| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair. My only real requirement in a new version to to learn from the old one and to try to make the next version better based on the feedback of the community and to make it consistent with itself. I think all any of us can do is prop up our own little reasons why to nudge at Paizo to show it is wanted.
I am always a bit leery of crowdsourcing ideas for game balance - getting feedback from the community is definitely a great thing, but it needs to be measured against design goals and objective analysis.
There's a big difference between what people say (or think) they want, and what they actually want. I'll defer to Jim Sterling's coffee metaphor here.
Was the ranger underpowered? No. It can perform extremely well in and out of combat.
Was the ranger well-designed? No. One archetype was a clumsy mess, and the class overall was far too front-loaded, which created a situation where it was usually better to multiclass after 5th or 6th level, because while there were some good abilities after that (volley/whirlwind attack), they were few and far between.
But poor design =/= underpowered.
But instead of releasing a class whose abilities performed on the same level as the other classes (fighter, barbarian, monk) but had a more spread out class progression, they instead released something even more powerful. Yes it was a 'better design' in terms of progression, but the numbers are unjustifiably silly.
TL;DR: Rather than trying to understand what was actually causing player dissatisfaction, they were listening to what players were shouting about needing fixing. And so their "solution" isn't a solution, but an exercise in power creep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with crowdsourcing ideas but I think my implication behind what that looks like is different from yours and absolutely different from your example.
Get all the ideas you want, let popularity dictate which get attention first, etc., etc. But, after that, have a strong team in private interpret what the result is and to balance the rest of the game with those things in mind. Notice how I said letting popularity dictate which get attention first and not letting it dictate the outcome.
You can't just take feedback, release product, and expect a pat on the back as you've shown. There's more to it than that. You also need a team that is very close with customers. Paizo has shown it can work that feedback loop well. They just need to do it.
Perhaps, as an idea, even have various members of the community that get randomly selected based on some criteria. Regardless of the criteria, the pool should be large and frequently changing who gets selected. Let them be special consultants or something similar in exchange for some free product. Nothing ridiculous, but like 10 or 20 people. Experienced GMs and the like, but to Paizo-ify it, that shouldn't just mean PFS volunteers either. So, no where near the hassle of having a full open beta each and every time, but the goal is to be a kind of gut check and to get some dedicated feedback from folks who are in the trenches, so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, though it's NOT PF 2.0, and it's not fantasy...there IS a new gamesystem coming out that people who want 2.0 may want to take a look at.
I am betting there are going to be new ideas in regards to keeping it balanced, and simplifying a lot of the complexities from all the bloat of PF currently.
Take a look at Starfinder and see what your expectations may hold.
In fact, as far as coming out with a new version of Pathfinder, that may be the best path as it doesn't replace the OLD game, as it is obviously a NEW game with an entirely different preface and genre...but in other ways you could see it as a stealth way to release a new version of Pathfinder, but under the guise of a different and new game and world (well, it's the same world...but in a very different context/time...so, more like same universe).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair. My only real requirement in a new version to to learn from the old one and to try to make the next version better based on the feedback of the community and to make it consistent with itself. I think all any of us can do is prop up our own little reasons why to nudge at Paizo to show it is wanted.I am always a bit leery of crowdsourcing ideas for game balance - getting feedback from the community is definitely a great thing, but it needs to be measured against design goals and objective analysis.
There's a big difference between what people say (or think) they want, and what they actually want. I'll defer to Jim Sterling's coffee metaphor here.
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree with your rant. In fairness Unearthed Arcana isn't an endpoint. It will be interesting to see how much they dial it back before properly releasing it.
I think the distinction between open design and public play testing is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, though it's NOT PF 2.0, and it's not fantasy...there IS a new gamesystem coming out that people who want 2.0 may want to take a look at.
I am betting there are going to be new ideas in regards to keeping it balanced, and simplifying a lot of the complexities from all the bloat of PF currently.
Take a look at Starfinder and see what your expectations may hold.
The issue of starfinder from my perspective is that to get crunch for it past the original book, you have to buy adventures that I know I'm never ever going to use. So from my perspective it effectively becomes an unsupported system immediately after Starfinder is released... which makes me rather hesitant to purchase it, just to look at ideas I could cannibalize and use in Pathfinder homebrews.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly Ive never been great at Sci-fi Story lines I will definitely need the adventure paths at first. I need the experience of running Sci-fi really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue of starfinder from my perspective is that to get crunch for it past the original book, you have to buy adventures that I know I'm never ever going to use. So from my perspective it effectively becomes an unsupported system immediately after Starfinder is released... which makes me rather hesitant to purchase it, just to look at ideas I could cannibalize and use in Pathfinder homebrews.Well, though it's NOT PF 2.0, and it's not fantasy...there IS a new gamesystem coming out that people who want 2.0 may want to take a look at.
I am betting there are going to be new ideas in regards to keeping it balanced, and simplifying a lot of the complexities from all the bloat of PF currently.
Take a look at Starfinder and see what your expectations may hold.
Actually, maybe based on the excitement it is causing, it sounds like the plan is now to do at least 1-2 hardcovers a year. So it won't get anywhere near the support of regular Pathfinder (with setting neutral hardcovers, Campaign setting, and player companion lines), but it is going to get some steady support outside the adventure paths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, maybe based on the excitement it is causing, it sounds like the plan is now to do at least 1-2 hardcovers a year. So it won't get anywhere near the support of regular Pathfinder (with setting neutral hardcovers, Campaign setting, and player companion lines), but it is going to get some steady support outside the adventure paths.
Nope. In interviews they say their plan is:
"With Starfinder we’re looking to do away with the distinction of "This is a rules book, this is a campaign setting book versus an adventure." If you like Starfinder, subscribe to the Starfinder line, get the adventure path, and that’ll also give you your rules for things related to it. The hope is that every month people will be getting another cool bite of that universe, whether it’s lore or crunch."Iirc, there will be two hardcovers (The Starfinder book itself, and a bestiary), but I haven't seen any info that suggests such a thing with be happening yearly.
So, since I don't want to waste my time with not ever using 2/3rd of each book after the start, it's not really for me.
I'm saying regardless of what they do, people are going to complain because different people value different things differently. "Balance" is subjective.
Are you advocating against balance? Balance is subjective, but it should still be attempted. Ironically this game's death spiral of getting stronger and stronger came because they kept buffing classes to be more powerful than the enemies, then buffed the bestiary to be as powerful as the hero's, then rinsed and repeated a few times. So incorrectly attempting to balance is the source of my complaints about PF.
That being said what it did right was create so many options for character creation that you can build just exactly what you want to. Want to build Yoda, easy, want to build Gregor Clegane, done it. Other systems don't give so much control and so many options during creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a death spiral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a death spiral.
What you don't see can still be there. I'm trying to get 2 new people into PF right now. One of them played one campaign and being his first PF experience he didn't make a powerful build and had a terrible experience. You have to make a powerful build to play the canned campaigns right now. The second person saw the shear number of races/classes/archetypes, the size of the feat list and spellbooks and was overwhelmed and doesn't want to play. The work around for us was to use an early campaign before any expansion books came out, and use core rulebook only.
They were both experience DnD 3.5 players
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been having the opposite experience.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is subject, but it's also very circumstantial, especially based on the particular style of game a given group or DM runs.
A decade or so ago, I had a long time DM that heavily favored combat and didn't really do much with skills or social encounters. I do not mean that they played the game wrong, or that they ignored the rules or anything along those lines, as much as that there tended to be a lot more outright combats than there where traps, diplomacy, or much else.
Spellcasters with Save or Suck/Die spells found that enemies tended to roll a lot of Nat 20's behind the DM screen, OR that as the big bad Ogre boss falls, his brother hears something going on and steps in to finish the fight in what HAD BEEN the BBEG's place.
So, someone gaming in this sort of group would walk away with the knowledge that Barbarians, Fighters, and Rangers (and even Rogues) are the "strongest" classes in the game.
If a person has a lot of experience with gaming where the Monk shines a great deal, it could very easily lead them to having the knowledge that Monk's are strong, (and if viewed from a petty generic Campaign style that doesn't really favor any sort of encounter over others), and with a lower Point-Buy expectation, etc. . . I can easily see Monks being viewed as strong. Especially if there is no dedicated archer to steal their thunder.
I'd actually also suggest that a lot of the complaints about the Monk are really more based on the Class not doing exactly what they want from a Level 1 uber martial arts black belt master than that the class itself is weak. But that's my opinion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a death spiral.What you don't see can still be there. I'm trying to get 2 new people into PF right now. One of them played one campaign and being his first PF experience he didn't make a powerful build and had a terrible experience. You have to make a powerful build to play the canned campaigns right now. The second person saw the shear number of races/classes/archetypes, the size of the feat list and spellbooks and was overwhelmed and doesn't want to play. The work around for us was to use an early campaign before any expansion books came out, and use core rulebook only.
They were both experience DnD 3.5 players
I can see this, actually. I had a similar experience trying to get a new group into gaming while I was deployed. I can not remember exact numbers, but out of a group of 9 or 10, two people outright dropped out when they saw just how many books there where, not even wanting to give it a shot. I almost lost another one when I started explaining different class possibilities, and then the topic of Archetypes/prestige classes/races, etc. . . came up in casual conversation, or how much Pathfinder seemed to lack so many different sorts of options for so many different classes or concepts, but seemed to have so many for others.
In the end, about half stayed and played. Almost all of them had experience with other similar games and hobbies, from 3E or 4E, to Magic the Gathering, but it had been a while for some with TTRPGs.
It took an enormous effort from me to try to convince them all to give it a shot, that I could help offer solid suggestions as to what they might want to do or try, and that I would allow them a few free opportunities to swap things around if after a few games they didn't like it, but even with that, and even with a pretty restricted character creation (as far as books), a good deal of them found it too much effort and buy in to consider it. And that's with me already having all of the books, so the financial side didn't even enter the equation.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is not subjective. People do value what is being balanced differently.
Not all distinctions boil down to X is greater than Y, but that does not mean the level 20 vital strike strong jaws druid is balanced to a level 5 fighter just because the player only values the ability to swing a sword. That player may say, "fighters are overpowered. Nothing else can swing a sword as swordy as he can sword" what he really means is "fighters do what I want to do the best making all other options worse for me."
Your wants are subjective. What is important for balanced can depend on the situation and table and house rules. Balance is not subjective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, maybe based on the excitement it is causing, it sounds like the plan is now to do at least 1-2 hardcovers a year. So it won't get anywhere near the support of regular Pathfinder (with setting neutral hardcovers, Campaign setting, and player companion lines), but it is going to get some steady support outside the adventure paths.Nope. In interviews they say their plan is:
"With Starfinder we’re looking to do away with the distinction of "This is a rules book, this is a campaign setting book versus an adventure." If you like Starfinder, subscribe to the Starfinder line, get the adventure path, and that’ll also give you your rules for things related to it. The hope is that every month people will be getting another cool bite of that universe, whether it’s lore or crunch."Iirc, there will be two hardcovers (The Starfinder book itself, and a bestiary), but I haven't seen any info that suggests such a thing with be happening yearly.
So, since I don't want to waste my time with not ever using 2/3rd of each book after the start, it's not really for me.
The most recent interview about Starfinder has the following quote:
"We put out a lot of books for Pathfinder. In addition to the core rulebooks and the adventure paths we have the campaign setting books and the player companions. We’ve got a lot of stuff that we’re putting out there, and while that’s great and we’re excited that there’s that appetite from the audience, we simply don’t have the staff to do the same thing for Starfinder as well. And also we’ve heard a lot of people saying over the years: “God, I would love to collect all the Pathfinder stuff, but there’s just too much of it for me to stay current.” So one of the things we’re doing with Starfinder is really ramping back and saying: “Okay, we’re going to publish a couple of big books a year and then we’re going to have the main way you get new information about Starfinder be though the adventure paths.”
So it seems like, if the game is at all successful, their will be additional hardcovers, just not as many as Pathfinder produces and the AP will be much more important for updating info.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you advocating against balance?
I don't wanna play in a game where a level 20 fighter has a 50% win chance in combat against a level 20 wizard, so in regard to CM/D, I'm kinda arguing against balance. But my main argument against balance as the center of game design is actually what you say in the last paragraph, because to me, it's all about options and I don't believe that you can have a really balanced RPG without taking away too much of that options (or without making those options so similar that they are basically all the same). If that means that as the GM, I'm the one responsible for sufficient balance at my game table, that's a price I'm willing to pay, especially as that enables me to change the balance point depending on the story and the players' preferences.
That's not saying that Pathfinder couldn't be improved on that front and I agree that the designers' general answer to power creep is the wrong one though I find it less pronounced in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5. Still I think the real problem with regard to balance is not the mundane classes, but the full spellcasters, so instead of trying to improve on the "weaker" classes, they'd better nerf the spellcasters as hard as anyhow possible.
But then I think that all classes should be Tier 4 classes and that was never was D&D/PF was about, so I accept that this will never happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've ignored alignment restrictions in games that have them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, if your DM says Paladins have to be LG, you can't do anything but be LG if you want to play a paladin in their games. I was talking about what a publisher gives to a DM, not what opportunities a DM gives to a player.
No, it's not an issue for DMs. That's beside the point. The point is it still negatively impacts some participants of this game when the converse is not true.
If you're a GM who likes alignment restrictions, neither the presence nor the absence of those restrictions in the default game will have any bearing on yours.
If you're a GM who does not like alignment restrictions, then, as you've shown, neither the presence nor absence of alignment restrictions has any bearing on your game.
If you're a player who prefers alignment restrictions, then, as I've shown, it still doesn't matter whether alignment restrictions are in the game because if you're allowed to be anything you want, including lawful good, then that means you're allowed to be lawful good.
But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.
The publisher leaving alignment in the default game negatively impacts some. Taking alignment out of the game negatively impacts no one (you know, unless we're considering those who can't enjoy their lawful Monk unless they know that somewhere out there is another player who wants to play a not-lawful Monk and either can't or has to fight tooth and nail to do so; if we're seriously considering that a legitimate position to stand on, then yes, they would be negatively impacted if they suddelnly had to tolerate other people).
What arguments do you feel would actually be solved by a new edition (and not just turned into new arguments) and do you feel that those arguments actually warrant a new edition?
If a new edition of Pathfinder came out with absolutely no alignment or code of conduct restrictions (at least as far as the default game is concerned), then I feel that the arguments regarding their role in gameplay might finally be put into proper perspective. No, having alignment in the game does not auto-equate to better roleplaying. No, not having alignment in the game does not auto-equate to characters being made solely for Teh Kuul AbiliTeeZ. Yes, taking it out improves the game for some. Yes, taking it out does not hurt the gameplay of others. And yes, the only ones who are negatively impacted are the ones who can't enjoy the game or certain aspects of it without what they enjoy being at someone else's expense.
Because taking alignment out of the default game and changing how the issue is framed really would demonstrate exactly what the two sides are: those who want to play what they want to play, and those who want to play what they want to play AS LONG AS it's at the expense of others.
Seriously. One of the sides of the issue is something which I cannot imagine being described as anything other than pure selfishness, and yet, that's what is currently supported and encouraged. I feel like I'm saying "Babies should not be killed with hand grenades; what do we do about this?" and people are actually responding by questioning the premise of it being wrong to kill babies with hand grenades. How could that possibly be in doubt? It should be freaking self-evident. It boggles the mind.
But to answer the question, while I feel this might not resolve the argument, it would be nice for freaking once to see the other side have to fight an uphill battle while being forced to acknowledge exactly what their so-called need truly stems from. And yes, I feel it would be worth a new edition. I'm tired of being disenfranchised.
Actually, maybe based on the excitement it is causing, it sounds like the plan is now to do at least 1-2 hardcovers a year. So it won't get anywhere near the support of regular Pathfinder (with setting neutral hardcovers, Campaign setting, and player companion lines), but it is going to get some steady support outside the adventure paths.Nope. In interviews they say their plan is:
"With Starfinder we’re looking to do away with the distinction of "This is a rules book, this is a campaign setting book versus an adventure." If you like Starfinder, subscribe to the Starfinder line, get the adventure path, and that’ll also give you your rules for things related to it. The hope is that every month people will be getting another cool bite of that universe, whether it’s lore or crunch."Iirc, there will be two hardcovers (The Starfinder book itself, and a bestiary), but I haven't seen any info that suggests such a thing with be happening yearly.
So, since I don't want to waste my time with not ever using 2/3rd of each book after the start, it's not really for me.
The most recent interview about Starfinder has the following quote:
"We put out a lot of books for Pathfinder. In addition to the core rulebooks and the adventure paths we have the campaign setting books and the player companions. We’ve got a lot of stuff that we’re putting out there, and while that’s great and we’re excited that there’s that appetite from the audience, we simply don’t have the staff to do the same thing for Starfinder as well. And also we’ve heard a lot of people saying over the years: “God, I would love to collect all the Pathfinder stuff, but there’s just too much of it for me to stay current.” So one of the things we’re doing with Starfinder is really ramping back and saying: “Okay, we’re going to publish a couple of big books a year and then we’re going to have the main way you get new information about Starfinder be though the...
I hope they continue the trend of making those hardcovers general, overarching, resources to use anywhere and so on. And, I hope because there are only a few per year they are large and have info both wide and deep. As long as the APs aren't soft requirements to play each other or have interesting options, it should be fine.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to make a powerful build to play the canned campaigns right now.
Really? Personally I think that the campaigns have gotten way too easy over the years, so I've come to find them much more interesting if you're playing them without what is nowadays considered a "strong" build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to make a powerful build to play the canned campaigns right now.Really? Personally I think that the campaigns have gotten way too easy over the years, so I've come to find them much more interesting if you're playing them without what is nowadays considered a "strong" build.
I think this is largely AP dependent. I know playing Rise Anniversary Edition, it was basically a meat grinder ending in a face plant. A 3 year campaign ended in a TPK in book 6 and there just wasn't the collective will to continue.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The publisher leaving alignment in the default game negatively impacts some. Taking alignment out of the game negatively impacts no one
Not true. Because if I like alignment as it is* (as a GM) and install it in my games, I probably suddenly have to handle players that don't want to accept those restrictions (because it's not in the book), so that would negatively impact me and might even lead to me losing motivation in running that game which would impact the players negatively as well.
So no matter what the designers decide, it will have a possible negative impact on some people.
*I actually don't but I find it still useful to sort players out of my games who only want to play evil characters. It's easier to say: "No evil characters allowed" than having to discuss with the players every detail of the character because they try to sneak behaviors into the game I'm not willing to accept.
|
|
I think this is largely AP dependent. I know playing Rise Anniversary Edition, it was basically a meat grinder ending in a face plant. A 3 year campaign ended in a TPK in book 6 and there just wasn't the collective will to continue.
Yeah, but RotRL was the very first of the Pathfinder campaigns so it kinda supports my argument. I haven't read through the anniversary edition so far but I would have thought that it was revised with core only in mind. Am I wrong there?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
balance (and complexity) is subjective
I have to echo what Rhedyn said: balance is not subjective. What it is is subject to context. In a meatgrindy campaign a barbarian and fighter will be better equipped than the rogue. In a skill focused game the bard or investigator will be better equipped than the rogue. In just about any campaign, sorcerers & wizards will be better equipped to hanle presented situations than the fighter or rogue.
In regards to balance you have two levers to tweak: power and versatility. So for classes, how well can this class accomplish a given task (power) and how many tasks can it accomplish to some varying degree (versatility). Making specialized classes provide a problem because they need a lot of power in their given thing, which makes balancing encounters against such a party becomes difficult.
And I must make a related point: complexity is not subjective. Complexity doesn't mean "difficulty" or "required knowledge." Complexity is how many knobs you can tweak. To compare 5e & Pathfinder, 5e is less complex. Pathfinder has more feats total, more feats taken by a given character over their life, more intricate interaction with skills (ranks vs proficiencies), more spells to choose from (and I believe more spells per day), more magic items & expected party wealth, and the interactions of all the above with each other.
To address what Wraithsrike said earlier: building a computer isn't particularly complex if you're just assembling: a graphics card only fits in one place, the cpu only has one home, etc. Now aquiring the right parts is far more complex: what cpu slot does my motherboard use. Does the mobo have the right pci slots for the graphics card I want? Does that card have a good enough gpu / ram for whatever applications I want to run? More knobs to interact with.
I think this is largely AP dependent. I know playing Rise Anniversary Edition, it was basically a meat grinder ending in a face plant. A 3 year campaign ended in a TPK in book 6 and there just wasn't the collective will to continue.Yeah, but RotRL was the very first of the Pathfinder campaigns so it kinda supports my argument. I haven't read through the anniversary edition so far but I would have thought that it was revised with core only in mind. Am I wrong there?
Yes. Flipping through the AE, I see Bestiary 2 and APG. Basically, the hardbacks at the time.
Frankly Ive never been great at Sci-fi Story lines I will definitely need the adventure paths at first. I need the experience of running Sci-fi really.
This is my issue with Starfinder too. The closest things to Sci-Fi I've been able to run and felt good about how it went is closer to cyberpunk, post-apocalyptic, and urban dystopia stuff than anything involving spaceships. So it's definitely a wait-and-see for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's not an issue for DMs. That's beside the point.I've ignored alignment restrictions in games that have them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, if your DM says Paladins have to be LG, you can't do anything but be LG if you want to play a paladin in their games. I was talking about what a publisher gives to a DM, not what opportunities a DM gives to a player.
Err, no it's not. As I said in the comment you just quoted, that was the point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.
If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most recent interview about Starfinder has the following quote:
Interesting to see, thank you. I hope such Hard Covers will have as minimal setting as possible.
Me too, hearing "we're going to be releasing all the crunch via APs" just destroyed my hype for Starfinder completely.
Me too, hearing "we're going to be releasing all the crunch via APs" just destroyed my hype for Starfinder completely.
I read it as "all of the crunch is going to be in the couple of big hardbacks a year" and that the adventure paths would be as crunchy as usual. So there's just not going to be a monthly infusion of new feats, archetypes, items etc. like there is for Pathfinder.
Well yeah, that update brightened my mood a little, was talking about the previous statement.
Really hoping if we're getting so few the hardcovers are more like the Advanced or Ultimate line and less like the Inner Sea line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see this, actually. I had a similar experience trying to get a new group into gaming while I was deployed. I can not remember exact numbers, but out of a group of 9 or 10, two people outright dropped out when they saw just how many books there where, not even wanting to give it a shot. I almost lost another one when I started explaining different class possibilities, and then the topic of Archetypes/prestige classes/races, etc. . . came up in casual conversation, or how much Pathfinder seemed to lack so many different sorts of options for so many different classes or concepts, but seemed to have so many for others.
In the end, about half stayed and played. Almost all of them had experience with other similar games and hobbies, from 3E or 4E, to Magic the Gathering, but it had been a while for some with TTRPGs.
It took an enormous effort from me to try to convince them all to give it a shot, that I could help offer solid suggestions as to what they might want to do or try, and that I would allow them a few free opportunities to swap things around if after a few games they didn't like it, but even with that, and even with a pretty restricted character creation (as far as books), a good deal of them found it too much effort and buy in to consider it. And that's with me already having all of the books, so the financial side didn't even enter the equation.
I find this interesting, and it may have to do with player's expectations and desires for a game. I'm running my sons through adventures and starting them out. They are excited and thrilled with all the opportunities they have available to them. Keep in mind they are 12, 12, and 6 and don't have a track record with other systems. Maybe they aren't jaded yet, or don't know better, or are willing to focus on what they want rather than the multitude of choices out there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.
DMs with definitive preferences and DMs who understand the game well will add or remove restrictions as per their prerogative. However, there are a considerable number of DMs who more or less go with whatever restrictions exist in print for various reasons, and may even defend those restrictions without really understanding them.
D&D has been very instructive on this topic, as each new edition loosens the traditional restrictions a little bit more, putting the onus more and more on the traditionalists to justify those restrictions when these type of debates come up. Looking back at my years at the game table, I also think that the changing trend playing out (literally) is interesting. I started with 2e, where alignment restrictions are even stricter than in 3.x, then moved on to 3.x, then to 4e. Haven't played 5e, but as I understand it 5e has followed in 4e's footsteps when it comes to alignment restrictions.
I'm sure there are a few 4e and 5e DMs who rule that rogues can't be LG or that druids must be TN or whatever, but my experience has been that when the shoe is on the other foot -- when pro-restriction DMs must justify those restrictions without the implicit support of the printed rules, rather than when pro-freedom players must find DMs happy discard those printed rules -- the whole issue more or less evaporates. Players who want to play LG rogues or NG druids can roleplay their characters as they see fit, and DMs who truly dislike like the new freedoms tend to stick with an earlier edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really hoping if we're getting so few the hardcovers are more like the Advanced or Ultimate line and less like the Inner Sea line.
Definitely agree.
The publisher leaving alignment in the default game negatively impacts some. Taking alignment out of the game negatively impacts no oneNot true. Because if I like alignment as it is* (as a GM) and install it in my games, I probably suddenly have to handle players that don't want to accept those restrictions (because it's not in the book), so that would negatively impact me and might even lead to me losing motivation in running that game which would impact the players negatively as well.
So no matter what the designers decide, it will have a possible negative impact on some people.
*I actually don't but I find it still useful to sort players out of my games who only want to play evil characters. It's easier to say: "No evil characters allowed" than having to discuss with the players every detail of the character because they try to sneak behaviors into the game I'm not willing to accept.
How would it change what happens?
You have two games, one with alignment, one without. In both cases, the GM wants alignment in his game, and he has players who don't. In both cases, either the players will put up with not playing what they want to play (either while still playing or by voting with their feet), or the GM forewent alignment in his game. Both outcomes leading to your less-motivated GM. How does taking alignment out of the default game change those outcomes?
In contrast, in games where the GM does not care whether he has alignment or not but simply settles (because he's otherwise busy or simply apathetic) for what's already printed in the book, whatever it is, if the whatever-it-is is a lack of alignment, then non-alignment players are good to go, pro-alignment non-selfish players can still self-restrict anyway, and selfish players are the only ones not being catered to (and I am fine with selfishness not being catered to). But if the whatever-it-is is alignment, then the selfish are catered to because it's at the expense of others. I have a fundamental problem with that.
As for what you use alignment for, what counts as evil? Aren't you going to be discussing that with the players anyway? And how does a game not having alignment impact your ability to ask players to let off jerkish behavior? It sounds like an out-of-game issue that can simply be resolved out-of-game.
Err, no it's not. As I said in the comment you just quoted, that was the point.No, it's not an issue for DMs. That's beside the point.I've ignored alignment restrictions in games that have them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, if your DM says Paladins have to be LG, you can't do anything but be LG if you want to play a paladin in their games. I was talking about what a publisher gives to a DM, not what opportunities a DM gives to a player.
If the GM can do what they want anyway, then they have infinite options, regardless of what the publisher does. Since they're untouchable anyway, the only work that can be done is that which impacts those who aren't untouchable. That's the players. My point is that if we can do nothing for or against one subset of the participants of this game, but we can help another subset (and at the expense of no one but the selfish), then shouldn't we? Great power, great responsibility?
But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.
When he's making a deliberate choice to do so, yes. What about when he doesn't care either way, and just leaves it as is because it's less work? Or when he hears both sides for or against taking alignment out, but doesn't realize the inherent selfishness of mandatory alignment (in that it never helps the player who wants to be restricted because he can be restricted by his own power but only hurts other players)?
But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.DMs with definitive preferences and DMs who understand the game well will add or remove restrictions as per their prerogative. However, there are a considerable number of DMs who more or less go with whatever restrictions exist in print for various reasons, and may even defend those restrictions without really understanding them.
D&D has been very instructive on this topic, as each new edition loosens the traditional restrictions a little bit more, putting the onus more and more on the traditionalists to justify those restrictions when these type of debates come up. Looking back at my years at the game table, I also think that the changing trend playing out (literally) is interesting. I started with 2e, where alignment restrictions are even stricter than in 3.x, then moved on to 3.x, then to 4e. Haven't played 5e, but as I understand it 5e has followed in 4e's footsteps when it comes to alignment restrictions.
I'm sure there are a few 4e and 5e DMs who rule that rogues can't be LG or that druids must be TN or whatever, but my experience has been that when the shoe is on the other foot -- when pro-restriction DMs must justify those restrictions without the implicit support of the printed rules, rather than when pro-freedom players must find DMs happy discard those printed rules -- the whole issue more or less evaporates. Players who want to play LG rogues or NG druids can roleplay their characters as they see fit, and DMs who truly dislike like...
What this guy said (which I didn't even see when I was writing out mypost). Truer words have been spoken, but none come to mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the full thread. About halfway in, I decided I don't want to really argue.
The following is just my opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong. Time will tell.
As I see it, Paizo has 3 options:
1) Release a new edition of Pathfinder. Bad because they will lose part of their customer base, who won't convert over. Good because they can consolidate most of the existing setting books and quickly get the setting information out. However, they're going to be competing with Pathfinder 1E, and WotC can tell you how hard competing with your own product can bite you.
2) Abandon Pathfinder for Starfinder and similar games. They're still going to lose customers, but they won't compete with 5E and can write entirely new setting books so they're not repeating products. However, they also will be walking away from a product that made them and that will damage their reputation.
3) Pull a GURPS and just keep releasing more products. They're still going to lose customers eventually, just due to bloat. They also risk falling to same fate as GURPS, which is being relegated to the oldtimers and the dregs of the internet (most GURPS players I've met hang out on 4chan).
I don't see Paizo as having a good option here. I don't see them as having an option that isn't going to hurt. I think it's up to them to pick which bad option they can live with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the full thread. About halfway in, I decided I don't want to really argue.
The following is just my opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong. Time will tell.
As I see it, Paizo has 3 options:
1) Release a new edition of Pathfinder. Bad because they will lose part of their customer base, who won't convert over. Good because they can consolidate most of the existing setting books and quickly get the setting information out. However, they're going to be competing with Pathfinder 1E, and WotC can tell you how hard competing with your own product can bite you.
2) Abandon Pathfinder for Starfinder and similar games. They're still going to lose customers, but they won't compete with 5E and can write entirely new setting books so they're not repeating products. However, they also will be walking away from a product that made them and that will damage their reputation.
3) Pull a GURPS and just keep releasing more products. They're still going to lose customers eventually, just due to bloat. They also risk falling to same fate as GURPS, which is being relegated to the oldtimers and the dregs of the internet (most GURPS players I've met hang out on 4chan).
I don't see Paizo as having a good option here. I don't see them as having an option that isn't going to hurt. I think it's up to them to pick which bad option they can live with.
4) Continue as they are, along with releasing Starfinder. Ignore 5E and keep doing their own thing. IIRC, 4E was going to take away most of the business as well. 6E might be the one to do it next, but it's early to say that 5E is going to do anything to Pathfinder.
There are people that won't go back to WOTC regardless, or aren't interested in the system being presented, or any of a thousand reasons. Let them do their thing, concentrate on doing Pathfinder well: a rich world, interesting APs, new and interesting rules developments and so on. Redoing the rules and re-releasing all your greatest hits with a new coat of paint is something they should leave to WOTC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the full thread. About halfway in, I decided I don't want to really argue.
The following is just my opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong. Time will tell.
As I see it, Paizo has 3 options:
1) Release a new edition of Pathfinder. Bad because they will lose part of their customer base, who won't convert over. Good because they can consolidate most of the existing setting books and quickly get the setting information out. However, they're going to be competing with Pathfinder 1E, and WotC can tell you how hard competing with your own product can bite you.
2) Abandon Pathfinder for Starfinder and similar games. They're still going to lose customers, but they won't compete with 5E and can write entirely new setting books so they're not repeating products. However, they also will be walking away from a product that made them and that will damage their reputation.
3) Pull a GURPS and just keep releasing more products. They're still going to lose customers eventually, just due to bloat. They also risk falling to same fate as GURPS, which is being relegated to the oldtimers and the dregs of the internet (most GURPS players I've met hang out on 4chan).
I don't see Paizo as having a good option here. I don't see them as having an option that isn't going to hurt. I think it's up to them to pick which bad option they can live with.
4) Continue as they are, along with releasing Starfinder. Ignore 5E and keep doing their own thing. IIRC, 4E was going to take away most of the business as well. 6E might be the one to do it next, but it's early to say that 5E is going to do anything to Pathfinder.
There are people that won't go back to WOTC regardless, or aren't interested in the system being presented, or any of a thousand reasons. Let them do their thing, concentrate on doing Pathfinder well: a rich world, interesting APs, new and interesting rules developments and so on. Redoing the rules and re-releasing all your greatest hits with a new coat of...
Your number 4 is not a different option from my number 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even GURPS eventually has to publish a new edition (4th ed came out in 2004, 12 years after 3rd ed.) The stuff that came out recently was more "GURPS 4.5th edition" too, so a 5th ed shouldn't be too far out.
Just curious, would the "I'm not willing to rebuy books" folks have the same opinion of Pathfinder 2nd edition were to come out in, say, 2020?
Your number 4 is not a different option from my number 3.
Well, other than leaving out that the game would be regulated to oldtimers and the dregs of the internet. I'd like to think that so far, even though a good number of gamers may be getting older, we here on this board aren't the dregs of the internet. :)
Just curious, would the "I'm not willing to rebuy books" folks have the same opinion of Pathfinder 2nd edition were to come out in, say, 2020?
Can't speak for others, but I definitely wouldn't bother rebuying books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, would the "I'm not willing to rebuy books" folks have the same opinion of Pathfinder 2nd edition were to come out in, say, 2020?Can't speak for others, but I definitely wouldn't bother rebuying books.
There are multiple RPGs I own all the books for over multiple editions. The way this has always worked for me is "I loved the old edition, so I'll check out the core book and see if the new one grabs me." I think anybody who loves PF ought to at least owe the opportunity to give the CRB 2.0 a fair shot. Sometimes it does (every edition of Changeling is better than the previous one), and sometimes it doesn't.
The key for updating a version successfully, I feel, is not repeating yourself, since a whole lot of stuff is either going to carry over from the previous version, or it's really trivial to update/port.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your number 4 is not a different option from my number 3.Well, other than leaving out that the game would be regulated to oldtimers and the dregs of the internet. I'd like to think that so far, even though a good number of gamers may be getting older, we here on this board aren't the dregs of the internet. :)
Not even close. Well, unless you count me. I'm pretty sure I count as a dreg.
But, it's still a long-term risk they have to consider. No one back in the day thought GURPS would end up there either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most recent interview about Starfinder has the following quote:Interesting to see, thank you. I hope such Hard Covers will have as minimal setting as possible.
I don't think so. The core book is setting and game. The adventure path books will be adventure and crunch. From what little I have seen the hardcovers will be like the core book - setting and mechanics. They are not splitting Starfinder the way they do with Pathfinder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the full thread. About halfway in, I decided I don't want to really argue.
The following is just my opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong. Time will tell.
As I see it, Paizo has 3 options:
1) Release a new edition of Pathfinder. Bad because they will lose part of their customer base, who won't convert over. Good because they can consolidate most of the existing setting books and quickly get the setting information out. However, they're going to be competing with Pathfinder 1E, and WotC can tell you how hard competing with your own product can bite you.
Honestly, I really don't see this being all that bad of an option. People are always going to say they will not buy the books again, but I'd wager that the vast majority of these folks have purchased at least one copy of the multiple Core book reprints, if not things like the Alpha or Beta Pathfinder release. That's assuming that they purchased a physical book at all, which have been pretty notorious for not lasting too long or well.
If we assume that the PDF is an option, at a common, fairly cheap price, I imagine that the number of people that claim they would not rebuy and actually would not would probably drop even more significantly. The other side of the coin is that it would be another great opportunity for brand new players to get in at a good starting point, meaning it would more likely than not actually increase the number of sales.
TTRPG players tend to be completionists/collectors, and it's also pretty likely that as the game continued to move on to new things, just like it has with the APC, ACG, Ult This or That's, they will likely also want to continue on. Even if they don't, continuing to play with others that have is a pretty large incentive as well.
I also really do not see too much competition against themselves, assuming that it's more along the lines of Core Rulebook Update, (fixing long term issues, bringing Core Classes more in line with later books, and making Unchained options the standard).
Another large aspect about D&D's settings that doesn't really apply with Pathfinder, or at least much is that Pathfinder's settings do not evolve or advance. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc. . . all had large pushes to evolve their settings, which tended to leave the fan base have very mixed feelings. Pathfinder assumes a Year Zero approach, for the most part, across the board, and especially if the Rules are kept safely away from the setting, this is absolutely not a concern.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are multiple RPGs I own all the books for over multiple editions. The way this has always worked for me is "I loved the old edition, so I'll check out the core book and see if the new one grabs me." I think anybody who loves PF ought to at least owe the opportunity to give the CRB 2.0 a fair shot. Sometimes it does (every edition of Changeling is better than the previous one), and sometimes it doesn't.
I don't have much money, so I'm unlikely to purchase a product unless I think I might use it's contents. I'm likely to buy changeling 2e, because of the previews showing a methodology and themes I approve of. With Pathfinder, I'm unlikely to buy a second edition since I can already just homebrew Pathfinder to be how I desire + disagreeing many of Paizo's views.
The key for updating a version successfully, I feel, is not repeating yourself, since a whole lot of stuff is either going to carry over from the previous version, or it's really trivial to update/port.
Which leads to the issue of "in that case why didn't they just do another unchained".
I don't think so. The core book is setting and game. The adventure path books will be adventure and crunch. From what little I have seen the hardcovers will be like the core book - setting and mechanics. They are not splitting Starfinder the way they do with Pathfinder.
That's disappointing.