If PFS rules were the Pathfinder chassis, would it be an overall better game?

Self-explanatory question. Not necessarily a rules post, nor a requisition of advice, just a matter of curiosity and gathering a consensus of opinion of others on the boards here, and comparing their feelings between two subjects.

Let's take your current PFS rules and regulations. Now, imagine if every single one of those rules/regulations was, in fact, the rules written into your Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat/Magic/Campaign/Equipment, whatever Pathfinder book they made, and that was what was developed and sent over as a game in place of what the in-book rules are now.

How would this impact you and your current games? Would they be more balanced? More boring? Too limited? And most importantly, would you have purchased Pathfinder after you understood that the rules of PFS are also, in fact, the rules of the standard Pathfinder game, or would you have went to a different system, or even reverted to 3.X?

PFS's rules focus is mostly around keeping a stable environment where players and/or GMs can change but the game remains playable and enjoyable regardless. These rules aren't really necessary in home games where you might expect players and GMs to remain mostly static and packaging them as core would be jarring.

However, a big part of PFS is that those rules are centrally enforced, which is obviously not possible in a home game. If they were packaged in core it wouldn't make much difference in my opinion because people in home games would simply house-rule away the parts that were no longer applicable.

The rules that would clash the most would be the ones that require GM fiat or deal with game world continuity (crafting, items carrying over etc) but they would also be the most likely to be removed or adjusted in a home game anyway.

Self-explanatory question. Not necessarily a rules post, nor a requisition of advice, just a matter of curiosity and gathering a consensus of opinion of others on the boards here, and comparing their feelings between two subjects.

Let's take your current PFS rules and regulations. Now, imagine if every single one of those rules/regulations was, in fact, the rules written into your Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat/Magic/Campaign/Equipment, whatever Pathfinder book they made, and that was what was developed and sent over as a game in place of what the in-book rules are now.

How would this impact you and your current games? Would they be more balanced? More boring? Too limited? And most importantly, would you have purchased Pathfinder after you understood that the rules of PFS are also, in fact, the rules of the standard Pathfinder game, or would you have went to a different system, or even reverted to 3.X?

I haven't done PFS yet, but are the rules different enough that it matters? My sense was that it was just a few banned archetypes/classes and no crafting or leadership?

I don't think I'd care for it much. I dislike being told how to run my games.

Being required to run the modules as written. LOL. Screw that. The GM should totally customize anything and everything to make the game better for his players and himself.

It would be disappointing. I am not thrilled with the alignment system but prohibiting players from being evil and/or taking abilities from an 'evil' like class frustrating.

Banning (nearly) all magical crafting. While I personally don't want my player PCs to be crafting with all the downtime for a variety of reason... I like that it exists.

Ending campaigns at 11th level (effectively). While I believe the game breaks down to rocket tag at a certain point I want the freedom to set the cap where I see fit.

And book keeping... I don't think I need to keep an account of every purchase and sale for the duration of a character lifespan.

I see nearly zero benefits to using PFS rules for a self contained game. If you want to use some of the PFS framework for your own game use it, but cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. PFS is set up to get random strangers working in the same direction. Your home game probably isn't random strangers so you can better deal with the outliers.

Pretty much what Scythia and Maezer have said. I would probably not play Pathfinder if it had the same rules as PFS.

Good god no.

No thank you, I prefer Pathfinder as is and modify it how I see fit, with the pieces there if I decide to reincorporate.

My home group basically uses most of the PFS rules with regard to banned archetypes, feats, spells, and whatnot, though we allow crafting and leadership. We also use the 1 exp per game session advancement scale instead of the standard one, which works much better for us.

However, we write our own adventures. The level 11 cap isn't an issue for us because we play E6, which is the absolute best way to play Pathfinder (or 3.X) in my opinion. Seriously, give it a shot; it solves like 99% of the problems with d20.

I have to say, it works pretty well and I think the reason is that, as Maezer said above:

PFS is set up to get random strangers working in the same direction.

Our game started as a workplace group, so we had revolving DMs and groups of 4-8 for each session out of a total of about 14 players. Whoever showed up each week would play, so using the PFS rules for tracking experience, loot, boons, etc worked really well for us.

Some of the base rules are ok, but PFS also bans a lot of stuff for pretty arbitrary reasons or to enforce certain game themes and the game wouldn't really benefit by having stuff like that wholesale removed.

No. I like that Paizo has rules that cover a lot of things so we all know what to expect, but I also like that every group can ignore the rules they don't care for. <----for the sake of my answer I will pretend Paizo could actually somehow control your home game or take away your GM power. I am assuming it is possible to strip a PFS GM of GM'ing authority if he just blatently ignores the PFS rules.

I don't play PFS.

If Pathfinder used the PFS rules i neither would have bought a single book once i understood it , nor i would play it when my friends called me for it.

PFS is something better avoided.

The way i see gaming experience, it have a lot less to do with ruleset than with the GM personality/skill.

Making PFS rules the default rules for Pathfinder would have a practical problem: All of the APs (except perhaps for Council of Thieves) would have to be redesigned, because the PFS level cap of 12 is less than the level you are supposed to have when approaching the end of the AP (even though we currently have no Paizo AP that goes all the way to level 20 without modification).

Making PFS rules the default rules for Pathfinder would have a practical problem: All of the APs (except perhaps for Council of Thieves) would have to be redesigned, because the PFS level cap of 12 is less than the level you are supposed to have when approaching the end of the AP (even though we currently have no Paizo AP that goes all the way to level 20 without modification).

Wrath of the righteous?

What, and miss out on all the arbitrarily banned stuff like the Nanite-blooded Sorcerer or all of the firearm-related archetypes of the classes? And Dreamscarred Press's awesome psionics? God no.

Wrath of the righteous?

I suppose, although the pathfinderwiki.com entry for Wrath of the Righteous City of Locusts (book 6) says level 18 with Mythic Rank 9 (I don't have the actual AP, so maybe they mean you go in at this level and come out level 20 with Mythic Rank 10). On the other hand, Mythic throws a monkey wrench into the consideration: Not being in PFS myself, I can't be absolutely sure, but I don't think PFS allows Mythic either (although that's probably a GOOD thing).

Yeah, no.

No 3p, no crafting, no evil, no firearms, for the most part no poison (not a huge problem, but still), NO VIVISECTIONIST, no kingdom building, and a slew of other things are just not my game.

None of this games a game I'm interested in.

No, why would it be? You'd just be eliminating options for non-Society games. If you want to adapt some or all of the Society rules to a personal game, you can.

Nope.

Yeah, no.

No 3p, no crafting, no evil, no firearms, for the most part no poison (not a huge problem, but still), NO VIVISECTIONIST, no kingdom building, and a slew of other things are just not my game.

None of this games a game I'm interested in.

I have always found the lack of Vivisectionist particularly odd considering Razmiran Priest Sorcerer is completely legal. I mean there's nothing a Vivisectionist has that some other class couldn't (Except use Knowledge Nature in place of Heal I guess?) already do. And for those of us who like the Alchemist, but hate bombs, it's the perfect choice. I honestly can't see how it's any more likely to be evil then some other class with those exact same abilities.

Wraithstrike wrote:

Wrath of the righteous?

I suppose, although the pathfinderwiki.com entry for Wrath of the Righteous City of Locusts (book 6) says level 18 with Mythic Rank 9 (I don't have the actual AP, so maybe they mean you go in at this level and come out level 20 with Mythic Rank 10). On the other hand, Mythic throws a monkey wrench into the consideration: Not being in PFS myself, I can't be absolutely sure, but I don't think PFS allows Mythic either (although that's probably a GOOD thing).

I thought it actually went to 20 by the end of the book. I dont own the book so I can't verify it.

I think that PFS or any regulated gaming society like that is the bane of RPGs. Take that as you will.

If I want to play a game with so many restrictions, I play MMOs, so I've never played PFS. If PFS was the core rules, I'd have stuck with 3.5.

I admit, the way that I read the original poster's question is more "what if all the house rule elements in Pathfinder Society were the part of the core game" rather than "what if Pathfinder RPG forced you to report every game you run and allowed you to run only published adventures (rather than one's own stories)." If it is in fact the latter, I wholeheartedly agree with those who have responded—and I am the developer for Pathfinder Society. Having rules that encourage players and GMs to make their own stories and create new experiences together is a critical part of the game. Pathfinder Society is simply one popular way to enjoy a great game.

What I think Darksol is getting at is whether you would have purchased the game if the house rules were the baseline assumption, and prohibited options just never existed in the first place. No "Pathfinder police" would shut down your home game if you deviated, but the game would assume that certain things are true:

• PCs use 20 point buy.
  
• Evil-aligned PCs are assumed not to be an option. As a result, many evil-aligned options would not exist.
  
• Certain hard-to-adjudicate-in-an-organized-play-environment options would not exist (e.g. Leadership, item crafting, many alternate rules systems, and a small percentage of the feats, magic items, archetypes, and traits). Perhaps the base game would publish an alternate rules system with these down the line, but the assumption is that they would not exist at all.
  
• Acquiring magic items of a certain cost would be prohibited until the PC found such an item or earned enough trust from local fixers to find or make such an item for him.
  
• Some behavioral standards might appear in the Core Rulebook, such as Don't Be A Jerk, Don't Cheat, and the advice that one keep track of her own character sheet.
  
• The game would recommend that certain races either not be available to PCs or be available in limited quantities. This one is a little hard to figure out what it would say, as in a home game, there's not necessarily a codified way to decide availability beyond perhaps rolling on a percentage table (not a good solution).
  

The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild isn't everybody's ideal way to play the game, but it does provide a very enjoyable experience to tens of thousands—in part by including several restrictions and standards that facilitate casual play in an ever-growing community and public environment. Some of those are quite unnecessary in a small group where all members can discuss and agree upon their own standards.

I'd personally love it! In fact, I'm running a home campaign that is entirely within the PFS framework, down to the scenarios, prestige, having to buy items after the fact, etc...

Before I discovered PFS, I had started to get real bored with homebrew campaigns, both as a player and as a GM. In my opinion, the Society rules make the game a lot more enjoyable, and my players are having a great time too! The Society rules give a lot more structure, I think, and I love the bookkeeping that comes with it. Of course, I try to blend the stories of the scenarios together to make the world more alive.

Honestly, I'd think the general Pathfinder rules benefit immensely from the Society additions.

No, my gm is more than capable of providing challenges and even defeat no matter what power level people make their chracters.

No. Just... just no.

No.

As much as I love PFS there is a place for rules that work perfectly fine in a home game with controlled downtime or that require more dm fiddling and interpretation than you can when you change dms on a weekly basis.

Organized play is intentionally different from home games. I played in an organized play story arc that took 13 session - so that I wasn't forming an opinion after one try - and I did not care for it.

No.

I like a lot of the standard assumption that Pathfinder has. For example, I have never known a group not to roll stats. (Though I shall be keeping a much closer eye on how certain people "roll" stats in future.) While point buy is obviously needed for Society it would feel weird as a core assumption as dice rolls and chance add a certain spontaneity.

I admit, the way that I read the original poster's question is more "what if all the house rule elements in Pathfinder Society were the part of the core game" rather than "what if Pathfinder RPG forced you to report every game you run and allowed you to run only published adventures (rather than one's own stories)." If it is in fact the latter, I wholeheartedly agree with those who have responded—and I am the developer for Pathfinder Society. Having rules that encourage players and GMs to make their own stories and create new experiences together is a critical part of the game. Pathfinder Society is simply one popular way to enjoy a great game.

What I think Darksol is getting at is whether you would have purchased the game if the house rules were the baseline assumption, and prohibited options just never existed in the first place. No "Pathfinder police" would shut down your home game if you deviated, but the game would assume that certain things are true:

PCs use 20 point buy.

Evil-aligned PCs are assumed not to be an option. As a result, many evil-aligned options would not exist.

Certain hard-to-adjudicate-in-an-organized-play-environment options would not exist (e.g. Leadership, item crafting, many alternate rules systems, and a small percentage of the feats, magic items, archetypes, and traits). Perhaps the base game would publish an alternate rules system with these down the line, but the assumption is that they would not exist at all.

Acquiring magic items of a certain cost would be prohibited until the PC found such an item or earned enough trust from local fixers to find or make such an item for him.

Some behavioral standards might appear in the Core Rulebook, such as Don't Be A Jerk, Don't Cheat, and the advice that one keep track of her own character sheet.

The game would recommend that certain races either not be available to PCs or be available in limited quantities. This one is a little hard to figure out what it would say, as in a home game, there's not...

Thanks for coming in to clarify my question. I will say that it was in fact, the former, but the latter part would certainly be a part of the former (as it is an element in PFS gameplay, as far as I know).

It was my intention in regards to my question (or more accurately, social experiment) that things which were banned/not allowed in PFS at all were simply not a part of the game to begin with, or were GM/NPC specific options, whichever is most fair or obvious to apply (i.e. Anti-Paladins and Evil Alignments would be GM only options, but maybe archetypes like Vivisectionist would just not exist). I think a lot of the angst (should I call it that? If it's not that, then let's say disagreement) comes from the elimination and/or limitation of player customization and options that the current game currently allows. Which is certainly a valid and telling concern, one that I would probably share.

But I also looked at the inverse; that is, working with what is there, and it seems like a lot of the gripe (again, should I call it that?) that I've seen among these forums (I've shared these "gripes" as well) that PFS might serve as a more balanced and fair experience for the players.

I mean, look at the Caster/Martial disparity that we see all over these boards, look at all of the optimization guides and builds that assume that you're following the PFS baseline (perhaps because it's the most widespread baseline that's used outside of some homebrew tables, but still, it's a well-known standard), a lot of this stuff either solves (the former) or provides a balancing equilibrium (the latter) that many forumites (I can't really think of a better term than this) seem to desire, and I thought "Hm, maybe a matter of keeping things balanced and consistent would outweigh a lot of things," and what else would be well-known for such other than PFS.

Should I be surprised that a lot of people (even a PFS developer) said that PFS shouldn't be the baseline package for Pathfinder? A little (at least, the developer part), but the social experiment at this point boils down to Options V.S. Balance/Consistency, and it's good to know that a lot of people value Options more. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; in hindsight, perhaps Options would solve the concept of Balance/Consistency, especially in relations to the widespread issues concerning such, but I will certainly say that it's a long stretch before we can see it reaching that point.

Thanks for the input, everyone!

Assuming we are saying that the PFS rules were the standard game I would not have played Pathfinder if it stopped at level 12, since I was used to 3.5. That rule alone to me would have hindered the game. I know everyone does not like going all the way to 20, but most people I have ran games for and played with like to at least see level 17.

There are other things that I don't agree with about PFS, if it were to stand in for the current rules, but I think it is clear that my answer is "no".

PFS is really no different than the home brew rules that practically every game has. These rules will work for some while others won't.

I used some of the PFS rules and restrictions as a sort of litmus test for what content I felt needed to be reviewed before the game began. It really helped as a starting point and in the end I had a list of things to discuss with the group.

...but making PFS rules a default in Pathfinder....nope, nope, double nope. :)

PFS is really no different than the home brew rules that practically every game has. These rules will work for some while others won't.

The difference being that one is inflexible.

John Compton wrote:

I admit, the way that I read the original poster's question is more "what if all the house rule elements in Pathfinder Society were the part of the core game" rather than "what if Pathfinder RPG forced you to report every game you run and allowed you to run only published adventures (rather than one's own stories)." If it is in fact the latter, I wholeheartedly agree with those who have responded—and I am the developer for Pathfinder Society. Having rules that encourage players and GMs to make their own stories and create new experiences together is a critical part of the game. Pathfinder Society is simply one popular way to enjoy a great game.

What I think Darksol is getting at is whether you would have purchased the game if the house rules were the baseline assumption, and prohibited options just never existed in the first place. No "Pathfinder police" would shut down your home game if you deviated, but the game would assume that certain things are true:

PCs use 20 point buy.

Evil-aligned PCs are assumed not to be an option. As a result, many evil-aligned options would not exist.

Certain hard-to-adjudicate-in-an-organized-play-environment options would not exist (e.g. Leadership, item crafting, many alternate rules systems, and a small percentage of the feats, magic items, archetypes, and traits). Perhaps the base game would publish an alternate rules system with these down the line, but the assumption is that they would not exist at all.

Acquiring magic items of a certain cost would be prohibited until the PC found such an item or earned enough trust from local fixers to find or make such an item for him.

Some behavioral standards might appear in the Core Rulebook, such as Don't Be A Jerk, Don't Cheat, and the advice that one keep track of her own character sheet.

The game would recommend that certain races either not be available to PCs or be available in limited quantities. This one is a little hard to figure out what it would say, as in a

...

See, I think that some elements of PFS simply can't work in home games.

The caster/martial discrepancies exists partially because of assumed wealth by level.
In practice(at least in my home games), martials usually get more than their fair share of the loot, usually in the form of magic weapons and gear found that are exceptionally useful to the martial but not so for casters taken before the rest is sold and cut.
In the end, my home game PCs are typically quite on-par with each other. Their actual wealth value is not.

The options that would not exist ever: yes, I would still play the game without them, as since they would not exist, I'd never know I wanted them.
However, I think the game is more with them than without.
PFS barred bloodlines and archtypes, races, gods, and equipment. Rules like downtime and building creation. I like all of these things

That said, we DO use PFS as a guide in my group. it gives us an idea of what to be wary of, but we don't let it stop us.

Absolutely not. I love Pathfinder for its customization. I can play basically anything i want in Pathfinder. Theres so many limitations on society.

I think John Compton has said it better then I possibly could have said it.

The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Page 9 Core Rule Book

I don't think PFS rules would be a good fit as the base assumption of the game. In a home game we need the freedom to play the game and modify it to what we need and want.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

RedDogMT wrote:

PFS is really no different than the home brew rules that practically every game has. These rules will work for some while others won't.

The difference being that one is inflexible.

So what? They were made to fit PFS, not home games.

That's like saying a bicycle is restrictive because it isn't a car. They serve different purposes.

The PFS rules are guidelines for a particular style of play and campaign given the nature of a living campaign they have to make some choices and enforce consistent rulings in some areas. Banning item crafting and evil characters are 2 of these which I would definitely support for something like PFS as one is very mechanically abusable and one is an excuse for some players to behave badly.
In my home game neither of these are a problem as I know my players and can trust them or make specific allowances, which would not be practical for making PFS consistent across different GM's or players. So PFS rules are intended for a totally different environment than home games and would be a poor place for a baseline for the game.

I personally have no real interest in ever gm'ing a PFS game due to the apparent constraints imposed on gm's, however I have no need to as I game with groups of friends on a long term basis

The game is made to be run as your gaming group enjoys it, easily adjustable to your tastes. So no PFS is not the best way to play the game but it is a way to play the game making it more accessible for many people that otherwise wouldn't have a steady gaming group.

I will agree with others here , PFS makes the "necessary" house rules and changes to PF , so that it can work within its own system , where players and DMs might change often , that you might need to police the players...

Many of the options PFS cuts out of the game , work perfectly fine at home games or the GMs make their own changes that fit their groups better than just removing it completely.

Personally what makes PF great for me are the many options it offers to me that many other systems , that just lack the gigantic size of PF , just dont cover , options that PFS cuts right out of the game.

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I think the most jarring difference would be sending unsolicited reports to local venture lieutenants after each session of my home game.

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

Well, of course Pathfinder wouldn't be better if limited to just one type of play. That's the strength of Pathfinder: it allows a wide range of play styles, including both society play (for those who see the advantages that has to offer), and games catering to players and GMs who would chafe under the restrictions necessary to support the goals of society play. It even embraces players who openly denigrate the choices of others, and feel that their desired play style is somehow superior to any other choice.

Pathfinder Society play certainly isn't for everybody. But to suggest that it is somehow an unsuitable choice for anybody to make is a rather narrow-minded view, and one that reflects poorly on the player.

Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

You've never been in one of my games.

You want summoner classic? You want gunslinger? You want path of war? You want talented classes? You want crazy races? You want to try to combine classes but don't like VMC rules? If it's in a book I own, I allow it. If it's a book I don't own, I consider it if provided a copy.

Honestly, the only thing I would like to ban is multi-classing, but I still allow it. :P