In the comments regarding the Kingmaker adventure path at Grognardia (an OSR blog). Someone said "We're all still waiting for that rules-lite, Old School game, Paizo."
Erik responded with "I'd love to give it to you. We talk about it at least once a week and I think about it pretty much daily at this point."
Here is the link: http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/03/kingmaker.html
I for one think this would be the bomb!! So Erik, if you guys talk about it once a week and you think about it daily, does this mean it's "possible" we may see something like this on the product schedule for 2011 or more likely 2012?
What "rules lite" system are we even talking about? It sure isn't the Gygax-designed system with all its tables and shoot from the hip decisions.
The Basic D&D line of products was as simple as it ever got.
What's so rules heavy about 3.5 or Pathfinder?
Everything?
If you consciously teach someone to be a DM, instead of letting him/her run along as a player for a few months, you see how very very difficult D&D 3.5/PF is. 4th is a bit easier, but for many sacrifices a lot for it and on the wrong end altogether.
Really, there are a ton of "rules-light" "high-fantasy" gaems out there, but ultimately they all have a sucky system, a niche theme (Vampires anyone) or bad support.
Paizo contributing themselves to a rules-light old style high fantasy setting and supporting this with ample products could eb a big win - but I somehow doubt they can do this besides Pathfinder.
|
Everything?
If you consciously teach someone to be a DM, instead of letting him/her run along as a player for a few months, you see how very very difficult D&D 3.5/PF is. 4th is a bit easier, but for many sacrifices a lot for it and on the wrong end altogether.
Really, there are a ton of "rules-light" "high-fantasy" gaems out there, but ultimately they all have a sucky system, a niche theme (Vampires anyone) or bad support.
Paizo contributing themselves to a rules-light old style high fantasy setting and supporting this with ample products could eb a big win - but I somehow doubt they can do this besides Pathfinder.
Agree 110% with everything MicMan said.
A streamlined d20 system (which means less detailed, and with greater intrinsic flexibility to cover necessary grey areas) with a self-contained set system along the old BECMI model, would be the bomb.
How about Pathfinder Basic? A one-box starter set would be a great way to bring in new gamers and paizonians. A lot of us fondly remember fiddling with the Red Box when we were in grade school or junior high, and I doubt there is really anyone doing that now with the 500+ page Pathfinder Core Rulebook. I love it, but we really do need a kid/beginner friendly rule set.
I imagine it would be a rules light version of Pathfinder. I think for it to be a real old school rules light game it would need to stand on its own. Not just be a basic set for levels 1-3 and then you are supposed to switch to the heavy Pathfinder. Otherwise it's not an old school game it's just a starter set.
How about a rules-light board game? I remember that's what got me into DnD in the first place. All the rulebooks for 2e were very intimidating, but the self-contained games like Dungeon, Dragon Strike, and Dragon Quest(google 'em!) really got me into table-top RPGs, and sparked my interest to go head first once I got used to the system.
It seems to me that Paizo is in a unique position to make an old school/rules light game to capture the grognards and new players. They have the credibility when it comes to love of the old ways with Planet Stories and their old school/pulpy inspired campaign setting. And they have the market presence to be noticed.
I think if they make a rules light game and set it in Golarion, then even the rules heavy Pathfinder players will buy adventure modules, etc. Hell, maybe set aside an area in Golarion that will only be developed in the rules light game and accessories.
Isn't D6 pretty much 'rules light'?
|
|
IMO, a rules-light game would just start with pregenerated characters (the Fighter gets X feats at X level, the Sorceress gets this Bloodline and these spells, etc.) that have their progressions mapped out and advance automatically every X encounters. The encounter book would be laid out with 1st level encounters, 2nd level encounters, etc. Magic items and gear would be built-in, and just appear at the appropriate level.
Take Pathfinder (or 3.5) and remove *all* of the customization. Include a few easily-advanced monsters in the 'Lite Bestiary,' such as Skeletons and Giant Vermin, that can be used over and over at different levels, and Humanoids that use the exact same simple fixed 'Fighter' template that the PC Fighter uses. (Plus, the Pathfinder 'iconic monster,' the Goblin, naturally.)
After playing these 'pregens,' the new player can pick up the core book and discover that the Sorcerer he's been playing is just one of a half-dozen Bloodlines, and that there are a plethora of spells that he can choose from, rather than the assortment that came pre-selected with the Lite character. The Fighter player can similarly learn that their are a ton of Feats they've never heard of, and weapon options different than the weapon and feat choices that were preselected for him.
While it might be tempting to use the Iconics for this, some of them are more or less 'optimal,' and it might be confusing for a newer player to learn that not only not all Rangers use crossbows, or all Fighters use Two-Weapon Fighting, for example, but that these are poor choices.
Somewhere between Lite and 'advanced,' a few optional 'builds' might be tossed in, such as a Draconic or Elemental Fire version of the Sorcerer, or a Two-Handed or Sword-and-Board version of the Fighter, or a Dwarven Fighter option or a Gnomish Sorcerer, to get the new player familiar with the idea that there were many options, before throwing them into the deep end, where they get to build their Sorcerer or Fighter from the ground up.
"We're all still waiting for that rules-lite, Old School game, Paizo."
... why? 1e D&D and OD&D still exist (among with a myriad of others, to be honest). What are they waiting for, really?
"I'd love to give it to you. We talk about it at least once a week and I think about it pretty much daily at this point."
Again... why?
"We're all still waiting for that rules-lite, Old School game, Paizo."... why? 1e D&D and OD&D still exist (among with a myriad of others, to be honest). What are they waiting for, really?
"I'd love to give it to you. We talk about it at least once a week and I think about it pretty much daily at this point."Again... why?
To introduce new players into the fold. i.e. - Kids especially.
|
I can imagine that being "Pathfinder Lite" - no skills, no feats, limited spell selection, etc.
That and fewer classes with next to no customization along with the removal of miniature rules for combat. That's more or less the formula for basic D&D and Dragon Warriors
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
There's a bit of confusion here.
I am constantly thinking and theorizing about a Pathfinder "basic" game that would make it easier for people to learn how to play the game and less intimidating than a 600-page hardcover book with tons of supplements.
Such a project would most likely involve a "trimmed down" version of the rules.
Although the purpose of such a product would be to get new players into the game, I strongly suspect that it would strike a chord with some folks in the Old School crowd, because a significant element of what they're looking for is simplicity.
That's basically what I'm talking about. A trimmed down "basic" version of Pathfinder.
Like I said, it's something I think about a bit every day, and something I really think we should get to eventually.
|
|
There's a bit of confusion here.
I am constantly thinking and theorizing about a Pathfinder "basic" game that would make it easier for people to learn how to play the game and less intimidating than a 600-page hardcover book with tons of supplements.
Such a project would most likely involve a "trimmed down" version of the rules.
Although the purpose of such a product would be to get new players into the game, I strongly suspect that it would strike a chord with some folks in the Old School crowd, because a significant element of what they're looking for is simplicity.
That's basically what I'm talking about. A trimmed down "basic" version of Pathfinder.
Like I said, it's something I think about a bit every day, and something I really think we should get to eventually.
I like the basic game that came out with 3.0. It was nice having a small rulebook and a few small adventures to level up the characters a few levels with some cardboard tokens and a paper mat with a pre-made dungeon to get people used to play. That'd be perfect, IMO.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
That's sort of what I'm thinking, but I'd prefer to include the character creation elements similar to the 1980s "red box" rather than the "we're forcing you to play this pre-generated character because we can only afford to put four pre-painted plastic miniatures in this box" approach taken by WotC in one of their basic games.
I think character creation is a critical element to the popularity of RPGs, and anything that doesn't allow for it is taking away something inherent to the appeal.
|
|
That's sort of what I'm thinking, but I'd prefer to include the character creation elements similar to the 1980s "red box" rather than the "we're forcing you to play this pre-generated character because we can only afford to put four pre-painted plastic miniatures in this box" approach taken by WotC in one of their basic games.
I think character creation is a critical element to the popularity of RPGs, and anything that doesn't allow for it is taking away something inherent to the appeal.
That would be nice, but you'd really want to keep it simple. I can see why you'd have trouble coming up with a concept for teaching without set-in-stone stuff. Perhaps include a little of both?
The 4d6 method of stat generation always seems to give my new players a reason to complain. Maybe stay away from that and go with the point buy right off the bat.
|
|
How about a Game Mastery Flip Mat or Map Pack, paper minis or die cut counters, an adventure booklet, a basic rules booklet, and a set of dice? Problem of course, would be pricing it appropriately.
With proper instructions in the adventure booklet on how to utilize the Map Pack, the basic game could be expandable by bundling additional Map Packs and paper minis/counters with an adventure module or what not. Would be a bit like Hero Quest from back in the day.
|
To introduce new players into the fold. i.e. - Kids especially."We're all still waiting for that rules-lite, Old School game, Paizo."... why? 1e D&D and OD&D still exist (among with a myriad of others, to be honest). What are they waiting for, really?
"I'd love to give it to you. We talk about it at least once a week and I think about it pretty much daily at this point."Again... why?
Hence, I'm using MicroLite20 as my spring board - plus this is already Pathfinder-friendly, you can use existing OGL/D20 adventures as is, and the game can easily evolve into more complex forms.
I think character creation is a critical element to the popularity of RPGs, and anything that doesn't allow for it is taking away something inherent to the appeal.
Absolutely. Creating the character is a ton of fun, and a big part of the appeal to younger players. Maybe only a couple of races & classes? Limited spell selection? Drop skills & feats, as others have suggested.
Actually, I would think this would be fairly doable for someone to put together on there own, with a little cutting & pasting.
Isn't D6 pretty much 'rules light'?No, its essentially Yahtzee.
It is rather rules-lite actually. I'm playing a D6 star wars game a the moment and my only complaint is, yes, the utter randomness of it. There is a D6-based system I'm working on that takes away a lot of the randomness. Think skill-based combat that is a cross between D6 and D20.
|
|
It is rather rules-lite actually. I'm playing a D6 star wars game a the moment and my only complaint is, yes, the utter randomness of it. There is a D6-based system I'm working on that takes away a lot of the randomness. Think skill-based combat that is a cross between D6 and D20.Isn't D6 pretty much 'rules light'?No, its essentially Yahtzee.
Now that I'd be more willing to play. I stayed away from d6 Star Wars despite how many people liked it for a lot of reasons, but a lot of it stemmed from the fact that it seemed unnecessarily random. That was a major annoyance with the DBZ (yes I unfortunately played that game) RPG.
|
Hence, I'm using MicroLite20 as my spring board - plus this is already Pathfinder-friendly, you can use existing OGL/D20 adventures as is, and the game can easily evolve into more complex forms.To introduce new players into the fold. i.e. - Kids especially."We're all still waiting for that rules-lite, Old School game, Paizo."... why? 1e D&D and OD&D still exist (among with a myriad of others, to be honest). What are they waiting for, really?
"I'd love to give it to you. We talk about it at least once a week and I think about it pretty much daily at this point."Again... why?
Yea! Another Microlite fan. I find that even with the advance rules and classes it is a marvelously easy game. Someday when I am less frantic I think I will put together a PBP game of Microlite20 on these boards.
It is rather rules-lite actually. I'm playing a D6 star wars game a the moment and my only complaint is, yes, the utter randomness of it. There is a D6-based system I'm working on that takes away a lot of the randomness. Think skill-based combat that is a cross between D6 and D20.Isn't D6 pretty much 'rules light'?No, its essentially Yahtzee.
A D6 house-rule I've used in different settings deals exactly deals with that issue: Simply decide what the max number of dice you want to roll each time (i.e. 4d6). Any dice you would normally roll beyond that amount are converted to their average result i.e. 6d6 would be 4d6 + 6 (3 per die). This doesn't really alter the mechanics of the games at all since it is statistically just about the same (instead of rounding up/down you can alternate 3, 4, 3, 4 if you want).
The rules-lite part is that everything is basically the same mechanic, and there really isn't any finicky crap like threat area and AoOs to deal with. Beyond the basic mechanic, the rules are essentially just some DC look up tables/modifiers and creature/gear stats, but if you're too lazy you can just make up a DC and it doesn't really disupt the game at all.
The DnD Basic Rules Set 1 was the first RPG game I ever owned. I got it as a present from my parents before I spent the summer with my grandparents.
I had been exposed to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons a couple of years earlier and when we moved to a new town I told the neighbor kids about this storytelling game that I watched some high schoolers play where I had just came from (I didn't remember the name).
They loved the idea and asked if I could run a game for them. So, having no money, I had them describe their characters on a sheet of paper and made up a map on some graph paper that my dad had lying around. We rolled six sided dice that I robbed from a board game. We played for hours and had a great time.
I had only known those two brothers for a couple of days in passing up to that point, but we were fast friends after that first role playing session and divided our time between watching martial arts movies (with ninjas!) and running through adventures in complex caverns and dungeons.
My mom was really happy that I made such good friends so quickly as I usually had a hard time doing that when we moved (my dad was in the military). I'm sure I told her all about this role playing thing and she went to a Walden Books and asked about it. Some kid at the counter, suggested the D&D Basic Rules Set as I was only in fifth grade.
I took it with me to my grandparents house and didn't have a lot of access to other kids, so I spent the summer making characters and reading and re-reading the rules so that I'd be ready to take my friends on more complex adventures when I got home.
I played with them, and other kids, for the next 5 years basically non-stop. Some of the other kids that I became friends with through D&D played AD&D, so when I wanted to expand my gaming, I picked up stuff like Rolemaster, TMNT RPG, Palladium, and a little bit of GURPS, Gamma World, and Paranoia so that we'd didn't overlap our collections.
I guess this is a long winded way of saying that I agree with Erik; character creation is a lot of the fun of a basic system and a basic system is a good gateway into the hobby as a whole.
|
|
That's sort of what I'm thinking, but I'd prefer to include the character creation elements similar to the 1980s "red box" rather than the "we're forcing you to play this pre-generated character because we can only afford to put four pre-painted plastic miniatures in this box" approach taken by WotC in one of their basic games.
I think character creation is a critical element to the popularity of RPGs, and anything that doesn't allow for it is taking away something inherent to the appeal.
I think it is also, I think reducing options is probably the best way to go. So instead of having multiple skill options for fighters have the number parsed down to: Climb, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Ride and Swim. I would probably even drop the Ride and Swim and come up with some basic movement rules (based of PFRPG).
Same thing for all classes - simplify.Still have some choices on how points are spent, but reduce the overall complexity and detail. Characters can have a set starting score for skills (level +3 +points spent) and spend points on skills from a small pool for their main skills and generic skills.
Also eliminate AC calculation, just give fixed values based on items worn - Full plate + hvy shield = AC 21 +1 per dex mod - all in chart format. Maybe even changing it to a DC (defense class) to hit -because that is what it is. Everything is DC, that would be the foundation of the whole game, combat, skills, checks. DCs should all be pre-calculated with an extensive list of examples.
Hiding the math, simplifying the skill set, reduce the pool of points (fixed), also limiting the feats - maybe a few per class type.
I would still roll character scores - maybe have a 4d6 with prime attribute getting a 5d6 or something. Maybe point buy, maybe both. The idea would be to expose new players to aspects of the current full system. Limit classes to the basics - fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, ranger, paladin (knight). Kick down alignments to Good, neutral and evil.
Some of the clunkiest and most difficult things in PFRPG (as held over from 3.5) are the combat maneuvers, movement (Wotc was also selling a minis game, Paizo to the best of my knowledge is not), movement, movement, some rules on stacking effects....also combat maneuvers and movement.
Also templates and creature advancement probably needs even greater simplification than the already basic advanced template (which requires some recalculation). Flat out HD/BAB/Save advancements which just add on to the numbers/xp value would be easier.
Just some ideas that came to mind, sorry to ramble and get technical.
|
Hence, I'm using MicroLite20 as my spring board - plus this is already Pathfinder-friendly, you can use existing OGL/D20 adventures as is, and the game can easily evolve into more complex forms.To introduce new players into the fold. i.e. - Kids especially."We're all still waiting for that rules-lite, Old School game, Paizo."... why? 1e D&D and OD&D still exist (among with a myriad of others, to be honest). What are they waiting for, really?
"I'd love to give it to you. We talk about it at least once a week and I think about it pretty much daily at this point."Again... why?Yea! Another Microlite fan. I find that even with the advance rules and classes it is a marvelously easy game. Someday when I am less frantic I think I will put together a PBP game of Microlite20 on these boards.
Another M20 player shouting out. When our current campaign wraps, I'm going to try to run CoT using our M20 variant.
I can see what the OP and others are talking about...but, having played the game through all its incarnations over the past thirty-odd years, I still like 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder best because of the customization.
I tried playing AD&D at a con and THAC0 gave me a headache.
Here's what I'd do for a Basic set.
Basic feats (as in the non-complicated ones.) +1 TH +2 DMG, +2 to skills, etc.
Basic weapons lists (no martial/basic/exotic)
Skills, no problem, except maybe drop the knowledge/craft skills.
Run it as levels 1-5... (AKA before iterative attacks)
Fighter
Cleric (generic good - write channel as two separate abilities)
Rogue
Wizard (universalist only)
ONLY.
No Multi-classing...
Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling for races (Tolkien races)
Throw out point buy system. Roll 4d6 keep highest 3 or just roll 3d6.
No alignments
Basic weaponry (no composite bows, trim it down to the basics.)
Basic Magic items (static bonus only, minor elemental would be fine, +1 or +2 dmg)
Basic Fantasy trope monsters, zombies, skeletons, goblins, orcs, etc.
I think character creation is a critical element to the popularity of RPGs, and anything that doesn't allow for it is taking away something inherent to the appeal.+++ 1
While I do feel character creation is essential to the heart of RPG fun, this is a little daunting for players who have never created a character before. I feel that in this basic game, there should at least be a couple pregen characters made at least as examples, so that new players have something they can look to as a general guideline.
I've taught a ton of players how to play DnD and other RPGs, and the majority have never played a PnP RPG before. I would ask them about making a character and they'd just give me a blank look; "um, somebody, with like, a sword and stuff?" is a fairly typical answer. I'd ask them, "Okay, would you like to be a Human, Elf, maybe a dwarf?" and I'm often met with "I dunno...". The old school DnD board games I played used pregen characters and they were a great starting point for building our own ideas. Once we got an idea of how a generic wizard or fighter played, we could build off of that and players started gaining actual preferences.
|
|
Everything?
If you consciously teach someone to be a DM, instead of letting him/her run along as a player for a few months, you see how very very difficult D&D 3.5/PF is. 4th is a bit easier, but for many sacrifices a lot for it and on the wrong end altogether.
I learned to be a DM by running a game for a bunch of newbs, we all agreed to play because we were all curious about playing. other than a one shot played with my brother as a kid and a one shot on DnD's 40th anniversary, I didn't know how to play. I got the books and ran, it's not that intense, I don't think teaching yourself to DM 3.5 was any harder than teaching yourself to DM 4th ed honestly, 4ed just seems easier to run at higher levels.
Here's what I'd do for a Basic set.
Basic feats (as in the non-complicated ones.) +1 TH +2 DMG, +2 to skills, etc.
Basic weapons lists (no martial/basic/exotic)
Skills, no problem, except maybe drop the knowledge/craft skills.
Run it as levels 1-5... (AKA before iterative attacks)
Fighter
Cleric (generic good - write channel as two separate abilities)
Rogue
Wizard (universalist only)
ONLY.No Multi-classing...
Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling for races (Tolkien races)
Throw out point buy system. Roll 4d6 keep highest 3 or just roll 3d6.
No alignments
Basic weaponry (no composite bows, trim it down to the basics.)
Basic Magic items (static bonus only, minor elemental would be fine, +1 or +2 dmg)
Basic Fantasy trope monsters, zombies, skeletons, goblins, orcs, etc.
This I think is on the right track for a beginner version of Pathfinder. The sheer number of rules and options simply need to be scaled back.
To Add:
Available feats should have the simplest of prerequisites: level
An even more consolidated list of skills, with simpler rules for using them.
I think it should cover a span of levels 1-10.
Shortened equipment lists (for example, no composite bows, hide armor, or artisan's tools).
Shortened list of Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Monk.
A focus more on dungeon settings to eliminate the essential need for rules such as natural hazards, weather and such.
A consolidated list of spells to choose from (no need for magic aura in a basic set for instance :)
No rules for creating magic items, scribing scrolls, etc.
Very basic alignment system: Good, Neutral, Evil.
I'm changing my basic class list to
Fighter
Rogue
Sorcerer (spontaneous and it limits the spells to 2nd level.)
Cleric (and give them spontaneous casting)
Monks, not really a good intro class IMHO...
|
|
I think character creation is a critical element to the popularity of RPGs, and anything that doesn't allow for it is taking away something inherent to the appeal.
You got that right! Of my two regular gaming groups, twelve gamers in all, four of them spend more time making characters than actually running them, at least it seems that way sometimes. They won't even look twice at a RPG that didn't allow of character creation.
Monks, not really a good intro class IMHO...
+1 they are the most counter intuitive class and a need one of the greatest amounts of planning ahead to be effective.
However they were the second class I played, in 3.5, and god I love it.
Humbly,
Yawar
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
While I do feel character creation is essential to the heart of RPG fun, this is a little daunting for players who have never created a character before. I feel that in this basic game, there should at least be a couple pregen characters made at least as examples, so that new players have something they can look to as a general guideline.
Oh, yes. I completely agree.
Monks, not really a good intro class IMHO...
+1 they are the most counter intuitive class and a need one of the greatest amounts of planning ahead to be effective.
However they were the second class I played, in 3.5, and god I love it.
Humbly,
Yawar
A basic set should not require "planning ahead to be effective". If that is the case, then IMO, it isn't a "basic set". I suggest monk because it is a unique class where a lot of classes (such as the barbarian, sorcerer, paladin, druid) are alternate versions of the four primary classes.
A basic set should really be just a stripped down version of the current core rules. Take out favored class rules, Attacks of opportunity (and all feats associated with them), many of the combat maneuvers, several class abilities, and so on, and you really simplify the game.
A basic set should not require "planning ahead to be effective". If that is the case, then IMO, it isn't a "basic set". I suggest monk because it is a unique class where a lot of classes (such as the barbarian, sorcerer, paladin, druid) are alternate versions of the four primary classes.A basic set should really be just a stripped down version of the current core rules. Take out favored class rules, Attacks of opportunity (and all feats associated with them), many of the combat maneuvers, several class abilities, and so on, and you really simplify the game.
At the core, a monk is an alternate version of the Fighting Man. The problem is that it have way too much abilities and options for a basic set.
Humbly,
Yawar
I think chopping off level progression at some point, say 6th or 8th level would achieve those goals. And it leaves it at a level where a melee and magic are still very well balanced, i.e. for groups wanting more of a gritty feel, post-10th level progression in D&D just isn't appropriate.
It is still 100% compatible with PRPG adventures, and you can even pick up the "full" rule-set to continue your character past those levels if you want. Straight off, you can remove all higher level Feats and Spells and Class Abilities, and even the remaining number can be slimmed down as well: Why have both Skill Focus and the myriad +2/+2 Feats? One or the other achieves the basic purpose (probably keep Skill Focus, given it's a Half-Elf Racial)
Probably half of the Domains could be taken away, and/or each Domain could be simplified to only it's 'special ability' and instead of discrete Domain Spell Lists, just provide an extra spell slot (using cleric spell list). Don't have Specialist Wizards at all, only Universalists (and propose an alternate class ability instead of Metamagic), and likewise only have Arcane Sorcerors.
For Classes like Paladin, Druid, Ranger with 'options' (companion, weapon, ally bonus, domain): take them away, just give one of the stereotyped options. Anybody with the full rules-set will be aware there IS another option available if they want, but the Classes themselves should be as compact as possible.
Just don't include the Monk, the Flurry BAB is just too wierd if people are supposed to be learning the concept of BAB in the first place. Fighters or Paladins or Rangers (esp. STR-build w/ 2WF style) can fill the 'martial artist' role well enough anyways.
|
|
Actually, a level cap below 15th would pretty much make the Basic Rules incompatible with every Adventure Path to date. If you can't run a higher-level module using only the Basic Rules, you can't complete any Adventure Path.I think chopping off level progression at some point, say 6th or 8th level would achieve those goals...
It is still 100% compatible with PRPG adventures...
Oh well, that means they'd have to do Two AP's a month. The Basic line of AP would only need to be three volumes instead of six, so you'd get 4 a year!
Who's with me?!