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 guess I was thinking published modules in general (most of which are lower than 15th level), but such an approach would by design by 100% compatible with the full rules - The basic rules just wouldn't PRESENT high-level play material: If/when you want to play at that level, you just look up the relevant info in the full rules, since the game at 10th/12th/15th level is no longer 'basic'.
...Maybe focusing on the PFS level range could work?
I guess it depends on what exact market this 'basic' set would be aimed towards.
Personally, I don't think juggling a 15th level character, much less a caster, is something most beginner players can do competently, so I don't think 15th level play (including the finale of Pathfinder APs) falls within 'basic' gameplay. I guess there's another approach to 'basic' more about 'old-school' style and whatnot, but I think mid-level 3.x/PRPG play really best approximates that style anyways, besides also being suited for new gamers. /shrug
If to include only a few classes, I'd opt for Sorcerer, Oracle, Fighter, Rogue and Bard.
Sorcerer and Oracle are easier for newbies, as it takes away the hassle of preparing spells every day (On the other hand, the Wizard and Cleric are much more "true to the game" - so that depends on whether "Walkfinder" is aimed at grognard or newbie audience).
If a fifth class should be in, it gotta be the Bard.
I'd love to see something like this done as a box set. Heck, I'd love to see a Golarion setting as a box set while we're at it ;)
You know, I don't think the trick is going to be creating basic rules in general. Based on the suggestions in this thread, most posters seem to have a similar idea of basic rules: fewer complex classes, fewer complex levels, fewer complex spells, fewer complex items, etc.
The real trick is going to be creating basic rules that still allow you to use Paizo's Adventure Paths. Because lets face it, if Paizo creates a really awesome basic game that doesn't allow basic characters to participate in Adventure Paths without massive amounts of rules conversion, the Adventure Paths are going to take a hit from a split customer base.
Hmm… I don't know. Adventure Paths IMO really don't present themselves as "beginner friendly". They're very long, detailed, and in-depth. I can see them very daunting to a 12 year old kid getting into the game.
EDIT:
The real trick (IMO) is two-fold:
1. Creating adventures made specifically for the basic version of the game that still allow experienced players to pick up and use those adventures with the core PFRPG rules.
2. Making it easy to convert PCs from the basic game to the core game when players who started with the basic rules are ready to move on to the more advanced core rules.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
maybe something along the lines of the gamemastery treasure chest?
It was an awesome little treat. Not sure if it worked well for Paizo or not though.
I think the treasure chest has a lot of what a basic boxed set would need. (I understand though that boxed sets are a bit of pain for Paizo.)
If Paizo was doing a basic boxed set, I'd like to see a module like The Haunted Forest, the 'basic' or 'quick start' rules including a solo adventure, dice, a map pack, and gamemastery item cards. In other words, I want it all.
|
If to include only a few classes, I'd opt for Sorcerer, Oracle, Fighter, Rogue and Bard.
I don't think a Pathfinder sorcerer is all that simple with multiple bloodlines. Now, if you made the Arcane bloodline the only one available in the starter set, it might work. Oracle has the same issue.
I think that the iconic classes wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue need to be part of this sort of product.
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
We have a new player who rolled up a monk. She has zero experience in RPG's outside of the game she's played with us for a few months now(didn't even play rpg video games!). Before she rolled it, she told the other players that she wanted something simple that could beat up on stuff. It still baffles me that the players suggested a monk(I wasn't present at the time). She's doing pretty decent with it(pretty much only concentrates on Flurry of Blows), but there are other classes that would've been leagues easier to teach her the game with.
If to include only a few classes, I'd opt for Sorcerer, Oracle, Fighter, Rogue and Bard.
Sorcerer and Oracle are easier for newbies, as it takes away the hassle of preparing spells every day (On the other hand, the Wizard and Cleric are much more "true to the game" - so that depends on whether "Walkfinder" is aimed at grognard or newbie audience).
If a fifth class should be in, it gotta be the Bard.
The old RPG intro board game I played contained cards for all the items, spells, monsters, etc. As a wizard in that game, you didn't write up a spell list for the day, you simply picked a couple cards of your level. This made it really easy, and essentially did the same thing. During the game, when you used the spell, you simply discarded the spell card. I think this method might even be better than spontaneous casting(in my opinion only) because the player could readily see what was available to use at all times, rather than reference a spell list and worry about spell slots. Again, just my opinion.
Also, I wouldn't use Sorcerer or Oracle, at least in name. This game has to be approachable by people who have never played an RPG before, or at least have had very limited experience with, and sort of needs to drive home the classic party build of (generic names here)Warrior, Thief, Priest, and Wizard/Mage etc. While the term "Sorcerer" is decently well known outside of gaming, Oracle doesn't seem quite as "classic". Those classes might serve better in an expansion pack or splat book.
I always vote for a basic boxed set in these threads when they happen, so here I am again. Think of the children!
maybe something along the lines of the gamemastery treasure chest?
It was an awesome little treat. Not sure if it worked well for Paizo or not though.I think the treasure chest has a lot of what a basic boxed set would need. (I understand though that boxed sets are a bit of pain for Paizo.)
If Paizo was doing a basic boxed set, I'd like to see a module like The Haunted Forest, the 'basic' or 'quick start' rules including a solo adventure, dice, a map pack, and gamemastery item cards. In other words, I want it all.
I love the Treasure Chest. It was perfect for teaching players PF. I ran it as a 3 week demo that taught the rules to the players and got them ready for ROTR. (They even dragged one of the NPCs from ITHW with them into ROTR).
However, the cost would be prohibitive to new players, I think.
Though, maybe a Basic Pathfinder book as described. And then a special "Lite Bundle" with a flip mat, simple module, and treasure cards for a slightly reduced price as a followup.
As for compatibility with the AP's. I think that most of the basic APs can be played with a simple set of rules. At least the first of each AP. By then, players should be hooked enough to get into the main rulebook.
I don't think they're going to touch the APs. (No tinkering with bread and butter.) However, they should definitely release a module at the same time.
I always vote for a basic boxed set in these threads when they happen, so here I am again. Think of the children!
A basic boxed set would definitely be the way to go, IMO. The majority of gamers I've played with started out on some kind of board game(Hero Quest, Dungeon!, Dragon Quest, DnD Basic, etc), or at least all-in-one boxed edition of a game.
I figure if PF is thinking "rules-light", let's go all the way! It would be fairly easy too, since Paizo already have a library of high-quality battle/flip mats, item/encounter/npc/loot cards, etc. Throw in some minis and some slim rules and viola! I'd even buy something like that just to get all the neat accessories in one package!
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.
Isn't this Castles & Crusades?
I certainly wouldn't mind a Siege Engine take on the Pathfinder RPG... or would it be a Pathfinder RPG take on the Siege Engine? :P
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 think so too. Even though I've played 3.5 (etc.) for a long time, I'd like a simpler "red box" kind of version. Microlite20 proved you can condense the essence of d20 into a couple pages.
And it shouldn't be hard to still be able to use the APs - or at least "basic" conversions of the APs that just replace the half page stat block with the 2 line stat block... A one page "For Basic" appendix would do it.
Much of what the light/old school versions do is simply do less exhaustive definitions. Check this post out to see the difference between the Knock spell in different versions. In PF the Knock spell writeup is 206 words long. In Microlite20, it's:
Knock: Opens locked or magically sealed door.
Look, we've compressed the game to 3% of its current size :-P
That's the beauty of an approach like this - you don't actually have to remove all that much. "Rules, not rulings," says the old school - you trust groups to work out the details of "but but can knock open a chest too..."
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Very interesting post. I've played enough tournament games to appreciate mentions of some specific exceptions and the like, but there's obviously a lot of room for trimming, ESPECIALLY for a basic version of the game.
Honestly, I think huge GM empowerment has got to be a cornerstone of this type of product. Space considerations will dictate that we simply won't be able to cover every corner case and exception. The Game Master has got to be empowered by the rules to make judgment calls and make the game his own.
Just looking at the spell description it strikes me that spell components is a needless complexity for beginners. There is all kinds of "fat" like that in the rules that can be boiled off without a significant loss for the first-time gamer.
If someone thinks the PF rulebook or 3.5 rulebooks are too verbose then trim them in YOUR game.
This only works if you are talking about experianced gamers. If a new player picks up the PFRPG core book, and they don't like the so called "completeness" of the rules, they will just put the book back on the shelf. They won't think "hey, I can just read this whole thing and cut out everything that is too complicated for me as a beginner" it just doesn't work like that.
You start simple, find holes in the simple design, and make it incrementally more complicated. It is the same cycle over and over and every RPG goes through it. Please stop.
Some players end up taking this path, some don't. Its great that you took the path to a more complicated and complete game, but lets give the choice to other players to see what they want to do. And if they are playing a Basic version of Pathfinder then they are in the Paizo family. Which just adds more players for us all to game with using the same game.
The more I think about this the more excited I get! There is so much that I love about Pathfinder, but trimming this down to an easy to use, quick playing game would be literally a dream come true.
I don't think any company has adequately trimmed the 3rd edition rules. Everything so far has been either too drastic of a cut; Microlite20 or changed things too much; True20 and Castles & Crusades.
I think this is a chance for Paizo to really create the ultimate rules light/beginner set. That has not been seen since the old Mentzer red box. So Mona get this bad boy in the pipeline and bring back the glory days of 80's D&D!
Much of what the light/old school versions do is simply do less exhaustive definitions. Check this post out to see the difference between the Knock spell in different versions. In PF the Knock spell writeup is 206 words long. In Microlite20, it's:...
This is going back to the same issues that OD&D had. When you have super simple rules like this they get abused and confused in actual play and eventually get refined to be more complicated and specific. This is how it was with OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and will be for any game that starts out with generic and simple rules like you show above.
So you say "well that's up to the GM to resolve"? Well this is what makes it difficult to play the game and grow the fan base. When the rules are simple and vague in the...
Really? Your contention is that the vagueness is what retarded growth, and the current huge tome of rules is what's required to grow the hobby?
With respect, that basically goes counter to the truth of a large part of the history of D&D. D&D was seeing its rampant growth exactly when it was less overblown and complicated, with some renaissances when huge bodies of cruft were cut away (like the 3e launch). As D&D has grown, it has gone from huge cultural MegaZord (tm) to the pretty fringe hobby it is today.
I personally got into D&D via the Red Box. It took a while for my friends and I to get to the point where we thought we could bite off AD&D. And the AD&D PHB is only 126 pages! Nowadays, "I crap supplements bigger than that!" But it sure seemed like a lot at the time.
There is a reason for the huge surge in simpler D&Ds right now. Microlite, Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, etc. People are realizing that playing the way you want is way more important and satisfying than playing the way you're "supposed to."
There's bad DMs out there. But turning the rules into shackles doesn't help that - you'll still be playing a stupid or banal or boring game, "but according to the rules!" Yay?
And D&D isn't meant to be transactional. Different groups play different ways, on so many different levels than just "the rules we use" even. Each group is its own unique thing, and that is *good*.
Is it just the legacy of the Wal-Mart/McDonalds society we live in that says that uniformity is a good in and of itself? Maybe it's just because I'm from Austin or something, but it seems the cutting edge cultural trend at the moment is rejection of that - DIY, organic, etc. Hell, even with online gaming you have private servers with different mods and rules on them to suit different tastes.
Anyway, in the end the argument is the same as "the tax code (or insert your favorite complex system here) HAS to be that complicated, you know, to cover all the eventualities." But we know that's not true, not really.
Let's do a test:
This is an award winning RPG I wrote
How many of you, reading this thread, would switch your Pathfinder game over to it for three sessions as a test?
Basic mechanic is "Roll d20. Add modifier. Beat Difficulty Class." Shouldn't be TOO MUCH hassle with it.
Or, even using the 'mechanics neutral' stuff for generating character backgrounds, add it to the character creation process of your existing game?
How many of you would send me the $3 requested contribution for it?
Or is this 'too simple' to be worth anything?