I've noticed a major trend in these threads: any time someone personally dislikes an option -- skill points, action points, armies, a Fly skill, spells for paladins, or what have you -- the typical response (though not by any means universal -- there are many noteable exceptions) is to call for an expunging of that item from all rules, and efforts to explain why it "makes no sense," is "too complicated," or "isn't the right way to play."
Rather than allow that it can stay as an option (even if it's not the default play style), many people seem more comfortable advocating a total ban. I'm not sure why this is. In my mind, the best (most successful) game would provide large numbers of options that each group could use or not use as fits their style of play; this would ensure the largest number of people "buying into" the said rule set. That's the whole idea behind the Open Game License; you end up with things like Unearthed Arcana (and Arcana Unearthed, for that matter), where a lot of people are playing slightly different versions of the core rules, but they're all playing D&D 3.5. Paizo now stands at the edge of basically creating 3.75 edition rules (as Pathfinder will doubtless spawn variants and continue to evolve even after its hardback release), and they can do the same thing with that system.
Now, I understand that including lots of options involves a lot of work and a higher page count. But Paizo has proven beyond any reasonable doubt, with Dungeon and Dragon, that they can handle that kind of a task... and I for one would happily pay a higher price for a rulebook that provided me with more options.
Paizo already seems to embrace the idea; why else would they provide us with four different starting hp options? But is anyone else with me on this one?
Paizo already seems to embrace the idea; why else would they provide us with four different starting hp options? But is anyone else with me on this one?
I'm sort of with you. I think in some cases that it wouldn't be a bad idea to allow a class to have the option of this or that, rather than one set ability, but I do think there has to be a limit. Paizo can't make an unlimited sized rulebook, and if the options get too out of hand, its hard for anyone to focus on what the main class is anyway.
That having been said, there is certainly room for some classes to have multiple paths to take, but there has to be some kind of limit, and some core "jist" to the class.
I think you may be touching on two different issues here. The first being options, the second being that we have some people that, while certainly well meaning, are treating this process like a caucus rather than simply stating what they do or do not like, or what has or has not worked. They seem to be lobbying to get "their" ideas in.
I'm all for stating your opinion and making a case for that opinion, I just think its important to remember that others may not agree, and its probably best to just state your case and move on rather than try to rally someone to your cause. I may have fallen to this temptation a time or two myself, and if I have, I apologize for that.
I'm all for stating your opinion and making a case for that opinion, I just think its important to remember that others may not agree, and its probably best to just state your case and move on rather than try to rally someone to your cause.
I see where you're coming from. OK. Allow me to rephrase, then: I would prefer options; that's my opinion. I would prefer that so many people not attempt to dictate the "One True Way" to play the game. That's my opinion as well. It's not that I don't remember they may not agree; it's that I'm not sure they even realize that not everyone has to play in the exact same way.
I will move on now.
I see where you're coming from. OK. Allow me to rephrase, then: I would prefer options; that's my opinion. I would prefer that so many people not attempt to dictate the "One True Way" to play the game. That's my opinion as well. It's not that I don't remember they may not agree; it's that I'm not sure they even realize that not everyone has to play in the exact same way.
But does having one rule signify a "One True Way," or simply an acceptance of "If this doesn't work for you, we think you're smart enough to change it yourself."
The question becomes where do options stop? No one already plays the exact same way, and that same individuality dictates that no amount of options could conceivably cover everyone. And if a limited number of options are given, aren't they just as susceptible to the idea of "One True Way" where cries of playing differently are met with "didn't you get enough options in the book?"
Supporting "One True Way" isn't an issue of the system, but of the individual who believes in such an inane idea.
However, having a core set of baseline rules supports cross gameplay. While any individual is going to have house rules for their own game, when they step into another game (at a con or with any other group of gamers), they already know the baseline system. If other house rules are in effect, they only have to learn those, not the choice the GM has made for every option offered throughout the book. Shoot, it makes discussing the game on a messageboard such as this much simpler. Imagine if every game question had to be preluded with, "I am using alternative hitpoint option #4, the alternative bard #2, and the skill-based casting option. Here's my question..."
I think only one major "option" needs to be offered...
"If you are smart enough to play this game, we think you are smart enough to change it so it's more fun for you and your friends. Please do so; the whole point is to have fun!"
Sure, people are going to do that anyway... but this way, it's clear other people are doing it too and most likely, differently from them.
I see where you're coming from. OK. Allow me to rephrase, then: I would prefer options; that's my opinion. I would prefer that so many people not attempt to dictate the "One True Way" to play the game. That's my opinion as well. It's not that I don't remember they may not agree; it's that I'm not sure they even realize that not everyone has to play in the exact same way.
I will move on now.
That part wasn't so much directed at you as it was at some of the people I've seen trying to rally people to their cause. Rallying people to keep an open mind is a little different. Sort of.
Rallying people to keep an open mind is a little different. Sort of.
Dude, you crack me up. But your original point is still a good one.
Imagine if every game question had to be preluded with, "I am using alternative hitpoint option #4, the alternative bard #2, and the skill-based casting option. Here's my question..."
Yeah, I though of that, too. But it wouldn't be too tough, in my opinion -- most particularly given the types of options I mentioned earlier: using the Fly skill instead of abolishing it, allowing a version of the paladin that has spells, etc. See, right now, you say things like, "my ranger selected archery as his combat style and magical beasts as his favored enemy." Would it really be that different to say, "my paladin opted for bonus feats instead of spells"?
I should be clear that I'm not necessarily advocating six different saving throw systems, or any other major mechanical adjustments; just little sidebars that say, "Action Points: If you want to use these, then here's how they work..." In other words, character-building or play options, not totally different rules systems. Or, if you prefer, ideas for the kinds of houserules to which you referred.
Supporting "One True Way" isn't an issue of the system, but of the individual who believes in such an inane idea.
To be fair to them, I don't think they necessarily realize they're doing it, so I don't think they're being inane; they just know how they play, and assume everyone else pretty much plays that way, too.
|
For the record, I'm with Keith, but just to take the other side for a moment (always good)...
To my mind there are really only two valid reasons to complain that a particular option should be removed or altered in a game when you can just change the rules for yourself. The first applies more to systems like the combat feats, where people want feats that are basically the same as those printed, but don't want to have to convert each and every combat feat that is released in future, nor do they want additional combat-feat-based material to be designed that may well be impossible for them to use in their combat-featless game. IMHO that is simply a consequence of their decision not to include combat feats in their game, but I can understand being fearful of the loss of official support.
The second reason kind of ties into the first, and that is to do with new players.
|
|
For the record, I'm with Keith, but just to take the other side for a moment (always good)...
To my mind there are really only two valid reasons to complain that a particular option should be removed or altered in a game when you can just change the rules for yourself. The first applies more to systems like the combat feats, where people want feats that are basically the same as those printed, but don't want to have to convert each and every combat feat that is released in future, nor do they want additional combat-feat-based material to be designed that may well be impossible for them to use in their combat-featless game. IMHO that is simply a consequence of their decision not to include combat feats in their game, but I can understand being fearful of the loss of official support.
The second reason kind of ties into the first, and that is to do with new players.
Hmm. Board ate the back half of my post. Ah well. Post continued below (thank god for ctrl-c & ctrl-z):
The second reason kind of ties into the first, and that is to do with new players. This reason applies to just about any complaint with the rules. People like to go by the official way of things, because that is what most people accept. Homebrew content is well and good in your long-time gaming group, but if you join a new group or just pick up a new player for your next campaign, that player is going to assume that the "official ruleset" is in place, and even if they agree with playing to your changes, they're still going to have to learn them. Also, in any game where you're NOT DMing, the DM is most likely to be using the official ruleset, forcing you to play around the parts of the rules you don't like. If YOUR rules are the official rules though, you'll be able to walk your dream-rules PC into the majority of games and have it be immediately be understood and accepted as canon. The only games where this will not be so are the homebrewed games of people who really like the "old" rules, and so use them in the same way you stuck up for your homebrew rules. No matter the case, the majority of people are going to swing with whatever gets put down as "official", and even the naysayers would be hard-pressed to reject your "rules-legal" PC even in their homebrewed game.
|
While options are good, there really does have to be baseline assumptions. Since this is the very beginning of the Pathfinder RPG, it is important to figure out what those assumptions are.
It is hard to talk about problems with spell casting fully if you don't know what the rules are for concentration checks, for instance. And while there could be multiple rules, some really do matter.
An example that is near to my heart is whether or not there should be a skill multiplier or not. It matters. If there is, all the modules will have it, and it will be the 'common practice'. Certainly I could houserule it, but that creates the situation where my game starts departing from the 'core', and if you go to far in that direction the 'core' is useless.
So, I understand your point. And I'm for options as well. That's why I hope when the 'core' rules are decided on, flexibility and 'interchangability' are kept in mind. Of course I'm a little bothered by the number of people ignoring everyone else to say 'do it this way' and starting the 15th thread in the last two days that says 'MY OPINION on X Y Z'. The thing about a thread title like that is that it doesn't really encourage debating anything other than the OPs opinion. Other threads that are ABOUT the rule in question are certainly better, even though some people do want to get rid of that rule.
Let's face it - some rules are just bad. We could try to spend a whole lot of time salvaging them, or we could junk them and find something that works better immediately. For example, Combat Feats. The original version weren't very good. They were clearly inferior to the 3.5 feats with similar names. (And of course, this is my opinion, feel free to disagree). Trying to find a way to make them work implies abandoning the 3.5 feat system, which isn't one that is clearly broken and in need of repair. Part of the feedback has been to say 'this goes too far. For a game that will be backwards compatible, why are we even thinking about a change of this magnitude?' And that's good too.
Let's face it - some rules are just bad. We could try to spend a whole lot of time salvaging them, or we could junk them and find something that works better immediately. For example, Combat Feats... Trying to find a way to make them work implies abandoning the 3.5 feat system, which isn't one that is clearly broken and in need of repair. Part of the feedback has been to say 'this goes too far. For a game that will be backwards compatible, why are we even thinking about a change of this magnitude?' And that's good too.
Yeah, I agree. I'm all in favor of an easier way to stat NPCs, for example -- but probably not at the total expense of character customization, and probably not at the expense of backward compatibility. So an "E-Z-Skillz" option, with the ability to assign ranks like 3.5e if you want to bother, seems like a sound idea -- especially if you end up with the same number of "ranks" (or virtual ranks, as the case may be) in either case. Then you're not so much learning two sets of rules as you're deciding whether you want to expend the effort towards customization or not.
And for issues like the ongoing "paladin spells suck; they should get bonus feats" vs. "paladin spells rock!" -- well, it seems easy enough to allow the paladin to pick one or the other at the appropriate levels.
I agree with the ideas for a solid baseline to work from, and publications like Unearthed Arcana to give alternate rules. I'm not sure you should have too many alternate mechanics in a core rule book.
I'd probably buy it -- if it had predominantly actual "crunch" options, and not a bunch of nonsense like "maybe you can play a barbarian with tribal tattoos; they have no game effect, but here's a 32-page list of cool-looking body art ideas!"
I'm all for options, and games that encourage options.
Tell my big sharp sword that wielding it like that is badwrongfun }>
I really like Options when it comes to character creation and characters
I dont want many options of the standard rules (combat and that sort of thing)
For us, even without "rule 0," we have always viewed everything as an option we can toss, keep, and modify to best suit our game.
IMO, Paizo can publish anything, and we can modify it into an enjoyable experience, even if psionics never gets represented.
I say, Paizo can be option crazy, let the readers sort them out.