| RedDwarf |
I started playing Pathfinder this year after having played AD&D way back in high school, and more recently, D&D 4e. I have played at a few conventions and local game stores/events. And see other former 4e players there. I bought the Core Rule Book, APG, ARG and Ultimate Combat books and invested in HeroLab. I am impressed by how much PFS public play is organized here in Houston, TX. I am also impressed by how organized Society play is with registering characters online; rewarding DMs; and the amount of adventures published.
Like any other RPG, the quality of play is dependent on the GM and players. I had my worst experience with a GM at one event, he was the exception. Most GMs try to help the players enjoy the game.
I am struck by the confusion on rules, even for experienced players. Experienced players and DMs always disagree during the game on rules. These aren't contentious disagreements or arguments, just confusion over the rules. For example, I corrected an experienced player who was using Acrobatics skill to move past an enemy & avoid an attack of opportunity even though his the character was encumbered by medium armor. This just happened to be something I had read in the Core Rule book. To me, the rules in Pathfinder (may be true for all of 3rd edition--I never played any of it) are too complex. That combined with the enormous number of classes, races, etc. make it intimidating to GM.
I'm glad PFS puts restrictions on races allowed. I wish they restricted the classes more also.
There do seem to be a small layer of players whose main enjoyment is beating the rules/power gaming and who have zero interest in role playing or work as a team. The default behavior I've seen at Pathfinder tables for skill challenges is to role a d20 and give the GM a number "23 on Perception" or "18 Diplomacy". I prefer to tell the GM what my character is doing ("I'm listening at the door and examining the lock") and then have the GM tell me if I need to roll a skill check. Especially, in social skill challenges players roll one type of skill check that doesn't match their characters actions (roll Diplomacy after saying something that's intimidating to NPC). It seems to be accepted practice here.
I think Pathfinder would work better at a home campaign where players can become familiar with each others characters and power gamers & role players can find their respective groups. Guess that applies to any edition of D&D. I haven't played an AP yet, but I assume the story/plot is much better in those than in public play adventures.
For public play, I will try out D&D 5e Expeditions or whatever it's called. I'm not excited about the Dragon/Tiamut story arc or the lack of adventures but I like the simpler rule set. So for now, I'll keep my feet in both camps and see how things develop. I won't play Encounters because that format is horrible. Pathfinder Society Organized public play is leaps and bounds ahead of Encounters (based on my 4e days).