Mark Carlson 255's page

James Jacobs won't barge through your door and pulverize you for altering Golarion or for not following Paizo's books to the letter. No, seriously, he won't.

smile,

Then again having James Jacobs visit your game might be a huge Piazo Prize to give away or maybe even a lottery for them to run.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The main idea is "how to get more people groups involved in the settings and keep them involved?". Will the living setting idea work? In the past (I think it was called the living city project or soemthing back in the 90's) I think it was tried but the things you need were not in place (the internet). And I seem to remember that there was comments about organization of "how things were done" that some people thought were troublesome.

Living City was an RPGA organized play system for AD&D based around the city of Raven's Bluff in the Forgotten Realms. It was pretty much exclusively run as events at things like conventions and tournaments, so the communication issues weren't as bad as you imply.

Living City also ran for about 15 years, so I think it qualifies for a bit more than just "tried".

Thanks for the info and I will look further into it.

MDC

Captain Morgan,
Thanks for the info, I did not copy your comments above since I am the next poster but they are in response to your post (and now there will probably be a few posts before mine just to make things difficult.)

From my experience and comments of other with PF 2 B1 (and maybe some of the expansion or edits but not beyond edit #3) and keeping in mind that it was a beta or alpha beta test and trying to look at the underlying structure presented and not the "paint on the face".

1) Magic items seemed to tied to the PC and being given them at specific points seemed very video game like. (Maybe the market has changed to the point this is often standard but it is one thing quite often that I have heard people say turns them off to a game. But then again that is why a good number of systems are needed so everyone can be reasonably happy(but do not expect your new canine processed solid mocha (dog poo) to be a hit with everyone and sell a bunch))
2) Magic items power and abilities: In general they often had more powers but they seemed underwhelming (tight math was thought to be the issue here as well as level to skill).
3) Runes: In general the idea was liked but the sear number and how it was integrated to the system was not. Just being able to take them off things and put them on things was one area.
4) It has been a while since I deleted the play test rules but from memory it was thought a good idea to try and have the possibility or additive combo items or set items. But if that became too much an thing it could negativly impact the game. ie cloak and boots of elvinkind having some synergy as well as some other sets but the common the sets became it diluted the idea. I guess in terms of rarity; a very few sets (maybe racial in nature or tied to a city, guild or org) would be uncommon or common but most of them would be rare.
5) major items vs a number of minor items:
a) In the past (I do not remember the cost rules in the beta) having one item with lots of abilities was prohibited as the cost quickly out weighed the benefits. ie combining some common ring types, sustenance and temperature control.
b) It seamed that the compacting abilities into one item was a dislike for magic items in general and just was way to deal with them.

Sorry got to go, if I did not answer any you want me to please ask again or send me a PM and I will post in the thread or directly back to you.
MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Play "These Things Significantly After Release":

Can you expand on this a bit? Because I think I know what you are saying but I do not want to try and read your mind.

I mean like, we probably never would have considered playing Shattered Star if Return of the Runelords wasn't a sequel to it. But since it is, we'll probably get to it before starting Return of the Runelords. If something comes out that is really exciting it will jump to the front of the queue but if a lot of subsequent APs were based on "what happened in Serpent's Skull or Jade Regent" I would be at a loss since I've never played those.

We did do council of thieves in 2017 because we thought it might tie into Hell's Rebels, though.

Thanks, I understand now what you are saying.

Yes that is or can be an issue with living settings and is something that has to be managed on the dev end.
Like I said I could see 1 AP being "living" over 1 1/2 years and then a 1/2 a year to work those changes into the world and AP's and modules after that taking that new info into account.
You can also change the time frame from 1 1/2 + 1/2 years to 2 1/2 + 1/2 years to provide more of a window for play.

The main idea is "how to get more people groups involved in the settings and keep them involved?". Will the living setting idea work? In the past (I think it was called the living city project or soemthing back in the 90's) I think it was tried but the things you need were not in place (the internet). And I seem to remember that there was comments about organization of "how things were done" that some people thought were troublesome.

MDC

Hold on, I'm confused....

I get the idea that the Planet is a "living thing" but I didn't think it qualified under "Targets one living creature touched per three levels" from the Target Description.

I do suppose most PCs would be considered Adjacent to the ground at any given moment but...

I remember this from back in the 80's and various games and how rules were written and not thought of when interacting with descriptive or narrative text.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.

How self-absorbed do you have to be to hear that someone has a different opinion from you and think, “This sounds like a conspiracy.”

I can honestly say this is why many people I know have left the Piazo forums and have reduced their play of PF.

Also just saying that someone has a different opinion than you is not a conspiracy and I agree and I do not think that is what I have said.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.

Haha this sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

Reality is much simpler than that, people do not agree on what they find fun and doesnt matter how hard it is to some, they arent trolling, they just dont agree and that is that.

Hell playtest is a perfect example, 5th edt players and PF1 players arent looking for the same game, even among those groups there is gaps, but lets keep in the big 2 for simplicity.

Paizo is trying to go for the middle ground at the same time both sides pull for theirs.

There is no way they will appeal to everyone, based on how they are going by vote in the surveys, they are trying to appeal to a majority.

It was very strange to the person who hard it and then others who work and own game stores overheard things close to this, from various people in the store.

From my own experience, I have seen a number(4) of small groups move from one store to another and bring in "bad game etiquette" and have a serious negative impact on the store and events run by the store.
I have also over heard various members of those groups (back in the 2000's) talk about disrupting various events just to see if they could.

So YMMV as has mine.
MDC

I am unaware whether I am amongst the people you would suspect of being a sunshine troll, but I can assure you I'm not. I am however pretty hopeful for a lot of what PF2 is doing, but I am not narrow-minded enough to not see potential to get things even better.

It sucks that Roswynn didn't find what he/she was looking for in the playtest, but I would like to see what changes you would propose to get the system more aligned with your taste.
However your original post did make it seem that you weren't a fan of PF1 either. So if your ideal is for the game to be a closer copy of 5e set in Golarion, I fear you likely won't be happy with the final version either. It seems to me at least that trying to do 5e copy would be a bad (and maybe illegal) idea for Paizo, since I would think they need to differentiate themselves from 5e to get the best chance of a sustainable success.
If it's a more narrative focused system you are looking for, I also think other systems will be better suited for your needs. Personally I see explicit rules as helpful in terms of supporting the narrative of any games (with rule 0 always in mind, to make the game flow and fit your specific table).

One of your concerns does seem to be going in a "better" direction though because Paizo is simplifying the DC table.

Other concerns seem to be a bit weird to me. Like wanting casters to not using dex for ray attacks or to remove TAC and I am unsure what you meant by:

"The player of a 1st level caster doesn't need to read all their spells. That of a 4th level wizard has to look at their entire list's first 2-3 levels and then write down a lot of them, even stuff they don't really give a crap about. Even 1st level characters can be quite complex to stat down, but the process becomes a real chore soon."

Regardless good luck finding a suitable system for your taste.
And remember if you like the setting of Golarion there is nothing stopping you from using the Campaign setting for other systems (with some changes maybe).

I am not a moderator or associated with the company so it is not my job to try and determine such things. And even then once you find one the hard part is what to do moderating them or not moderating them.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Most of your views are common ones I hear from others across the USA and world.

But having said that there are quite a few people her that have had a different experience.

I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.

*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.

MDC

And now I'm wondering about the stat block of said sunshine trolls, and trying to imagine how they'd appear...

I'm not sure there are so many people with a lot of spare time to sink games they don't like, but I hope their dice all roll 1s (at the very least).

I've seen people on these boards supporting the 2e playtest, and they could certainly be legit - at least a good percentage of them. Still, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it was a waste of a perfectly good opportunity. Danke.

In general I agree.

But I also can say for myself that I have seen one person post here as if they were playing the game for the first time, when in the past the rules outline was presented to others for comment and a person with the same name and picture said they had tested the game and found no problems or issues.

MDC

bugleyman wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

In neither case did the WotC face a direct competitor staring at them with a mean, lean, well-designed game that has better brand recognition, sound marketing and a massive player base. Every time TSR/WotC did change edition, it was unopposed by any life-threatening direct competition.

When Paizo tweaked 3.5 into 3.66, it was facing a direct competition who just did shoot itself in their foot so hard that they almost fell out of the market.
But sadly for Paizo, while you can beat good brand recognition coupled with a crap product that's marketed in a shoddy way, you just can't do the same against good brand recognition, great product and marketing that's on the verge of making RPGs a socially acceptable pastime.

I'm late to the party, but 1000x this. Not to take anything away from Paizo's execution, but Pathfinder as we know it today simply would not exist without WotC driving D&D into a ditch.

PF1 was indeed a very successful niche created in the wake of 4E.

Similarly PF2 is their answer to 5E. The goal is probably threefold -- to retain existing PF players, to draw back lapsed PF players, and to attract brand new players looking for a more complex alternative to a thematically similar game.

That is a sensible policy and they have built up a good reputation over the years for quality products (especially the AP line).

PF1 (w/ 10 yrs of splat books) vs 5E was obviously no longer a viable option. To draw back former PF players and attract new ones, they needed to fix the issues that made PF1 less attractive and lower the entry bar for new players.

Admittedly that is a tough combo for Paizo to pull off, as existing, lapsed and new players have very different needs/wants. The playtest itself also would have suffered from self-selection bias -- dominated by existing PF players rather than the expanded market of potential players they want to target.

In the middle you bring up a very important point, why have players lapsed? And the other unspoken point(s) do we have good data (or any data) as to why? is the data good and valid? and are our efforts going to bring back players (data driven)? or is the game targeted to a different group than our past players and the company just hopes and believes that older players will enjoy the game?

MDC

Captain Morgan

I understand that this is the beta or alpha-beta (old grocery store joke).

But why do quite a few people feel underwhelmed with the magic items?
Is it simply because of the scaling of the PF B rules?
Or is it something else?

I have also been struck as to the similarity to the magic item feel (IMHO) to Warhammer FRP (I was looking at my book from the 80's) and the tone that was presented their for magic items.
The main issue again is that I have not seen Golarian played that way. I have heard people say that they play G with reduced magic items but more often than not I hear the reverse in that they play a magic item heavy game.

IMHO, basic things such as magic item availability, power, etc have a large impact on the game setting and how people perceive them and I cannot bring to mind a case where a major setting change has gone well. But in fact the reverse is often true in that significant minor changes often alienate both groups that the change involves and reduces the number of players.

I do agree that you do see in Video Games often huge swings of base setting ideas and implementations and to various degrees of success. But again PnP RPG's are not Video Games and when you treat them like that you often get the same result, you play for 10-40 hours and then play another game.

I say the above as someone who generally likes to play a limited number of systems and is not interested in switching game systems every month for casual game play. But I do agee that there are people and groups who love the play this way.

MDC

The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.

This does sound good.

MDC

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Yeah, the disruptive power is pretty huge. Since my group's main continuity is being defined by our WotR campaign, we've had to come up with ways to keep that from happening. The solution we've settled upon is that after a certain amount of Mythic Tiers, a character is locked to a particular region and can only use their mythic power there. There's also a limit to just how much in the way of mythic shenanigans you can do before you basically have to ascend to demi-godhood and be bound by the non-interference rules of other gods. Because yeah, with that level of power, it becomes trivial to go out and destroy the setting by whacking almost every big-bad around.

This is a great solution in a home game, but directly contrary to some explicit world lore, and thus cannot be used by Paizo, sadly. Baba Yaga rather explicitly is Mythic everywhere and has carefully avoided becoming a deity to avoid getting hit with noninterference restrictions, just for example.

So yeah, the PCs from WotR need to no longer be in the picture.

smile

I feel like it's possible (and desirable) to have goings on in the world (even bad ones) that don't have anything to do with stuff people have done during APs. I don't know if there's really anything to be gained from "Irrisen needs a new ruler since the PCs killed the last one" that we don't get from "Taldor needs a new ruler because Paizo killed the last one."

But I'd prefer "the events of an same-edition AP are taken into account of a future AP" to be restricted to ones that are direct sequels to other APs, since we sometimes play these things significantly after they are released.

World Going On Around the PC's:

Linked AP's:
I can say yes here also as it makes sense to do that.

Fan "I Have Skin in the Game" Idea:
Generally if your fans have "skin in the game" they feel more excited and involved in the setting and system.
The problem that I did not mention before are Trolls and Sunshine Trolls who can skew actual data.

Play "These Things Significantly After Release":
Can you expand on this a bit? Because I think I know what you are saying but I do not want to try and read your mind.
Also with any decision you often limit somethings while expanding on others. So you have to always weigh what there is to gain vs what there is to lose.

MDC

Most of your views are common ones I hear from others across the USA and world.

But having said that there are quite a few people her that have had a different experience.

I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.

*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.

MDC

A long time ago and a D&D system far away, I gave the players a limited number of class's to pick from as well as leveling class options based on the adventure. Then as we moved past the start they could learn/switch to other classes. There was no re-training so the players just worked with their abilities/class powers etc as we moved forward. And I think we had a great deal of fun.
MDC

As someone who loves optimizing, and loves finding weird builds and breaking them, and who has been asked to leave campaigns because my twink build was derailing them, I think narrowing the skill gap can only be a good thing.

If the gap between crazy twink build and "I took both wizard and fighter because I want to do magic and swords!" is narrow enough that both those people can play at the same table without the GM having to do gymnastics or tell people how to build their characters, then I think everyone has a better time.

In my game I would talk to the player and see if we could make a change in some way to the players PC or the other PC's of the group to balance out the issue.

Having said that I also agree that at times things just do not work out for a number of reasons, unfortunately.
MDC

Jeven wrote:

Since Paizo probably haven't written the new campaign setting, perhaps they might consider incorporating a few AP-failures, to create some really unexpected changes.

You might be surprised on multiple fronts here.

More specifically, and without making any particular claims, while its unlikely we'd assume many significant failures on the part of the PCs (I probably wouldn't take it too well if Karzoug somehow won despite the heroic and ingenious efforts of my party, for example) there's a lot of ways the world can be changed by a party who successfully completes an AP but misses a few notes along the way.

There's a few things we've already announced, like the fact that the Worldwound was successfully closed during Wrath of the Righteous, but there's a whole lot still to be discovered, and even areas you think you know really well might have changed in unexpected ways. For example, there are a pretty ridiculous number of aged rulers at the end of their lifespans, and I wouldn't expect all of them to survive when we update the setting with the last decade's worth of information.

Even if we went with a "The PCs always win every AP" approach, there would still be areas where an interesting interpretation of that could open up all kinds of possibilities. If you've played through War for the Crown, go check page 67 of The Six-Legend Soul. There's at least three distinct paths the story could take even on a "perfect" completion, all of which could have cascading effects.

One thing I have heard quite a few people talk about is if (somehow) Paizo could include in some way the results of an AP in the one going world.

Why? Well it provides some forward motion to the setting over all.

MDC

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like there are enough unresolved plots on Golarion that abandoning the setting for a new one would be disappointing. A lot of the setting material in 1st edition was setting the stage for that stuff, so when they finally decide to do, say, an AP that gets to the bottom of what sinister forces are driving Galt's endless revolution, it won't take too long to catch people up.

Like, the time to do a new setting is when you've run out of stories you want to tell in the old one. I'm reasonably confident Paizo has not.

For those who've been around long enough to follow the industry, new settings are also often very bad for a game or company as they can lead to splitting the fan base. TSR about put themselves out of business by over-producing campaign settings, D&D 3.x mostly drilled down to Forgotten Realms (with Greyhawk tenuously existing as the base setting and the organized play world) until they added Eberron to boost interest with a more modern and steampunk-adjacent setting. 4E pretty much dropped Greyhawk entirely in favor of making the Forgotten Realms the base setting and org play setting, though they did start pushing out revivals like Dark Sun later into the game's lifespan to see if they couldn't revive the franchise.

There's probably a lot of benefit to a setting like Golarion for a company like Paizo; instead of needing to release books for Ravenloft, books for Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc. they can just release books for the part of their world that matches up thematically. If they want horror-themed stuff they can do Ustalav, if they want techno-fantasy in a predominantly fantasy environment they can do a book for Numeria, so on and so forth. That way the fans who like the game for the horror aspects and the fans who like steampunky freedom fighters can all still sit down and play the same together, and books that are of interest to one should also have some interest for the other, which is particularly relevant for organized play....

I agree in part. By that I mean in the way past mid 80's through mid 90's (often) the setting core set was good but the expansion material suffered. But also some niche settings as you have stated do not have the breadth to survive long on their own. Yes they are fun for a side trip of fun but often they do not have the depth necessary to play continually every week for 2 years. I do agree that there are exceptions to the last statement but if you try and look at data from how people play the game vs a segment (home games in San Diego, Con game, etc) you get an entirely different picture of what people want from their material.

I am trying not to throw stones but the thought that Dark Sun setting would save a system in early to mid 2000's should be a red flag on someones decision process. The gamer population of the time, or now just does not enjoy this type of setting for a long term game (again over all and not taking in small pockets of support).

MDC

I am definitely feeling dread, because in my opinion the APs are the best adventures on the market by FAR. I don't have time to do homebrew adventures all the time, and I rely heavily on APs. If the new system is something we don't want to play, at the very best I have to convert everything--and hope it *can* be converted with a bearable amount of work.

I am not the conversion guru my spouse is. (He once ran _Masks of Nyarlathotep_ in _Feng Shui_, which worked way better than you'd think.) I struggle to get the difficulty right, especially at the higher levels. I don't think PF1 and PF2 are likely to scale at all similarly and this will make conversion tough.

But that's the best case. It is easy to imagine scenarios in which there just aren't any more APs, or they aren't good anymore. We have picked over most of the published APs already (and run at least half of them) and within two years or so we'd be in a situation where there's just nothing reliably good on the market. Maybe some other company would step forward to fill the niche, but APs are a huge amount of work, and third-party APs have not really been a thing. Modules, yes, but my group likes long adventures, and our success with stringing together unrelated modules has been...mixed, at best.

My spouse isn't interested in playing less than weekly. I'm not able to homebrew an adventure every week. There's a real chance I just wouldn't be running anymore, and I'd miss it a lot.

Yes, as you pointed out designing AP's both in company and at home. Generally the people I help out start 6 months or so before they run the first game. And sometimes even longer stretch if they are trying to build a world from the ground up.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

MDC

Some people will, for sure. Some others will buy and then convert the mechanics to a system they like more. But on the general market, if the system itself is unpopular, content for it tends to not resonate that well. It turns into a problem where even if the AP itself is good, people who don't know that see the system name on the cover and immediately move on. That makes APs a much tougher sell.

Hopefully the system is popular because it makes the whole question moot.n

You have stated a very important point that is often missed, systems often are shaped by their default settings and new versions of the game that are dramatically different often require changes (dramatic?) to the setting to function.

graystone wrote:

What needs to happen is everyone has to be on the same page. If you're playing a casual game, you know you're a jerk if you hyperspecilize. If you know you're playing a tooth and nail epic fight for the universe, you as much a jerk for bringing in a casual character. If you build a character to actually fit your group, it's not an issue.

So what do you do if, in a party of 4, you have 2 people are only experienced enough for the casual game and 2 are highly experienced and want to do the tooth-and-nail epic? If the GM sides with the casuals, the experienced pair are going to be having distinctly less fun being forced to gimp themselves, where if he sides with the experienced players the casuals are going to get steam-rolled (which is only very rarely fun.)

In the past what I have done is advance the less optimized PC's in level so the effect in play is the same.

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

Disable trap, set trap, pick lock, tie ropes, escape bonds... That seems like plenty of width for one skill, especially since more than one of those are things every group tends to need.

In a past thread I asked if it was a super skill?

The Second Issue:

Lets say Paizo fixes Issue 1: PF 2.

A big issue (Issue 2) I am hearing from quite a few people (50+) is how during the play test their (or their friends or posts that they agree with) have gone missing or the threads have been deemed non-viable, not-important or non-productive.
Thus even if the game is perfect (Issue 1) they are going to stay with PF 1 (and shift where they spend their $ to non Piazo companies) or just go with another company for PF 1 material.

MDC

I feel that a brand new campaign setting would be refreshing.

The mountain of books I already have on Golarion would give Encyclopedia Britannica a run for its money!

I'm not saying they should abandon it entirely, as there are some fascinating aspects that have not been explored.
But at the same time rehashing much of the same stuff over and over again does get a bit stale.

Yes, splitting your customer base with multiple campaign settings is one issue, but boring you customer base is another.
I really enjoyed Golarion for the first 6 yrs but then switched off and started looking elsewhere for something new and fresh (the same applied to FR before that).

It would probably be good for the developers as well, since they must feel a bit hemmed in by the confines of the current setting after all this time. And developer enthusiasm breeds player enthusiasm.

What do other people think?

What you are talking about tends to happen to all settings and it is hard to know when to develop a new settings and just stick with what you have and continue on.

But one of the things that caused a lot of excitement from various people I know was new setting info because of Star Finder.
MDC

So in PF1 in a situation where some complicated ancient machine is doing something the PCs want to stop, and there are 9 levers and 1 of which will make it stop and the other 8 will make the situation worse, figuring out which lever is the correct one is a disable device check because the actual "pulling a lever" bit is hard, but you need to understand the machine first.

Disable device got rolled in with sleight of hand to become thievery, so is this still a thievery check? Since if it is, I figure that rules out "legerdemain" or "manipulation" or something like that because again, "pulling levers is not hard."

side bar your honor

MDC

Hi, I've been playing since '81. I am an old schooler. I've never heard starting players of dead characters at level 1 that far below the rest of the party was important to anyone. YMMV.

Regardless, this post is over the top about its conclusions. Player death is not so routine that it should be an important factor influencing level progression. Characters level up to have fun. They don't "not level up" to stay on par with newly re-rolled level 1's whose originals died.

If you want to discuss what happens in PF2 when a character dies, that's a great idea for a thread created for the discussion. This post is senseless as phrased.

When playing (79-88) in various campaigns it was very common in many of our games to have new PC's (who died and or were replacements) come in a lower levels.

Since about 2000 I have not seen a lot of games with large level disparaty (except online play by post and or a game that had sub games and groups associated with them) but if done right can be fun.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

But a few will look at the product and make a decision instead of just buying it because it is a Paizo product. Then again this trend has been forming more and more since about 2014 in many groups.

MDC

I suspect this change you’ve noticed is a real thing (I wouldn’t know about Paizo sales specifically, but the 3PPs I know well enough to talk about this stuff have noticed a definite softening in the PF market over the last few years). I think a further clue is Paizo reduction in PF output and diversification into other product lines.

If I had to guess, I’d think that this change in the market was a big factor in the “make a new PF vs revise PF1” decision.

In talking to people it was generally not do to the core system but generally; how much the material applied to their game, a seeming shift in play style focus as well as a few other factors more specific to their games.

In general a shift to a new system has not resulted in a change in their attitudes but again (very very important) the final game is not out yet.

MDC

Go4TheEyesBoo wrote:

Why do you assume "PF1.5" would have those things you don't want to deal with? The people clamoring for PF1.5 want exactly that: the removal of fiddly bits and broken things. It would be a system change, not PF1 with bandaids/mods. The only difference is that they want minimal addition of "new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics" or "needlessly limiting character options/flexibility". For instance, there's little reason to minimize character choices by locking people into "role boxes" of feats behind class gates. Or Resonance. Or "level bonus to everything". PF1.5, as people desire it, would have none (or less) of the things you complain about. It'd probably strap on most of the Unchained changes, simplify the grapple mechanic, fix the move/Full-Attack static combat issues by going to 3-action system, rework/rebalance some spells, fix multiclass progression issues, etc, etc. I don't know why you feel a "PF1.5" would be as fiddly as PF1. I know for a fact PF1 wasn't as fiddly as D&D 3.5. PF2, as currently proposed, feels the same as what happened when D&D went from 3.5 to 4E. Namely, in...

I don't think a simple cleanup, as you describe it, would be good enough to fix the problems with PF1. While PF1 is and remains a great game, its age shows, and things that were OK-ish 10 years ago are due for a fix. Namely:

- The game must be made much simpler, in order to be more attractive to prospective new players and would-be GMs. In particular, building a character must be a lot easier.
- The game must become much better balanced at high levels, in order to offer a full experience. It must also become much easier to play and to design adventures for at high levels.

The need for a simpler game is evidenced by 5e's success. It doesn't mean 5e is the only solution, but PF1 evolved too far on the side of complexity.

The need for a fix to high-level play can be shown very easily by checking...

IMHO and from past experience most of the reasons I and we have not just run high level adventures is do to the fact that they do not fit into the story we have going with out PC's.

One of the main reasons we stopped buying adventures in the 80's was the fact they did not seem to fit how our PC's lived in our own game worlds but were suddenly thrust into someone else's idea of a game world.
So (generally) we just designed our own adventures and when a great adventure came along we highly adapted it to our game.
Or we decided to run a mini-campaign, in that the adventure was 3 parts and ran from levels 5-13 so we would just start at level 5 and end at level 13+ when the adventure stopped.

MDC

Souphin wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.

Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

Why? In general, even if we do not play any version of PF most of us agree that a strong Paizo and an excellent game from them will make the hobby better in the long run.

MDC

I hear you and I like paizo.

But I feel too much that the playtest/pf2nd is riding too much on the coattails of pathfinder 1st and paizo is making a product that the fans have voiced disappointment of hoping the fans will buy it anyway.

Making a prediction of failure isn't wishing ill. I was set to give it a go, but frankly the erosion of alignment and goblins as a core race are a step too far for my tastes and the game itself doesn't seem more fun than 1e. On top of this its going head first into a version of d+d that is doing quite well, not one that flopped on its face.

Thanks for explaining a bit more.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.

Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

Why? In general, even if we do not play any version of PF most of us agree that a strong Paizo and an excellent game from them will make the hobby better in the long run.

MDC

I hear you and I like paizo.

But I feel too much that the playtest/pf2nd is riding too much on the coattails of pathfinder 1st and paizo is making a product that the fans have voiced disappointment of hoping the fans will buy it anyway.

I think you are saying that PF 1 fans are not as happy as you would like to see and thus many of them IYO will not buy the product?

If so I tend to agree as 35+ groups now I know of did not have the experience that quite a few positive posters here on the test forums have had. And thus have made pans for the future. But a few will look at the product and make a decision instead of just buying it because it is a Paizo product. Then again this trend has been forming more and more since about 2014 in many groups.
MDC

Ryan Freire wrote:

The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.

Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

MDC

Rysky wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is factually incorrect in PF2. Upholding the law is the lowest possible tenet of the Paladin Code. They cannot violate it casually or for fun, but the very second that 'saving an innocent from harm' (and freeing slaves is often precisely that) comes into conflict with 'obey the law' the Paladin is obligated by the Code's priority system to save the innocent, ignoring the law entirely.

Now, you can dislike that if you want (though I personally find the very idea of Paladins valuing Law over Good confusing and abhorrent), but please argue based on the actual rules for things like this.

^ All of this.

How does this actually work in a society of slavery? Is the Paladin obligated to free all the downtrodden slaves they come across, laws be damned? How would they have acted in the pre-Civil War American South? In ancient Egypt? Would they have been obliged to free all the Helots of Sparta? (I realize this is the right thing to do, for sure, but we're talking about breaking the law.)

I realize that this is sounds like it is shooting off on a tangent which is not directly related to the "Thievery" debate, but in truth, the scenario being described is theft of legal property. If the Paladin either directly (or through facilitation such as lockpicking) takes, removes or frees something that is legally recognized as the property of another, they are breaking the law and committing what would commonly be seen as "Thievery." Is it for the greater good? Probably, but that doesn't change the term. Though he redistributed wealth and often took things that had been unlawfully gained themselves, Robin Hood was still a thief.

IMHO, wanting to and knowing its right to are different than being able to.

Maybe add some Crafts that can duplicate some of the skills in Thievery skill. So Lock Smith craft/profession would also also lock picking.

A big issue I have with the "every use of Thievery skills can not be used by Paladins because of what they are", is that bad guys also use weapons to kill people, thus should Paladins be able to use weapons at all as weapons are for killing people?

MDC

Charon Onozuka wrote:

For all this discussion about wanting PF1.5 and saying that the 2E can't compete with D&D5e, I want to say that one of my players actually flat out told me that if they had to choose between PF1, 5E, and the current Playtest, they'd pick the Playtest without a doubt.

With all the complaints about things in the Playtest, it has already solved a ton of nagging issues my group had with PF1 and has been received fairly well. And rather than seeing blasts spells dominating, buffs/debuffs, save or suck, and terrain effects have had a great impact on battles so far.

After one, I repeat here, ONE, session I got my entire group of players to convert over to PF2, we’re actually considering putting the extra effort in to convert Kingmaker over to second edition, just based on the playtest so far, I can say that so far the Playtest has brought Pathfinder back to life in my area in a way no 1.5 revision ever could have.

Your example highlights one of the important things I have taken away from the play-test.

Frankly as others have said my experience and observations as well as quite a few people I know around the world differ drastically from what other posters have said their experiences have been.

MD

BTW,
In all my years (Con's, home games, store games, etc) of seeing a player play a Kinder (Dragon Lance setting race) I have never seen the race be played in any other way except a kleptomaniac who acted child like.

The above may be good in books as it can provide humor breaks from the drama but in game settings over the long term it was very disruptive.

Having said that I know of quite a few PF 1 groups that liked to play goblins and their attitudes for a game or two as presented in the free goblin adventures.
And they had lots of fun.
But when trying to integrate that type of goblin into their regular game they found the same issues as the "Kinder race" above but not in the same way.

MDC

P.S. The Kinder issue is one common dividing point among groups that I have seen in that very few are in the middle of the issue.

Example from Film and maybe Literature (I did not read the books)
Sherlock Holmes (1930-50's ,probably not a paladin but maybe) in a film stole by slight of hand (removed from possession) a jewel that he knew was going to be stolen and thus the thieves stole the fake.

From real life:
Here is Oregon State, USA
A person trapped their property with various devices one of which killed a SWAT officer (IRRC their affiliation) but before that they disabled and bypassed a number of other traps before they missed the one that killed the officer.

Locksmiths in general:
Locksmiths/lock crafters; have the knowledge to often become successful lawbreakers as the skills/knowledge are the same it is the intent and how you use those skills/knowledge that breaks the law.

Medicine:
Tortures study medicine to better execute their profession.

In general:
The best course of action is the least damaging (evil one) for good/holy PC's.
Bad guys use locks just like good guy's.

MDC

Davido1000 wrote:

Ronnam wrote:

The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.

Same, it solves the 5 minute adventure day, makes healers less completely necessary and stops the need for CLW spams, i honestly have no idea why they arent using this in 2e.

Okay, so I've never played Starfinder so I don't actually know much about this system but is there something it does that Treat Wounds doesn't work for?

The easy way to describe Stam-Resolve is take 1/3 of you HP and make it so you can rest 10 min (spend a resource) and get those HP back.

MDC

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh

Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

I can answer this one.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such...

https://imgur.com/XCtPPeJ

This was page four of the playtest book. The book that also said playtest on the front.

I know that when I got my hands on a copy, I stood up in front of my group before we played and explained that this wasn't going to be a normal game of Pathfinder, that it was a playtest. The rules weren't going to look anything like this when it released, so it was important to note things they liked and didn't like.

I don't understand how this wasn't clear.

I think we may have dramatically different views on play tests and alpha and beta play test definitions.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

In general it sounds as if the changes are going to make a number of people I know move away from the statement "They (Piazo) are making it very easy for me to not buy the game (PF 2)" and might make them take another look at the rules.

But it really depends on what the final rules are going to be.

The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group, so I really have trouble trusting that the new un-play testing version is going to be much better."

But in general most hope that PF 2.0 is a good game and makes the industry step up to a higher publishing bar for their products.

MDC

They can't unring the bell. There is a hill to climb. And, the new game must be good. Right now we know more of what it is not than what it is.

So I'm not assuming anything here.

But I do strongly suspect that Pathfinder 2E, *any* Pathfinder 2E will get a close look from a lot of the fanbase when it is released. If it is a game that resonates well with the market (no pun intended) then it will do well. It may take off like a rocket and it may need to build momentum to overcome some established expectations.

So I think the long run will fall almost entirely on the quality of the product. We have moved from something that was driving a lot of people away to an unknown. That is positive and reason for hope.

I agree, in fact I know of a lot of people that have moved into a if it is not PF 1 then I am going to play game "Z" instead position, (the best was I could polity and non-argumentative way of saying something).

Again it is the hope of many the the finished game is so much better than the play test in terms of core rules the game uses to play the game.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group,

This was never true and they didn't claim it. Paizo was very upfront that this was a playtest, which is why when they had trouble deciding to keep it safe or push the envelope they opted to do the latter. A more extreme change can always be tested and walked back. A safer change needs less testing.

Jason and company have said "folks, this is a playtest" a lot. They probably thought these changes had the potential to be great, but testing them didn't always bear that out. This isn't a surprise. They knew resonance would be controversial going in for example.

Thanks for this info, but it seems that I and quite a few other did not know this and in fact a number of us have a discussion going on now about "what do you think would have happened if PF 2.0 Beta 1 was released as a finished game?"

PS Are you talked about the statement that came about 2 months or so after the release of the play test in which a dev said "...changes had potential to be great" if so it is had to know if the statement is true or damage control. Which is also another discussion among'st us.

MDC

The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.

I know 3 groups that decided to play SF and after about 10 months the Stam-Res rules were one of the reasons for quitting the game.

MDC

In general it sounds as if the changes are going to make a number of people I know move away from the statement "They (Piazo) are making it very easy for me to not buy the game (PF 2)" and might make them take another look at the rules.

But it really depends on what the final rules are going to be.

The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group, so I really have trouble trusting that the new un-play testing version is going to be much better."

But in general most hope that PF 2.0 is a good game and makes the industry step up to a higher publishing bar for their products.

MDC

@Helmic;

true,

Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,

But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.

1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage

1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage

2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage

2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage

Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage

Bows: str+dex+wis

IMHO, yes this add's flavor and keeps some realism in the game vs just looking at numbers and saying I need to do this because this has this value and that in my opinion throws off the game.

Also is 2H F weapon supposed to be : str+2 (x) dex or str+2+dex?

Also the other option to keep numbers lower is to have totals divided by some value. And IMHO is also good for young players to practice simple math or to provide an app for those who think they are math challenged.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

A bit of a side comment:

But as to the whip and it having so many abilities: IMHO a lot of these abilities should have some type of skill and or level requirements to be able to be used and or used effectively.

Or in reality; there is a very valid reason why army's did not equip their troops with whips and go to war in the past as well as today.
Often it is the exception example that seems to provide the community with the idea that everyone can do it. The best example of this I have seen in real life is the person who shoots arrows very fast and thus people think everyone should be able to do that or that it just takes a little time to learn the skill.
Note: I also think there is a bit of a carve out in that there has been examples of new ideas that come along that dramatically improve the way people use tools that for what ever reason people just did not know about or attempt before some showed them.

MDC

I mean, I'd say the reason armies didn't use whips was d4 vs. d8-12 damage. XD Large blocks of people needed to kill things fast, not finesse on them. XD

IDK, for me the weapon proficiency category does it for me as far as training requirements. A lot of people don't use those weapons because they don't feel the use in a more technical style over the much higher attack power, rather than because it requires additional work just to make a damage for abilities trade off.

Though the idea reminds me of an idea I had, which was to give Fighters an ability to temporarily add traits to their weapons somehow, like maybe rebalancing or grinding a weapon to make it Agile or Finesse, or altering something to make its heft work for tripping, etc.

Most weapons I know do not have a tag that says I do 1dX when I buy them.

MDC

Hythlodeus wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Making GMing easier is necessary for the long-term survival of the hobby. It's the hardest role at the table to fill (everyone wants to play, only a small subset thereof is willing to GM) and far and away the most work.

Gee, I wonder how the hobby survived that long if GMing was that hard for all these decades. Only a handful of geniuses mastered that art and I guess they must have found a way to GM on all tables worldwide at almost the same time.

/s

It certainly explains why pen and paper RPGs are such a tiny hobby compared to board games, miniature games and CCGs.

IMHO, yes and no.

PC;
I agree that level to damage is a better idea in PF 2 and even better if you mod it some way to have it apply to only your "swashbuckler" type class.
For example if you multi-class into wizard then you may not get your full level to damage bonus but some adjusted value.
MDC

A bit of a side comment:
But as to the whip and it having so many abilities: IMHO a lot of these abilities should have some type of skill and or level requirements to be able to be used and or used effectively.

Or in reality; there is a very valid reason why army's did not equip their troops with whips and go to war in the past as well as today.
Often it is the exception example that seems to provide the community with the idea that everyone can do it. The best example of this I have seen in real life is the person who shoots arrows very fast and thus people think everyone should be able to do that or that it just takes a little time to learn the skill.
Note: I also think there is a bit of a carve out in that there has been examples of new ideas that come along that dramatically improve the way people use tools that for what ever reason people just did not know about or attempt before some showed them.

MDC