Sorry, not reading all the way through, though I'm sure a similar opinion has been expressed.
Pathfinder Basic: What Should it Be? It should be an experienced GM hosting a noob game at his FLGS, with characters, minis, dice, and pencils provided, just as I and thousands of others have done with every version of D&D since AD&D.
To introduce a "Basic" game implies that Pathfinder Not-Basic is Pathfinder Advanced, and this alienates people. No one wants to play the toddler-ized version, but no one wants to have to spend four years at GM University learning how to adjudicate obscure rules mechanics that come up once in a character's career.
I think the difference between Hero 6th Edition and Hero Basic rulebook (https://www.herogames.com/viewItem.htm?itemID=240443 and https://www.herogames.com/viewItem.htm?itemID=242420) is a good guideline.
|
I've been curious about Green Ronin's boxed dragon age set - haven't ever seen one in person - is it a full on cardboard box? Was it a loss leader?
Basic - make it simple enough for a seven year old to play. Or is that too simple?
The box set for Dragon Age is an honest-to-god box set. And though I haven't had a chance to play it yet, it looks great. I know they can be expensive and that was ultimately what brought TSR down (among other things, of course). But I do miss the box sets. I loved opening them up and pulling out all the cool maps and books and specialty pieces.
As for Pathfinder Basic, I actually agree with the Pathfinder Lite idea more. I think it needs to be a version that allows players to transition into the "advanced" game with relative ease. Maybe something that allows players to keep the character they've been playing, but tack on the extra bits.
Sorry, not reading all the way through, though I'm sure a similar opinion has been expressed.
Pathfinder Basic: What Should it Be? It should be an experienced GM hosting a noob game at his FLGS, with characters, minis, dice, and pencils provided, just as I and thousands of others have done with every version of D&D since AD&D.
To introduce a "Basic" game implies that Pathfinder Not-Basic is Pathfinder Advanced, and this alienates people. No one wants to play the toddler-ized version, but no one wants to have to spend four years at GM University learning how to adjudicate obscure rules mechanics that come up once in a character's career.
A> Nobody said they're going to call it "Pathfinder Basic" when and if it finally gets released
B> A product like this is designed to be mass-market, and on the shelves at toy stores and places like Walmart. It's meant to have a low cost of entry, and streamlined rules so someone that doesn't have an experienced player can pick it up, introduce it to a group of people with no experience, and they can play.
C> The FLGS establishment is shrinking, and it's not introducing a lot of people to the game anymore. It's not an option for a lot of people. Some towns don't even have an FLGS.
I live in a town of 18K people (Lebanon, OR). No FLGS.
Closest town is about 10 miles away (Albany, OR), 50K people. FLGS closed early this year.
Next closest town, another 10 miles away (Corvallis, OR, about 20 miles away from Lebanon) is where one of the state universities calls home, 55K people. It has a comic shop that sells gaming material (and a decent amount, though not it's core focus), and just recently had a dedicated game shop open, though that shop focuses on Warhammer 40K and M:tG.
Neither of these shops is particularly suitable for introducing people to Pathfinder. The comic shop has gaming space, hidden in the back, mostly used for Magic. The game shop is typically decked out for Warhammer, and has to put that aside to play Magic.
The local regional mall, located in Albany, claims a trade area of about 210K people (which includes the three cities above, and the surrounding rural areas or towns of populations less than 10K).
Such a trade area only has two outlets where one can pick up gaming material.
If we drive 35 miles to the north, to the state capital of Salem, OR, there exist two malls, which claim the trade area consists of about 440K people. There are only two FLGS stores, and two "collectible" stores that sell M:tG, but don't carry RPG stuff. Both of the actual game stores exist in Salem (population 160K), and none exist in the surrounding trade area.
The Portland, OR area isn't much better - the size of the metropolitan area warrants a few other stores that carry gaming material, but many of these (The Hobbytown USA chain, for example) don't provide gaming space, therefore, no opportunity to learn the game.
Fact of the matter is, the market sucks, and the FLGS can't be relied upon to introduce new players to the game via the established product lineup.
Is my evidence anecdotal? Probably. Is it, however, indicative of the market situation elsewhere? Again, probably.
With any luck, an intro set can change this, and get more people into the hobby. How could that be a bad thing? Is the existence of an intro set outside of the hobby channel going to turn people off to the game that would have otherwise gotten into it? Extremely doubtful. Really, it can only help.
.....
Post deleted
.....
simply = To many rules... will not be basic.
If you take out enough rules for it to be basic, it will not be Pathfinder.
It's not looking to replace the Core Rulebook
If you were paying attention, you'd know I already understand this.
Man, Brian's post made me feel really lucky to live in Western Washington. I live in a pretty small town (Graham) but even so there are three FLGS within 45 minutes or so in average traffic.
It's not quite as horrible as it seems - the two stores 20 miles away are in the town I work, and it's only about 30 minutes during the morning/evening commuter rush to get there. Salem, 35 miles to the north takes about 40 minutes or so to get there, straight shot up I-5.
The overall problem is, that without a local store, there's no foot traffic. At the point that all of these stores are as geographically far away as they are, they often get relegated to a visit when you happen to be in that area, rather than a spur of the moment kind of thing.
.....
Post deleted
.....
simply = To many rules... will not be basic.
If you take out enough rules for it to be basic, it will not be Pathfinder.
It keeps getting said, yet nobody cares to explain how that's so.
Please, enlighten us all. How exactly is a streamlined introductory game not Pathfinder?
We played a game of Pathfinder last week that had a DM and 3 players. One character each player, consisting of one race/class combo. Two humans and a dwarf. A fighter, cleric and wizard.
Were we not playing Pathfinder because we left out all the rules for the other classes and races not being used?
Were we not playing Pathfinder because the Wizard or Cleric didn't utilize every spell available?
Were we not playing Pathfinder because we didn't progress to level 20?
It's not looking to replace the Core RulebookIf you were paying attention, you'd know I already understand this.
That's not clear from your statement.
By your own words, you'd
probably always favor a more rules-heavy game. Granted, a 130-page book might be faster to look through (and that is a good reason for PF to release a rules cyclopedia that is completely fluff-less and to the point as far as rules go - no class information or anything like that), but I would prefer the game as it stands now over a rules-light, emphasis-on-dm-control version of the game.
Hence, it doesn't seem clear that you do understand that this isn't intended to replace the Core Rulebook. Further, it wasn't clear that you understood that the theoretical 130-page being discussed was a book to whet the appetite of new players, and get them to purchase a Core Rulebook.
You already have the game you prefer now, and you wouldn't have to play the rules-light version you mention above, you'd keep playing what you're playing.
It's not an all-or-nothing situation here. They're not going to stop publishing the CRB in favor of this hypothetical intro version.
You get the game you prefer, as you've had since it was published, and new players who have never touched, let alone heard of, Pathfinder, get a game marketed to them, in an environment they actually go to now (the mass market - department stores, etc.)
Based on your own statements, when you have exactly what you want, and it's not being replaced/discontinued, how can you be opposed to a new product that's designed to bring more players to the field?
It's not looking to replace the Core Rulebook, and such a product would logically segue into a purchase of the Core Rulebook, and, poof, a new player is born.Which is why I make the suggestion that the game include a coupon good for a free download of the Core Rulebook PDF.
And a fantastic suggestion it is.
Level : 1-3 (Its an introduction to fun)
Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling (Standard and expected)
Classes: Fighter, Wizard (universalist), Thief, Cleric
Feats and skills :Choice is good, but restrict it to; either x or y.
Spells: A very limited range of choice; either x or y.A good low-level adventure with hints and comments to the DM about how to play. Since the DM is doing most of the heavy lifting make his or her job as easy as possible.
As Ktulhu said, keep it Pathfinder society legal and include a voucher to purchase the core rulebook at a reduced price.
For those that advocate more complexity; new players are most likely already playing games on consoles, a table top rpg comes in addition to what they are already playing, make the bar to playing as low as possible:) Besides the Core Rulebook pdf is only $9.99
+1 fist
I'd hope the focus would be on familiarising them with the essential mechanics, the idea of choice and customisation and, of course, role playing.
K.I.S.S
..think 'First few levels to a well designed computer game'
I would say level 1-5 is the best choice because you don't have to worry about +6/+1 BAB and any feats that are level 6 or higher. You want to include 4&5 because thats when fighters can specialize and the wizard gets lighting bolt/fireball it's about giving them something at the end that makes them go Wow!
Include a full introductory module there are plenty already written that would fit the bill, make sure it is it's own book in the box me and my friends always hate it when a rule book spends page count on an adventure you will use only once or twice.
4 key races, 4 base classes, ect that everyone already said already.
Little bits of stuff that is fun, maybe a single miniature of the main bad guy in the adventure or some figure flats of all the monsters in it and all the race/class combos with the included options. Maybe dice if you plan on having non-game stores stock it like Target and Wal-mart.
Recycle all of the best art work from your other books, honestly it is what first got me into Pathfinder. I have alot of 3.5 stuff on my shelf and play 4e too the art in pathfinder is what hooked me in and got me to sit down and read about the system changes from 3.5 and the world.
Recycle all of the best art work from your other books,
That would be a given, I think - there are tons of cool artwork for the game, and ordering all-new art would cost too much money, I´d guess.
Stefan
That's not clear from your statement.
It's perfectly clear if you pay attention to the other things I've been saying:
No. The game is already easy enough to play.
It should have been perfectly clear from this statement on. I don't think a "Basic" set is necesary, nor do I think it will bring in any more players than will be brought in anyway.
It should have been perfectly clear from this statement on. I don't think a "Basic" set is necesary, nor do I think it will bring in any more players than will be brought in anyway.
I disagree. I started playing this game when I was 12. I was DM and my brother (9 at the time) and cousin (8) were the players.
We started with the basic D&D set. I saw AD&D, and while I had fun reading it back then, I had no idea WTH was going on in those books at the time. The red box (and subsequent blue, and green) were what hit the spot until my mid teens, at which point I wanted more from the game. Then we switched to AD&D.
Pathfinder could do wonders for their fan base with a solid Pathfinder basic game that simplified the rules down to fundamental basic RPG elements.
I second the idea of making it as close to E6 as possible. That's enough so that druids can wild shape into a large animal, sorcerers get level 3 spells and fighters get an extra attack as their "capstone" abilities, for instance.
I second the idea of making it as close to E6 as possible. That's enough so that druids can wild shape into a large animal, sorcerers get level 3 spells and fighters get an extra attack as their "capstone" abilities, for instance.
I the basic version of Pathfinder is meant to be an introductory game, then I don't think that is necessary. Giving the fighter an extra attack doesn't demonstrate anything to new players on how to play the game, nor does giving them access to 3rd level spells. But those are fine additions if the basic set proves popular enough to make it a variant game in its own right. (ala basic D&D).
I like levels 1-5 as the level range, but 1-3 serve to teach new gamers all the fundamentals they need to know.
That's not clear from your statement.
It's perfectly clear if you pay attention to the other things I've been saying:
No. The game is already easy enough to play.It should have been perfectly clear from this statement on. I don't think a "Basic" set is necesary, nor do I think it will bring in any more players than will be brought in anyway.
A lot of people disagree with you, including marketing folks for a lot of RPG companies. Witness the new D&D Red Box, or Paizo's own consideration of such a product. There's a number of other companies doing the same thing, in the form of quick-starts or rules-light versions.
Pathfinder is easy because we're familiar with it. It's not easy for someone completely unfamiliar with the system, or RPGs in general.
Ultimately, though, it's also not just about it being easy to play. It's about a inexpensive/less-expensive entry into the game, to give people a taste of what it's like, without forcing them to buy the Core Rulebook.
And while the $9.99 PDF is nice, that's not a good counterpoint. PDFs aren't advertised in the hobby market or the mass market. They're not available anywhere but from paizo.com, therefore, they don't do anything to attract people to the game when they're browsing stores.
Let's say your assumptions are proven true, that it won't promote player growth. Will it retard player growth, or even reduce the established base? How could it? It either works, or it doesn't, but it's not going to hurt anything. How could anyone be rationally opposed to such a product? I'm truly curious about this.
I remember the old Basic D&D Red Box edition, and it only went up to 3rd level, it only had cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief, plus dwarf, elf, and halfling "classes."
I think you could get away with using the skill system as is. For feats, I would limit them to fairly easy ones to use: Improved Initiative, Toughness, Skill Focus, Weapon Focus, Shield Focus, Weapon Specialization, Fleet, Spell Focus, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Dodge, Point Blank Shot, Weapon Finesse, maybe Power Attack, Turn Undead, Selective Channeling, Two-Weapon Fighting, Scribe Scroll, Brew Potion. Maybe Combat Reflexes and a counter to provoking AoOs from using all Combat Maneuvers. Or a Mobility-like feat that increases your AC by +4 for AoOs for using Combat Maneuvers.