jdh417's page

I remember Paizo thinking about a "rule-light" product last year. Is this it? Is there another product coming? Or, after thinking about it, was this the product developed instead?

I read somewhere that D&D's current Red Box, in spite of how little repeat play value it has, is one of their biggest sellers. If this is the case, I can now more fully understand Paizo's interest in a beginners set. Just make it fun and playable guys and hopefully it turn out well for you too.

Except free PDFs have zero shelf space in bookstores, Target, Wal-Mart, and so on. Which means zero visibility for potential customers.

You'll still have almost zero shelf space, as 4e takes up whatever there is.

You need to look at making an entirely new game if you want that market. Bookstores (I assume mean places like Barnes & Noble) put rpg stuff on the rpg shelf ghetto in the Sci Fi section. Places like Target and Wal-Mart only carry collectible card games and social games (Monopoly, Apples to Apples, etc).

You need a product that gets you into the gaming asile and has more mass appeal than this hobby game (of which, yours doesn't have a collectible element like 4e's fortune cards). Your trial-sized Pathfinder would be seated against Munchkin, Setters of Catatan, and the Exalted board game, all of which are complete games, with optional expansions.

I like your products. I want your company to succeed. My opinion is that you should be either more ambitious (create new genre defining game that anybody can pick up) and/or go more guerrilla (with something that gets passed around virally). The market doesn't need a crippled me-too product. It's a bit much to ask your current customers to go buy Pathfinder Quickie to get their non-gamers friends to try the game, even moreso to expect somebody to pick it up cold off the shelf.

What Paizo seems to be advocating here is Pathfinder Essentials: same rules, fewer options, and as an added bonus, limited advancement.

Most of the people on board do not seem to be rubber stamping on this, as the audience for this game does not exist. Experienced gamers don't need it. New gamers are going to be hard pressed to plunk down good money for a sampler. Back in the day, when RPG's were a new thing, it could happen. Now, you can get full fantasy and sci-fi rpgs as pdf's on the Internet for free. You're economically competing against free.

If you want a Pathfinder teaching game and are determined to do it as the same game with limited levels and limited options, then make it a free pdf with along with an adventure that covers the levels. Encourage everyone here to download it and show it to new players. Also advertise it at other sites (like computer gaming sites) and encourage new players to try it on their own.

Paizo may wish to consider what they can do with a boxed set that can get it off the RPG shelf and into the Games aisle.

I was at my local Barnes & Noble in Games section this weekend. In addition to a new version of Cosimic Encounter, I also saw an Exalted themed(basically White Wolf's D&D)available as large board game, on par with Axis & Allies. The box probably weighed 5 lbs with all the stuff in it. It was $34. (Shocking, I know.) Over in the books on the RPG shelf there was one Paizo Pathfinder book, the Advanced Player's Guide. $40.

Not exactly a fair comparison. The Exalted board game was obviously no where as open ended as an actual RPG. Then again, none of the $40 Pathfinder core are complete by themselves either. I'm certainly not suggesting a Pathfinder board game (though I'm sure there'll be one in the future). But I would expect a Pathfinder Basic box to be on par with this Exalted game in terms of production, completeness, and out of the box playability. Given that there shouldn't be heavy duty maps and a bunch of toys inside, it should also be cheaper.

jdh417 wrote:

I understand their stated purpose, but I think it's a waste of time and will turn out to be a waste of people's money.

I design/build marketing data systems for a living, so the above is not mere speculation. Rather, such is based on observance of actual data relating to introductory kits for a variety of industries as they relate to customer acquisition and loyalty. In short: intro kits work.

I can't argue with your background and experience, but WOTC is on their third intro set for 4e (Shadowfell, Starter, Essentials). Even with their brand, their experience, and the money they've put into it, they still obviously haven't quite come up with the right formula for it. I think it's because WOTC is simply trying to duplicate TSR's old box set success with about the same components.

Paizo certainly has the experience, but not the brand, and probably not the funds. The company should look at doing something different than what has come before if they want more than marginal success.

Let me be somewhat less combative and a bit more specifically constructive.

Paizo's developed a few interesting new classes, at least some of these should be included. (Especially the Pokemon Master/Summoner, which might have some kid appeal.) If this Starter set is severely limited in character levels, then this would serve as a crosspromoter for the Advanced Players Guide. Otherwise (if it's a complete game), this would be a good differenter with D&D.

As mentioned above, put in a brand new adventure, but even more, an expansive sandbox setting. This may draw in a few customers that might not want the rules, but would want the setting. Again if the character levels are limited, have the sandbox go beyond that level, to give some incentive to get the Core rules.

Include a poster map of Golarion along with a short gazetteer overviewing the places of interest. I can't tell you how much that old Greyhawk map fueled my interest in RPG's.

jdh417 wrote:

I know this goes against conventional thinking here,

It's not a matter of "conventional thinking". It's a matter of reading what the Paizo-stated purpose of a Pathfinder intro set is.

"What we do know is that it'll be useful for more than a couple of sessions, will be a great PFRPG teaching tool, and will help us get more people playing Pathfinder."

Experienced players looking for a rules-light game should go look for a rules-light game, not buy a PFRPG teaching tool. If the box set is an alternative lighter rules set for experienced players, instead of an introduction to the full PFRPG for non-players, then it's done exactly the opposite of Paizo's stated goal.

Also note that the Paizo-given explanation is not that it's to "teach RPG's", but to teach PFRPG.

I understand their stated purpose, but I think it's a waste of time and will turn out to be a waste of people's money.

The best teaching tool for Pathfinder is experienced players. Trying to do this out of a box for newbies is an uphill battle if this intro is going to be totally compatible with the Core version. This is assuming anybody outside of the RPG web community knows about it and if anybody outside of a FLGS will sell it. D&D is the sum of all of RPG's mainstream branding. Pathfinder doesn't register.

I'm trying to make suggestions to broaden the appeal of this game to other gamers, the most likely audience. Paying $20 for a trial version of the game makes less sense now than ever given the number of free fantasy RPG games on the Internet. Would you pay $5 for a trial version of Monopoly that only goes from the Start square to the Jail square and doesn't include the racecar, just to see if you liked it? Otherwise, the above suggestion of putting the Core rules in a box with dice is the way to go.

Green Ronin has already produced an alternate take on the D20 system with their Mutants & Masterminds game. As others have mentioned, they've also produced a complete game in a boxed set with Dragon Age. Then there's several itinerations of the Micro-lite rules; D20 in a few pages.

The point is that the 3.5 rules aren't written in stone and don't have to be huge. There's no reason to be locked into doing a D&D box set the same way it's been done before. There's no reason to be forced into following every convention of the rules for a game whose purpose is to teach RPG's (and provide a rules-lite version for experienced players).

Paizo's specialties have so far have been Pathfinder (with it's wide array of character creation options, in my opinion) and it's adventures and their Glorian setting (not to overlook their high production value). I'd hope that any intro product would lean heavily on Paizo's strengths, rather than simply being a regurgitation of previous D&D starter sets.

This intro game need not be just an expensive sampler of the Core rules. It could be a game unto itself with easy hooks into Paizo's adventures. The kind of gamers looking for a rulings, rather than rules game, would not be intimidated by a little DIY. Please don't limit the appeal of this intro set.

If the Pathfinder box is simply the same basic rules as Pathfinder, but lacking most of the character options (Pathfinder's strong point) and limited in levels, it won't be any different than the current 4e Red Box. While many have praised its production values and presentation, few people think it's really worth buying.

I'll offer this one example.

The Alexandrian

Check out the entry for September 28 on the Essentials box set. (Unfortunately, this guy doesn't break up his entries on separate pages.) The post raises several points which also could apply to the potential Pathfinder box: paying for a promo, rules confusion, may as well buy the full version if you really want to play and learn that.

I know this goes against conventional thinking here, but I think a full game (going up to 15th level, same as the adventure paths), a full range of races and classes, and a really stripped down rules set is the way to go. This would appeal to experienced gamers wanting a lighter rules set. As long as it has some compatibility with Adventure Paths and such (which are Paizo's real forte), this Basic rules could still generate continuing sales, even if it's not the Core book. Being simplier, it would also be easier to teach new players.

A box set could include dice, Player's book, DM's book, and an adventure, as well as a "What is an RPG?" booklet. This would be a small, "read me first" pamphlet with all of the standard stuff that explains RPG's and the game conventions would help. Another booklet could be a conversion guide to the full version. Separating out this material will keep the size of the gamebooks down. Sell the gamebooks separately as well, making the pamphlets pdf files.

The main problem is that Paizo knows the 3.5 system so well, that the developers may have a problem cutting out rules, as they may consider them all integral. You might also have to completely rethink the classes and how they work to make a simpler version.

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Aplus wrote:

I guess my point is to not sacrifice the quality that Paizo is known for in order to stuff more goodies into the box. Whenever I open my wallet to buy something that says Paizo on it, I know I am buying a product of superior craftsmanship. I'd rather see no starter set than one that contains crappy newsprint booklets and cheapo dice.

That is a key point. One of the things that I will never let our guys do (and I doubt they would want to) is sacrifice quality. I'd rather have less in the product and keep what's left high quality than get more but cheaper stuff.

-Lisa

Hence the importance of dice - intro means the probability that this the only RPG stuff the buyer/reciever has. You don't want to force the buyer to spend X on the game and then need to buy dice too - what if they didn't know they need weird dice?

By the same token, what if you don't want the box and the dice, but just want the Basic gamebooks?

If Basic Pathfinder just features a handful of character levels, then it has no value outside of being an introduction to the full Pathfinder. Go ahead and release it in a box.

However, on the assumption Paizo is going to do a good on setting up the Basic rules, why not go ahead and expand them out to 15th level, to match the Adventure Paths? It'd still be a teachable version of Pathfinder and draw in some brand new players. And, it may also have some appeal to people wanting a rules-lite version of Pathfinder to use with all that adventure material.

This is a product I'd be more interested in buying.

I can't gift wrap a PDF and give it to my cousins or nephews for Christmas.

As I said in my earlier post: The intro box should have a gift certificate for a free PDF of the full rules. But get them hooked on a real product, not on a PDF. Who gets excited about a PDF as a kid? My own children are very meh about any PDF I own but if we get a new gaming book or I print up a book, they're all over it.

Good point. Were I in charge though, I'd still say, "Let's test this as a pdf first. If people like it and a bunch of them demand a physical product, only then do we print them up and stick them in a box with some dice."

I doubt the market for the box extends beyond this website and local gaming stores. Even then, it will really only appeal to nostalgia-seeking old players, not the new players for which this game would be written.

Somebody here make a business case for the box. I'm willing to bet WOTC's beginner's boxes have been loss leaders. I don't think Paizo can afford to do that.

I hate to be so cautious, but I can't see a Pathfinder Basic box set being a money-making product, regardless of the price point. If Pathfinder Basic is meant to promote the full game to new players, and if it's going to be stripped down in rules and severely limited in character advancement, then it should only be a free pdf on the website. Let the players here take it from there and do the marketing.

There could certainly be a Player's pdf (4 classes and 4 races up to 3 levels) and a DM's pdf (some appropriate monsters and magic items, a sample adventure, random roll tables for generating adventures, and a few pages of printable tokens/counters for characters and monsters). Include links to Youtube videos showing the staff rolling up characters and an examples of play.

I would second a suggestion from another poster, add a sorceror winged Fairy class/race (no snickering). That was probably the only worthwhile innovation from the old Powers & Perils game. This class would really have some appeal to non-traditional gamers (and some regular gamers). The Basic game could sort of be the playtest for it and a reason for experienced players to download it, even if they weren't interested in recruiting new players. (Same goes for some good random adventure generating tables.)

Jdh417, is your blog still up? If so, what's the address?

jdh's blog

Thanks for asking. Like I said, I can't get into it now. It's nothing special. I did post an adventure path outline there sort of like Heart of Darkness.

I definitely have a lot of admiration for Paizo's products. Somewhere on the boards here before Pathfinder came out, I did advocate for a basic set to go with it.

From what I can see here, I think the biggest potential audience for a Pathfinder Basic rules set would be experienced Pathfinder players who want a "teachable" version of the game. If this is the case, like I said, just make it a free PDF and see if it merits any further development.

I posted this idea last year on my blog, which I embarrassingly can't get into any more. I don't even entirely agree with it anymore, but here it is anyway.

The Gift: Why Paizo should give Pathfinder away

The thesis is as follows: Paizo should publish a simplified 3e rules set and then give it away.

First, this is idea is repugnant to the capitalist within me. Not only am I asking a company to give away their product, I’m putting all the work on them. If I was more familiar with 3e and had more experience with it, I might try my hand at it. But the point of this exercise is not to produce another retro clone; it is instead to produce a finely polished product from a respected RPG publisher. The clones are awesome, but they are backward looking nostalgia. They are professional, but not stylish. On a technical note, D20 at its base is probably an easier, friendlier system than the matrix tables of older versions of D&D anyway. What would separate Paizo from the free systems is legitimacy, rather than a technical legality in the OGL.

Why on earth would for-profit company have any desire to compete in the same arena with competitors who give away their product? Computer nerds reading this are now waiting for me to make a Linux analogy. Not quite. I would put it closer to WOTC’s D20. The purpose of opening up the D&D license was to drive sales of the core books. This would be somewhat the reverse. The purpose of a free Pathfinder Basic (I’m not an advertising exec, somebody else come up with a catchy name) would be to create an easy to use system (that isn’t controlled by somebody else), that allows Paizo to concentrate on their core business of producing system extensions, adventures, and settings and to drive those sales. Given enough popularity, perhaps licensing opportunities follow.

Isn’t this the purpose of their current version of Pathfinder? Yes, but the system only appeals to 3e grognards. That’s not a large or expanding audience. The real loyalty of the Pathfinder players is likely not the rules, but the continued ability to play Paizo’s adventures without heavy modification to another system.

Who would be the audience of this Pathfinder Basic? For starters, fans of Paizo’s adventures, if my above theory is correct. If the rules allow and encourage plenty of creativity in interpretation, all but the most belligerent of Old School grognards should approve of it. As I’ve said in another posting, this group needs a published product to rally around. Make the rules simple enough and I think new novice players can be brought into the fold and expand the hobby. Lastly, new 4e players. Stop laughing. In spite of all the rulebooks, RPG’s are not about hard rules, which is what 4e is all about. This group of players may be ready to take off the training wheels, and if they do, I doubt they’ll go back.

Does it have to be free? Over the Internet as a download, yes. In print, it needs to be fairly low-cost, perhaps at cost. The theory here isn’t just to give away the razor and sell the blades, it is to expand the potential audience. A set of expensive hardbacks can be a significant a barrier to potential new players. Beyond the development costs, I do see the other analytical side of the argument; if it’s free, it has no perceived value. The only thing I can think of to combat that is to have plenty of ads and references to Paizo products in the rules. Make the rules look like an advertisement for the rest of the catalogue, which it actually would be.

That brings me to my next point, defining a few parameters of this mythical product. It can’t be a crippled set of rules. You know, like 4e and the way they’re determined to dribble out core races, classes, and monsters. It does have to have the full range of 3e classes and races. It needs to support these characters up to 14th level, the same as the Adventure Path series. (Sell the enhancement for higher level play.) It should contain a full range of classic SRD monsters and magic items. There should be a sample adventure along with a transcript of sample play with a group of newbies.

I would suggest a few other technical specifications. Make the game playable without miniatures. Encourage their use, but don’t mandate it. Strive to create a system that has no more than one modifier per roll. For events outside of standard actions, don’t try to create rules for every situation, just offer some guidelines and suggestions. Explicitly encourage groups to make up their own rules. Seriously consider some sort of simpler alternate to the experience points system. Most importantly, provide a rough conversion guide to the full Pathfinder/3e, as well as some of the retro clones. This will make the product look bigger than it is by providing access to a wealth of published and Internet material. Why not look smart, benevolent, and tolerant of other systems?

The problem with all of this is that Paizo is comprised of 3e grognards. Not to say that they’re snobs about their game system of choice, but 3e is their area of expertise. I’m not sure these are the best people to ask for a simplified rules set. Asking them to hack down 3e may be like asking someone to hack off body parts. They already think they’ve simplified the game with Pathfinder. Selling Pathfinder Basic to Paizo may be the hardest sell of all.

I’m not a business major. This isn’t a credible business plan. Then again, I’m not sure Paizo’s current plan is going to work in the long term either. Pathfinder Basic is worth consideration.

jdh417 wrote:

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

jdh417 wrote:

Hobbyists will always have their game (and even their preferred version of their game). Why can't there be a version for the casual player too?

Interesting point. So, would this be a subset of some of my four categories or a fifth?

I got news of this Basic Set from Grognardia, so thanks for posting that link to James' blog. As much as I would like to agree with him, I guess I'm actually advocating the complete opposite.

If it is meant to draw in completely new and young players and be sold outside of a hobby store, then cut the cord to 3e and make it a new, easy to learn rules set. However, it really will need to be a complete game, not an expensive advertisment for Pathfinder or a bunch of supplements.

If the Basic game is meant to draw in Old Schoolers or woo 4e'ers, I'm not sure what the point would be. I can't imagine why either group would be interested in a stripped down rules set, providing a just few class options that only go up to low, limited levels. The best points of Pathfinder (all of the charcter-building options and such) would not sell themselves in such a format.

Personally, I'd love a version of Pathfinder with Old School-like rules. But realistically, who else and what would you do with them, since none of Paizo's adventures and sourcebooks (their real publishing forte) would really be compatible with them.

Perhaps somebody at Paizo would like to clairify who the audience for this game would be.

I think that the purpose is to grow the game, but I'm curious how they are iding the target audience as well. I don't think Old Schoolers can be drawn as a group. Heck, they can't even agree on phrases (OSR, anyone?). As far as 4e players, do you mean people who have played 4e, or fans of 4e? I'd think that the latter group is unwooable as well.

Old Schoolers already have their games, either originals or clones, houseruled to their liking. Most RPG'ers who converted to 4e are, I would think, would be unlikely to convert back to what is perceived as older version of D&D. New players who started off with 4e would probably not see any benefit to converting to Pathfinder.

Of current Pathfinder players, some might want simplier rules, but to what end? It won't really be compatible with the main line products and certainly isn't going to be supported with additional products.

Lastly, as far as potential new players goes, if this is just a stripped down version of Pathfinder, it will be abosolutely invisible to them without the D&D brand attached to it.

Am I leaving anybody out?

Pathfinder started as one guy trying to codify his houserules. I would suggest to Paizo, that if this is just meant to be simple intro to Pathfinder, don't throw huge resources at it. Just release it as a free PDF and only create a print version if there's a big demand. If they're wanting to reach out to brand new players, they need to go all the way with a new game.

jdh417 wrote:

Hobbyists will always have their game (and even their preferred version of their game). Why can't there be a version for the casual player too?

Interesting point. So, would this be a subset of some of my four categories or a fifth?

I got news of this Basic Set from Grognardia, so thanks for posting that link to James' blog. As much as I would like to agree with him, I guess I'm actually advocating the complete opposite.

If it is meant to draw in completely new and young players and be sold outside of a hobby store, then cut the cord to 3e and make it a new, easy to learn rules set. However, it really will need to be a complete game, not an expensive advertisment for Pathfinder or a bunch of supplements.

If the Basic game is meant to draw in Old Schoolers or woo 4e'ers, I'm not sure what the point would be. I can't imagine why either group would be interested in a stripped down rules set, providing a just few class options that only go up to low, limited levels. The best points of Pathfinder (all of the charcter-building options and such) would not sell themselves in such a format.

Personally, I'd love a version of Pathfinder with Old School-like rules. But realistically, who else and what would you do with them, since none of Paizo's adventures and sourcebooks (their real publishing forte) would really be compatible with them.

Perhaps somebody at Paizo would like to clairify who the audience for this game would be.

I wrote this a week ago for no particular reason, but don't have a blog to post it on anymore. News of this Basic set is a bit of serendipity.

The Party Game

My local Barnes & Noble recently remodeled. They've cleared out a large swath in the center of the store and installed a selection of games. These are kid's, family, and party type games with a broad appeal. Where's D&D in the store you might wonder. It sits on one shelf in the Fantasy Vampire/Sci-Fi Vampire/Vampire novel bookcases. The selection was almost entirely 4e, though without a Players Handbook 1 or a Dungeon Masters Guide 1. No Basic Essential Box Sets either.

What I take away from this is that D&D and other RPG's are purely hobby games for dedicated RPG players. 4e has some appeal outside of this group, which is solely due to the hooks within the game that appeal to collectible card game players, WOW players, and miniatures gamers (not Napoleonic, I mean superhero "clickies"). (Not just a WOTC invention, an early playtest version of Paizo's Pathfinder actually did attempt to put video game like combo moves into
the game. The players revolted.) So 4e's outreach to non-pen and paper RPGer's was just to other obsessive gamers.

I believe that RPG's could have more appeal than this. Ironically, the RPG computer games that were inspired by the analogue RPG games make the concept easy enough to grasp for just about everyone. Certainly D&D has been around long enough that best practice rules for easy comprehension could be written. Old School had the play style and the simplified play right. 3e brought in the D20 mechanic and got rid of the matrix tables. 4e removed Vancian magic and brought in a fairly good method for resolving non-standard combat and non-combat maneuvers.

What each version also brought was baggage. Old School is ripe with piles of little wonky rules for events that never happen, and no rules to handle things that often do. D20 is a simple mechanic buried under a preponderance of 3e effluvia of skills and feats. 4e? I'm convinced WOTC attempted to literally merge D&D with Magic the Gathering before cooler heads prevailed (for now). For every rule 4e streamlined or clarified, they added other elements that seemed to demand a control pad and infinite patience, such as whittling down a base goblin with 29 hit points.

Why can't a version of D&D be written with easy to learn, consistent rules? Further, where is it written that Basic boxed RPG sets have to be crippled versions of the full game? Why can't there be full advancement in a 64-page booklet?

My ideal Box set features a character booklet with rules and a full range of classes and races going up to 20th level. Advancement rules would be very simple, with the additional option of generating characters of specific levels. Necessarily, their powers will be simplified (especially magic users). Under these circumstances, maybe playability won't predictably break down at higher levels. There's a monster and magic items book, similarly cut down in stats. Finally, there's an adventure book. There's a sample adventure, but the main value of the book would be several large random tables and geomorphs for generating dungeons, traps, wildernesses, towns, and plots. Adventure and character generation should only take a matter of minutes. (Perhaps there could be a website companion for this.) Utility items, such as graph paper, tokens, dice, and a wipe sheet and marker (not that the rules should demand exact placement of combatants), should also be included.

The point is that this would be a complete game, not even easily compatible with the main line. This almost seems to cry out for a licensing tie-in. Conan has plenty of recognition and is low magic (no massive spell lists) to boot. Character, monster, adventure, and setting supplements could be produced, but won't be necessary for continuing the game.

Ideally, the box set sits up in the closet with Monopoly and other board games. It can be taken out, set up, and taught within 15 minutes. Play could last from an hour to however long you could stand it. Maybe the players play again tomorrow or next week with the same characters. Maybe it goes back in the closet for a few months and they play again new characters.

Hobbyists will always have their game (and even their preferred version of their game). Why can't there be a version for the casual player too?

Honestly, I think Paizo is actually leaving money on the table by not printing a starter/rules-lite booklet. WOTC doesn't care about selling D&D the Rules anywhere near as much as they want to sell D&D the Brand. Paizo needs to think in those terms when selling their own goods.

I like the idea of collaborative fan rules, but it's going to be very hard to reach any sort of concensus, since one fan's opinion is as valid as any other's. Ideally, you'd want to deconstruct the rules down to a minimal base, and then allow other subsystems to be optionally added to a playing group's tastes. I am not a 3e expert, which is one of the reasons why I'd like a simplier set of 3e rules.

By the way, my low-magic/Conan suggestion wasn't advocating a style of play, so much as just giving a good excuse to chop down the number spells to lower the page count.

Here’s a suggestion for a smaller, less complicated version of Pathfinder. Put it in a Conan-like, low-magic setting. This should make it fairly easy to relate to for beginners. Even Lord of the Rings was low-magic compared to a typical D&D campaign.

Make all the PC’s human. If there has to be demi-humans, just make them minor variations in ability scores, without special abilities. Limit the classes to fighters, rouges, wizards, and clerics. Drop feats and skills, except for a very limited set that are class specific, with their effectiveness increasing with level. (Sidebar: give rouges a “sixth sense” ability to detect traps, ambushes, and secrets to make them very useful to the party.)

Spells are determined from choosing from a limited number of schools or domains. Spellcasters will have a small range of “at-will” and daily powers granted by their choice, which will increase in potency with level. (Essentially 4e, but it’s simple.) By the same token, limit monsters to only one or two special abilities.

Drop all discussion of Alignment. Simplify the XP system to be adventure, goal, or quest based. (Somewhat arbitrary, little math is required.) Make up a general set of rules to cover common situations, such as grapple, non-standard combat maneuvers, tracking, hiding, etc. And have the rules cover up to level 14, the same as the Adventure Paths, to keep things from getting too complex.

Insofar as Paizo having the resources to create some sort of “Basic” game, I do seem to remember that Jason started working on Pathfinder in his spare time.

Dark Continent

I've posted this outline for an Adventure Path at my blog. There are no stats or maps, just the layout for the main encounters and background.

I'd appreciate any comments. If you use any of the ideas here in an adventure, please let me how they worked out.

Charge a subscription for the virtual tabletop, but make sure that it's less than an MMO, given that the players will be providing their own content. Sell Dungeon adventure modules individually. Give subscribers an automatic discount on those modules. Give away the Dragon articles, that's probably what they're worth. Produce a "Best of Dragon" physical book yearly, if they seem popular enough.

I actually did try to make up my own D&D-ish game. It was sort of classless (uncouth and rude, as well). Characters start with a previous profession and a current profession, for example you could be a gentleman thief turned local sheriff, or pirate turned arcane student. The only caveat was that if your profession involved magic, that would be your current profession. Your profession gave you a range of assumed skills and you could choose a couple to be good at.

Characters have a special ability, such as being able to use magic, or having super strength, or starting off with a magic weapon. There were limitations and drawbacks to go with the ability.

Characters also had status: physical (like Hot), personality (like Cruel), and circumstance (like Rich). Characters could use status in non-combat situations, but could also be called out on them and face having them diminished or enhanced.

Whatever. I finished a rough version, but never got to playtest it. I think my fan edition of D&D would be something like this:

The simple mechanics of Microlite D20
A wide range of class and race choices like from Pathfinder and 4e
A system that doesn't have to be played with miniatures
Removing feats and skills, except for those granted by race or class
Simplifing the magic system
Dividing up spells between instant and ritual (like 4e, I added another layer, ceremony, like for summoning a hurricane, but something like that requires a coven)
Simple spell desciptions and effects
Simplifing spell management (I used something like Spell Points. Spells drain a varying number of points depending on their power. Or perhaps a system involving a roll against an ability plus character level vs. the spell level.)

Don't worry Hasbro. As soon as Obama is anointed Pharaoh, err... elected president, you'll be finally be able to contribute more in taxes to this great country. (You too, Paizo!) Mr. Leeds and Mr. Charness, fret not. You’ll be in that 5% that isn’t going to be getting a tax break either. (Strangely, I doubt the rest of us will be getting any tax cuts from the Obama, but what the hell, he’s just soooo coooool.)

And if this post doesn’t get this thread moved out of the gaming discussions, nothing will.

I can see it now:

New at Paizo - Nick Logue's "How To Host A Hook Mountain Massacre"

Then WOTC gets into the act - Introducing our new "Tomb of Horrors" party game. It only takes 10 minutes to play!

Okay, my last post was a little overwrought. I'll let this turkey go.

Penny Sue wrote:

jdh417 wrote:

Will RPG's be confined to the geek ghetto forever?

Not if you convince them it's something else. You say RPG or D&D and a lot of people are instantly turned off for various reasons. However I've enjoyed murder mystery party games with people who wouldn't be caught dead playing an RPG and they loved it. The party game was essentially what you are striving for; an RPG party game light on the rules and heavy on the inebriated fun.

I think you'd be much happier, and have an easier task, if you bought one of those murder mystery party games. Then analyzed the rules and mechanics of it. Use the mechanics in your favorite setting and reformulate it into what you envision.

Or try to use a game that they don't suspect is a role-playing game. I'm rather fond of getting people at parties to play The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Münchhausen, then tell them later that it's not so differant from other games, and sometimes they get rather curious about it.

also, check out that game for everyone who doesn't know it.

Like most of the people posting here, I've had plenty of good RPG experiences and even some of the bad ones were memorable in a funny sort of way, while my memories any board or card games I've played is scant at best. I find it a crying shame that everyone can't participate in this type of social entertainment. Whether due to D&D's undeserved bad reputation, the stereotype of the nerdy gamer (not entirely undeserved), or due to the impenetrable nature of overly complex rules, RPG's do not seem destined for mainstream acceptance.

Card games, storytelling games, and improv acting games are great, but they're not adventures like an RPG. Right now, there's no rules set out there that can be learned and played by an entire group of novices in a short period of time. In-person, sitting around a table adventuring is a great idea and always will be, but how much longer is the hobbyist RPG going to be around? 4e seems more wargame than RPG, and wargames are definitely for hobbyists. Before online services eat up the rest of the market, RPG's need to be pushed into a wider audience before they go away.

Pathfinder is a good way for Paizo to service their existing customers and perhaps pick up some disaffected ones from WOTC, but it's just a little declining niche market. Take your Pathfinder brand, your tremendous setting, your big gaming brains, and start thinking about, "How can I get more people to play RPG's!"

I have seen this RPG-as-party-game done (and participated myself). The thing is, it works better if you keep on throwing out rules, to the point that character sheet is an empty paper where you just write what your character is like, and throwing dice can be done in simple high-low method. So making a rules system for this kind of works against the purpose.

Now, if Paizo would decide to make some nice party board or card game, that would be great (knowing several non-RPgamers who still enjoy playing Munchkin a lot).

Your party game sounds something like a FUDGE-based RPG game. Since you've actually tried this kind of game, I'll take your word for it that it doesn't work too well.

I was working on this last night and it was starting to look like an unholy union of FUDGE and 4e, and nothing to do with Pathfinder. 4e does have several concepts in it that would make it easy to learn and play on a whim like a board game (minions, self-healing, limited spell powers). (Disclaimer: NOT an endorsement of 4e.)

Will RPG's be confined to the geek ghetto forever?

Flogging the dead horse some more.

Variations on a Pathfinder Basic set have come up in threads, but to my knowledge, no one from Paizo has made any comments on them. Perhaps a definitive, "No, this is outside of what we're trying to do here for the forseable future," or a "We'll see how well Pathfinder does before we seriously consider a variant," would be helpful.

Back to the party game, I am really thinking of a full RPG experience: players roll up characters, DM takes them on an adventure, free-form entertainment ensues. You'll still need the dice, but unlike Monopoly, you won't need the board or the tokens and hopefully the participants will get a memorable experience on top of it (something a board game, by and large, doesn't give you.)

Thinking out loud. An RPG without levels or leveling up, but still able to scale encounters to face totally different types of opponents. Still thinking.

Mosaic, how do you recover Hit Points in Microlite? Is the rule in there or am I just missing it?

I was kind of hoping somebody from Paizo would reply with,
"Worst. Idea. Ever."

I realize the futility of suggesting a simplified rules set in this forum, but if you step a little bit outside the box, I think there's some merit to this idea. Why couldn't this work at a casual dinner party that doesn't involve drunken table dancing? There are already mystery party games, where people play parts. It's a reasonable ice-breaker, if the people don't know each other well. Pathfinder would have all the options available in 3.5 D&D, without the knee-jerk, bad vibes, mainstream name recognition of Dungeons and Dragons.

I don't see condensing the rules down as the main issue. It would be preping and running the game. That's why I suggested selling small modules to go with it. Enterprising party hosts might make up their own scenarios and the rules book should have a chapter on that, but I don't see these type of games as any sort of elaborate campaign. People who want more can be directed to the Pathfinder RPG proper.

As soon as I'm able able, I'll post whatever more specific ideas I come up with. Anybody else who's interested, please toss in your ideas.

I just got back from a low-key, work-related party, which featured a party game. I just suddenly had the thought, “Would it be possible to make an RPG party game?”

Okay, after everyone finishes spewing their Mountain Dew on their computer screen.

Really though. I haven’t thought all this out (obviously) and may post more later, but I thought I'd throw this out now and see what everyone else thinks.

Please don’t post, “Go play 4e!”

The party game edition would need really quick, easy character creation, but with plenty of choices and some character variation. Combat would also have to be really simple, quick, concise, and definitive. It would also likely need to work without miniatures and a grid map, so heavy battlefield tactics would be discouraged. There would need to be character social interaction rules, but they should be quickly resolvable with a dice roll, on the assumption that people at a party are not going to want to heavily get into character (unless they’ve been drinking heavily).

Actually, these rules need to be learnable and playable by people who may be half-drunk, so also all record keeping for characters, monsters, and NPC’s needs to pretty simple as well. In a similar vein, characters will probably need some “fate-like” points that can be played in case they do something dumb in the first encounter that would otherwise get them killed.

I haven’t played or seen any of the Pathfinder Society scenarios, but from what I’ve heard, this might be the kind of adventures that might work in this kind of setting. Something that could play inside of four hours, give the players a more than reasonable chance of success, no “shopping at the bazaar” during the adventure, just straight-up adventuring (fighting, parleying, puzzle solving), and a clear objective. Consider all these games to be one-shots, no leveling up. Characters would be created at the appropriate power level for the adventure. Perhaps the idea of levels could be dispensed with altogether in some fashion.

Bottom line. Paizo creates “Pathfinder RPG: The Party Game” edition, a small softcover book. And then sells lots of easy to run, scenario pdf’s for the game on their website. They make lots of money and RPG’s become a mainstream, fad rage at parties everywhere.

"A warlock sets an airship on a collision course toward the lich’s castle, abandoning the massive craft as it crashes into the topmost tower."

Shouting "Allah Akbar!" as it crashes into the tower.

Sorry, not enough time has passed for this not to be cringe-worthy.

If you've ever heard Paul Tevis' "Have Games Will Travel" RPG podcast, you know he's not into D&D. Imagine my shock after listening to this episode. Anyway, he's got some good insight into the game. Check it out.

http://www.havegameswilltravel.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=362126

I listed these in another thread, but here they are again.

Warrior Order: Like the Knights Templar or Hospitaler, dedicated to a certain mission. This could also work with a wizard order (and their companions)

Explorers: Employed by a shipping company or geographic society

Inquisitors: Working for the church to find demons and such

Mercenary company or Military special forces

Foreign Diplomatic or Embassy Service: James Bond intrigue

Criminal Enterprise: (Bandits, pirates, thieves guild) Mafia-like mob wars, Ocean’s 11, Robin Hood.

Law Enforcement: (Texas Rangers, federal marshals, FBI, Bounty Hunters)

Colonists

Divine Mission, Secret Society, or cult member

This may not be in the original spirit of the spell, but what if Find the Path could only be used to find your way BACK to somewhere you've been? The spell would be very useful in certain situations without (hopefully) breaking the game.

Other than to agree with the points already mentioned, to add my two cents for ideas for a Basic set.

Make sure the game can be played without miniatures. Not that it has to be, but that it is an equally valid option.

Keep the modifiers to a minimum. One modifier per roll would be optimal. No more than two.

Keep feats and skills limited, probably limiting them to being specific to only certain classes. (Yeah, Back to the Future, 1st Edition.) Drop a bunch of general skills and don't even worry about them.

I've seen a couple of other threads on this topic, but this one is certainly the best developed. I think the idea of a simpler game speaks to a lot people for several reasons.

To our Paizoian masters, please keep this idea in the back of your mind while you are completing the Pathfinder game. Depending on the results of the release, consider expanding the base of the game beyond the 3.5 refugees. Perhaps a Basic rules set for next year's Free RPG Day? Or announcing at next year's Gen Con some alternative rules sets, such as a Basic version or versions that incorporate some of the funkier ideas from various Indy RPG's. Don't sweat backward compatibility with these. Just put in a short appendix guideling stats to convert and rules to drop or change for those wanting to use published 3.5/Pathfinder adventures.

A 4e essay for no particular reason, other than having read a couple of reviews today.

One gets the impression that the designers’ intentions were very honest in wanting to improve the game, while continuing in the traditions that make it enjoyable. There are certainly aspects of 4e that offer innovation in that vein. Surely everyone here will admit to at least one or two items of interest. (The disagreement would come over the selection.)

Unfortunately, Wotc’s (Hasbro’s) motive for producing 4e was for the pure gouge of their customers, a Microsoft-like forced upgrade. Their initial dictums to the designers were pretty clear: make it incompatible with the previous edition, but make it fundamentally same. The effect of this was meant drive new sales, while not overly angering the fan base. However, the new edition would not be able to build on the enormous legacy and familiarity of previous versions. Additionally, this would simultaneously ensure that the game would not be revolutionary in any way.

Marketing, accounting, and management’s demands did not stop there. Let’s keep this new edition secret so as not to disturb current 3.5e sales. Make sure to bind the playtesters with non-disclosure agreements so they won’t be able to speak to one another. Leak just enough information to start generating buzz well in advance of the release. This has to generate sales in addition to the books; make miniatures an integral part of the game. Cut out a bunch of player race and class options and monsters to sell those in succeeding books. Put the rules and updates to the rules online and sell subscriptions. Oh, that’s not going to be enough content. Cancel Dungeon and Dragon magazines and we’ll put them online. Make the game more like World of Warcraft (an ironic circle of incest) to interest those fans. Why not put the game itself online? Yeah, now we can sell subscriptions.

All aspects of an organization contribute to a product’s success or failure. Wotc’s deep pockets and their marketing have produced an excellent looking product that I suspect is selling well. Their product, though, does not fulfill a need (the previous version was not old or broken enough), nor is it sufficiently differentiated enough from previous versions to entice new players or online players into the game. Will the majority of those alienated by Wotc’s tactics eventually succumb to the pressure to “upgrade?” Will new players enter the game? It will be sales over the coming months and follow up product sales that will ultimately determine its success or failure.

By comparison, Paizo’s candor about their plans and their open playtesting policy is certainly praise-worthy. Would that they had Wotc’s resources and held the D&D brand. Regardless of Pathfinder’s ultimate fate, I hope Paizo will use this experience in considering new and original game systems.

I love a good running fight or a chase scene. They’re tricky to pull off. They almost have to happen by accident. It works if it’s fast and furious. I would ask the game designers and the playtesters here to try the Pathfinder rules in such a scenario and see how it works and if it’s fun.

I like a motivated character group. A company of adventurers looking for loot or gathering to face an imminent threat works fine. I’ve also experimented with giving the group something like an actual profession (of course, groups can change careers over time). Here’s a few ideas:

Warrior Order: Like the Knights Templar or Hospitaler, dedicated to a certain mission. This could also work with a wizard order (and their companions)

Explorers: Employed by a shipping company or geographic society

Inquisitors: Working for the church to find demons and such

Mercenary company or Military special forces

Foreign Diplomatic or Embassy Service: James Bond intrigue

Criminal Enterprise: (Bandits, pirates, thieves guild) Mafia-like mob wars, Ocean’s 11, Robin Hood.

Law Enforcement: (Texas Rangers, federal marshals, FBI, Bounty Hunters)

Colonists

Divine Mission, Secret Society, or cult member

The purpose of this thread isn’t to take a trip down Memory Lane. The introduction to Pathfinder states that the rules would work well for any type of game. What kind of adventures do you like to run or play? Also, how do the rules, as they are, enhance or get in the way of playing your favorite types of adventures?

There are no right or wrong answers here. Just say what you like and maybe this might influence the game design more to your liking. List any pre-packaged adventures if you want.

(Anyone from Paizo is welcome to chime in too, with your favorites and favored type of play.)

I’ll start: I like lots of action, fast-paced, dramatically-oriented combat. I don’t like haggling over or deciphering rules, and I’m not above fudging in the name of making a better a story.

That said, the most memorable parts of an adventure tend to be the interactions between characters and NPC’s. The hokey-ier, the hamm-ier, or the funnier the better. This is all about character though. I don’t bring out the dice for this. I tend not to make dice rolls unless hit points are potentially immediately involved, or to resolve some specific skill use.

(And long walks on the beach, holding hands. This sounds too much like a Playboy bio. Feel free to ignore my example in writing your own reply.)

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

jdh417 wrote:

My irritation is with Paizo is with their management of this messageboard, whereas before I had been quite pleased with it, as well as their target marketing and exploitation of certain segments, namely "fanboys" and gays in this case. I can only see that the inclusion of certain character elements were simply meant to shock or pander to specific audiences, rather than having actual story value.

We try to be as hands-off as possible on these boards. Our community does a very decent job (most of the time) of censoring and moderating itself. Rarely do we have to lock a thread or moderate a user. And I mean very rarely. We simply do NOT have the time to read and moderate every thread on our messageboard. We are a small company, folks.

As the guy responsible for directing the marketing operations of this company, allow me to assure you that our "target market" is currently "people seeking a quality adventure experience." Horribly general, yes, but we're certainly not rubbing our hands together in meetings and wondering aloud how we might, to use your turn of phrase, "target and exploit fanboys and gays." There are a handful of homosexual characters in our modules, adventure paths, and in our world -- that does not a targeting or exploitation make. Since we have minotaurs in our modules and in our world does this mean we're exploiting the much sought after minotaur demographic in the real world?

I don't think so.

Don't ascribe to marketing menace what can simply be explained as a plot or setting choice on the part of an individual author. Paizo does not have an agenda, is not trying to force an agenda on anyone, and is not in anyway a political entity. We're a business, we're here to provide entertainment for our customers and our community and, along the way, make a nice living and turn a profit.

I, for one, think this thread is done. If folks wish to continue the real world arguments about homosexuality I'd recommend you do what one poster has...

BPorter. Thank you.

Mr. Frost. I don't agree with the way this situation has been handled, and I'm still skeptical about certain editorial motivations. However, if didn't care about your company, I wouldn't have written at all. Take that for what it's worth.

I hope everyone else follows your advice and takes their oh-so "productive" religion/homosexuality proselytizing to the off-topic thread.

Herald: "But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I can respect your opinion that you don't like Piazo's inclution of alternative lifestyles in it's publications. I don't agree with you, but I can see your point."

I never said that or expressed any opinion on subject. I have no qualms with the posters or their views. Even the original post was a legitimate question. (It should have been answered by Paizo and as soon as soon as the "right and wrong" discussion started, it should have been locked.)

My irritation is with Paizo is with their management of this messageboard, whereas before I had been quite pleased with it, as well as their target marketing and exploitation of certain segments, namely "fanboys" and gays in this case. I can only see that the inclusion of certain character elements were simply meant to shock or pander to specific audiences, rather than having actual story value.

DeadDmWalking: "I think there has been some 'productive discourse' in this thread."

If you mean fracturing, dividing, and alienating, this is then some new definition of the word "productive."

James Jacobs: "At the same time, we have no plans for doing an "all gay, all the time" adventure path, so if there's secret worries about that, don't worry."

You mean like White Wolf, don't you? ;)

(Congrats on picking up the Full Monte, by the way.)

Okay Herald, you've thoroughly convinced me and everyone still reading this thread that you're not a "fanboy." Sorry if you were offended by that "derogatory" term. I must include myself in the "fanboy" group as just finished downloading the Megan Fox/topless pics, that broke on the Internet today. (Best line from AICN Talkback: "You guys need to find a girl who's last name isn't .jpg.")

Sarcasm aside, you haven't changed my opinion, but it's good that you've defended yours, as you obviously feel strongly about it. We just don't agree.

As long as I'm here. As far as I can see, no one's opinion here has changed towards homosexuality, except to become more entrenched. Have the readers' opinions of Paizo changed however?

Moderators, in spite of your repeated warnings, you knew what was going to happen when this thread showed up. You knew nobody was going to be able to stay away from it. You knew what it was going to devolve into (regardless of how polite the discourse). This was exactly the kind of shameless promotion I was talking about: trying to generate "buzz" and controversy, instead of content or community.

My opinion of Paizo has not improved because of this thread.

jdh417 wrote:

Let’s call the lesbian romance in Glorion what it really is: pandering fanboy marketing by Paizo. This was all but confirmed when Mr. Jacobs teased that some of the iconics were gay too, but didn’t say who. The only reason this volatile, off-topic thread is still here is because Paizo is gauging customer demographics for further targeting.

If Mr. Jabcobs reads this, I assume there will be a long-winded denial. Even if your editorial beliefs agree with your marketing, please surprise me, and admit to this.

This thread IS one of many tools I'm using to gauge the public reaction. You're right. And for the most part, customer reaction has been very positive and reassuring. We'll continue to have LGB characters appear now and then in Pathfinder, and it's good to see that the majority of our customers seem to be okay with that. At the same time, we have no plans for doing an "all gay, all the time" adventure path, so if there's secret worries about that, don't worry.

And anyone who's read Curse of the Crimson Throne knows that the "lesbian romance" angle more or less amounts to one or two sentences. VERY EASY to excise from your game, in other words, without really impacting the adventure itself.

Thank you for your very honest comment.

If I may at least critize the story. Wouldn't it have been better in a dramatic sense to have had the romance been key plot twist later in the adventure path, rather than just two throw-away sentences. That's why it just looks like fanboy titalation. You can do better.

I cannot believe the number of posts that have come up in the last hour and a half since I last checked in. Perhaps a Pathfinder: Off-topic thread, or something like that is warranted.

Let’s call the lesbian romance in Glorion what it really is: pandering fanboy marketing by Paizo. This was all but confirmed when Mr. Jacobs teased that some of the iconics were gay too, but didn’t say who. The only reason this volatile, off-topic thread is still here is because Paizo is gauging customer demographics for further targeting.

If Mr. Jabcobs reads this, I assume there will be a long-winded denial. Even if your editorial beliefs agree with your marketing, please surprise me, and admit to this.

I think players will become bored on fighting the same 4 opponents over and over. Heh.

Perhaps you have never played the classic RPG, Paranoia, mentioned in the thread title. Properly motivated, players will have gleeful of fun killing each other.

I wouldn't recommend this kind of play for anything other than self-resurrecting characters. Otherwise, characters killing each other will lead to hard feelings at the table. It worked in Paranoia, because each character had six clones.

I know this style of play is antithetical to normal D&D play. Just threw this out to generate some weird ideas and nostalgia.

After reading the Epic levels synopsis on the D&D website, the ability for characters to resurrect themselves jumped out at me. What would be the best use for this ability?

Player fratricide.

Okay one possible scenario, the characters have joined the cult of Tharizdun. Neutral, evil, and dedicated to destruction. However, the characters have all founded different factions within the cult with their own agendas. Each faction is trying to one-up the other to get the mad god's favor.

So here you go. The voice from beyond calls forth with a mission. An insane mission. The players take on the mission in their own unique ways, while simultaneously trying to sabotage the others from completing it first.

DM's, think of the amount of time you'll save on the preparation of monsters and foes. Players, imagine all the XP you'll get killing immortals over and over again.

Somebody please try something like this and post a play report.

Thanks for the link Ernest. I’m looking over Microlite20 right now.

Here’s a couple of others:

Basic Fantasy
www.basicfantasy.org

OSRIC
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/

It occurs to me that it would perhaps not be in Paizo’s best interests to produce a rules-lite fantasy game, given that they would be competing with people who are giving away basically the same product for free.

However, the people giving the rules away aren’t trying to sell products. Again perhaps, a rules-lite version of Pathfinder might ultimately drive more sales of adventures or even the full version.

Or maybe the simplicity focus should be on just making specific complex rules and situations less onerous in Pathfinder.