavy side of things, but nowhere near the extreme).

And, of course, that's the key question with representation. How much of the fantasy world are you going to represent, specifically, with encodings into rules? You'll never get people to agree on the appropriate way to represent the game world.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.
Oh boy

Are you saying that should go without saying? :)

Think about it though, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs. Even among the self-selected group of TTRPG gamers there is a minority position sometimes called "rules lawyer". On top of that the most intense rules "discussions" occur among the "rules lawyers" themselves, each arguing for a different nuanced position. Something hardly interesting to the remaining majority of TTRPG-ers.

I left 3.PF mainly because combat, even simple low level combat, was guaranteed to take an hour at least. This in cases where the mathematical outcome wasn't even close. In slightly more complex scenarios it wasn't uncommon for 2-3 hour combats to ensue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.
Oh boy

Are you saying that should go without saying? :)

Think about it though, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs. Even among the self-selected group of TTRPG gamers there is a minority position sometimes called "rules lawyer". On top of that the most intense rules "discussions" occur among the "rules lawyers" themselves, each arguing for a different nuanced position. Something hardly interesting to the remaining majority of TTRPG-ers.

I left 3.PF mainly because combat, even simple low level combat, was guaranteed to take an hour at least. This in cases where the mathematical outcome wasn't even close. In slightly more complex scenarios it wasn't uncommon for 2-3 hour combats to ensue.

I'm saying that because you're taking an opinion of something that is impossible to quantify (fun) and stating it as fact. I'm looking forward to the ensuing 2-3 pages of firestorm.

It's difficult to make an argument against rules-heavy games when 3.5/PF remain the most prolific games on the market.


Quark Blast wrote:


Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.

Again, agreeing with Orfamay Quest. Pathfinder, to me, is very near that 'Goldilocks zone' and has enough rules that Roughly tie to one's intuition (Albeit simplified in many cases, and others favoring fantasy over physics). Anyone that doesn't want to look at the rules can just as easily have a more rule-savy player help with their character concept and creation, and can usually suggest an action in battle or interacting with the environment that a GM can easily attribute to a skill check, combat action, or at least reward with a bonus/penalty.

It also favors the players that take much enthusiasm and enjoyment in optimization or strategy. The only time a rules-heavy game is really an issue is if No-one is interested in it, or the GM runs their campaign in such a way that they infringe on the experience and immersion.

For everybody else... There's the rules forum!


Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.
Oh boy

Are you saying that should go without saying? :)

Think about it though, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs. Even among the self-selected group of TTRPG gamers there is a minority position sometimes called "rules lawyer". On top of that the most intense rules "discussions" occur among the "rules lawyers" themselves, each arguing for a different nuanced position. Something hardly interesting to the remaining majority of TTRPG-ers.

I left 3.PF mainly because combat, even simple low level combat, was guaranteed to take an hour at least. This in cases where the mathematical outcome wasn't even close. In slightly more complex scenarios it wasn't uncommon for 2-3 hour combats to ensue.

I'm saying that because you're taking an opinion of something that is impossible to quantify (fun) and stating it as fact. I'm looking forward to the ensuing 2-3 pages of firestorm.

It's difficult to make an argument against rules-heavy games when 3.5/PF remain the most prolific games on the market.

It'll be a "firestorm" only if they ignore my whole argument - like you did.

Tell me, why did you ignore this?

Quark Blast wrote:
Think about it though, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs.

Because in order for your point, "It's difficult to make an argument against rules-heavy games when 3.5/PF remain the most prolific games on the market", to have any weight at all, you must ignore the whole of my argument.

Why would you do that? It's not like I posted a wall-of-text that was difficult to slog through.

I think my point was well stated and would appreciate you not ignoring the obvious if you want to respond to me again. Thanks! :)


Bane Wraith wrote:
For everybody else... There's the rules forum!

Yeah, that's a definite pressure release valve!

And FWIW, I like rules lawyers, generally. It's nice to have a go to person in the party.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly, you need a happy medium between rules light and rules heavy. If the default answer to 'how do I do this' is 'ask the GM and work something out', you're too light. There should be at least a framework to hang the gameplay and houserules on.


Quark Blast wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.
Oh boy

Are you saying that should go without saying? :)

Think about it though, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs. Even among the self-selected group of TTRPG gamers there is a minority position sometimes called "rules lawyer". On top of that the most intense rules "discussions" occur among the "rules lawyers" themselves, each arguing for a different nuanced position. Something hardly interesting to the remaining majority of TTRPG-ers.

I left 3.PF mainly because combat, even simple low level combat, was guaranteed to take an hour at least. This in cases where the mathematical outcome wasn't even close. In slightly more complex scenarios it wasn't uncommon for 2-3 hour combats to ensue.

I'm saying that because you're taking an opinion of something that is impossible to quantify (fun) and stating it as fact. I'm looking forward to the ensuing 2-3 pages of firestorm.

It's difficult to make an argument against rules-heavy games when 3.5/PF remain the most prolific games on the market.

It'll be a "firestorm" only if they ignore my whole argument - like you did.

Tell me, why did you ignore this?

Quark Blast wrote:
Think about it though, the most popular table-top games are not RPGs.

Because in order for your point, "It's difficult to make an argument against rules-heavy games when 3.5/PF remain the most prolific games on the market", to have any weight at all, you must ignore the whole of my argument.

Why would you do that? It's not like I posted a wall-of-text that was difficult to slog through.

I think my point was well stated and would appreciate you not ignoring the obvious if you want to respond to me again. Thanks! :)

You'd have to prove that 3.PF is not a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting, because that's about as complex as the definition of an RPG is.


Quark Blast wrote:
Generally speaking, rules heavy games are less fun than rules light.

/breaks out the Rolemaster books and the spreadsheets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Failure of the game design is failure of the game designer.

oh no i made the bad game


Johnnycat93 wrote:
You'd have to prove that 3.PF is not a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting, because that's about as complex as the definition of an RPG is.

o.O

_

You lost me.

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

Furthermore, PF isn't even the most popular TTRPG and hasn't been since the late summer of 2014.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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'm curious if Quark Blast's definition of table-top game includes all board games and possibly card games. If so he's correct that most of those aren't RPG styled games.

But even there you have simple to no rules games and intense many rules games. Worried about combat taking an hour? Axis and Allies takes about that long to set up and be ready to play and then a hour or more for one round to finish.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I'm curious if their definition of table-top game includes all board games and possibly card games. If so he's correct that most of those aren't RPG styled games.

But even there you have simple to no rules games and intense many rules games. Worried about combat taking an hour? Axis and Allies takes about that long to set up and be ready to play and then a hour or more for one round to finish.

Oh I agree there are worse games than 3.PF on the "rules heavy" side.

It's just that for This Sort of Argument to even get off the ground means the game design has something seriously wrong with it.

House rules to the rescue!


Quark Blast wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
You'd have to prove that 3.PF is not a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting, because that's about as complex as the definition of an RPG is.

o.O

_

You lost me.

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

Furthermore, PF isn't even the most popular TTRPG and hasn't been since the late summer of 2014.

No, I understand that.

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

Also, I assume you're referring to 5e. Lacking any statistical evidence, I can confidently state that at the very most fifth edition is a competitor to Pathfinders market dominance. On top of that, it simply has not had enough time to overcome the massive player base 3.PF has amassed yet.

Edit: following Chess Pawns statement, I will admit that I assume we are talking about pen-and-paper games exclusively right now.


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.


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.


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.

Thank you.

Though I would suggest Trivial Pursuit, or even Sorry, Monopoly, or Clue are far more popular than any TTRPG, let alone PF.

5E has been outselling PF for two years now and doing that with less than a dozen products in print. Compare that to the hundreds of PF products in print. Seems rather obvious which game is "most popular"* at this point.

* and I say that keeping in mind that the PF APs are my favorite adventure product and likely always will be; I just prefer a less rules heavy TTRPG experience and it is easier to "dumb down" a PF AP to 5E sensibilities and enjoy the game than it is to play PF directly; in fact, with 5E I can use a great many TTRPG products rather easily and have done so on-the-fly in several cases; it's just an easier game to prep and run

1 to 50 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.