This is actually an idea that I got yesterday as I was watching the 10 years old kids playing down in my yard.
I figured out it could be cool to ask them if they want to try the game, yet I believe Pathfinder might be a bit too tricky to grasp for a very young non-player. I was playing already at their age, but it was Holmes Basic, not AD&D!
So is there some talk of a super-slim system like that? I was thinking about something where your characters could be one day converted in Pathfinder rules by adding some details.
Something like a 32 page supplement with streamlined combat and magic, maybe were the whole combat system could squeeze in a single page.
The systems seems to adapt very well to such a thing.
PS: we tried to discuss about it in the "Pathfinder 2nd edition" thread bit it degenerated into useless jabber wabbler spam nonsense about sorcerer bloodlines.
I believe the publisher is already pondering something similar to this, so I'd keep an eye out for future discussions that would interest you.
And sorry you had that experience, but the thread title doomed it from the start.
1. Levels 1-3 of fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric.
2. A good mix of low-level monsters, including a small dragon or two.
3. A solid equipment list.
4. A smattering of low-level magic items.
5. A subset (rather than a simplification) of the combat rules.
6. A robust subest of 1-2 spells, trimmed only where needed to adhere to point 5, above.
128 pages, full-color softback -> $15.00 (or, better yet $10.00); free PDF. I honestly don't know why they haven't done this yet ("limited resources" just means they need to get their priorities straight, imo). The only "hard" part is naming it!
You hear that, Paizo? You need this. Hell, I'll do the manuscript and index for free, just give me the word. :)
Edit: Hmmm...after re-reading, I guess I'm talking more about a "Pathfinder Basic" than I am a "Lite." I think you're much less likely to see what you're hoping for -- I can't see why a company would want to (essentially) compete with itself.
|
I've always supported the idea of a Pathfinder Lite/Basic.
They could even redo the Crypt of the Everflame (make it a different mod/same setting - so the hardcores will still want to buy it) and package it with the dungeon flip-map plus some cut out minis with the basic rules.
It would be good for new or younger players, plus those of us who might want to focus less on mechanics and more on adventure.
I don't think it would split the fan base - in fact I think it would add a whole new one to the company. Hell, even having conversions from lite to standard guarantees that most DMs would pick the mods and the game.
PF Lite
Ok, this is going to get me flamed, but I think 4E Essentials, the red box, would be a perfect fit.
And you can still play in Golarion, all the world-building stuff from Paizo and the simpler rules from essentials, especially since it's so easy to build/convert monsters in 4E.
|
|
Well I was thinking along the lines of the old basic/expert box package deals, rulebook, dice + module. Since the Minds at Paizo say that a box set is too expensive so maybe a shrinkwrapped rulebook (64 pages), cardstock with cutout minis, plus module and flip-map to support module.
All they would need is dice.
Releasing feat, magic item and spell cards would be a good way to get people to add stuff to their existing set without releasing an entirely new book but I think in the end you want the players and DMs to get used to the ideas of new books.
It would be a cool way to give immediate support to a product without too much supplemental material to buy. So you have a feat deck, a spell deck, item deck and maybe a creature deck. Non-randomized and supplemental to the basic rules. Sort of adding degrees based on the amount the gaming group may be looking for beyond the first product.
It would be interesting to see an AP sized book with:
a stand alone module
new expanded rules to support the module - ex. seafaring rules for a water adventure
new creatures
new items
expanded environment info
Large Map for mod (lower quality paper map)
plus some suggested extra adventures
Adventure pack to mirror module -heavier than the current adventure guides which exist for the APs (since these will actually be a possible expansion of actual rules as needed by the players).
So once they pick up the basic rule pack, they can buy another mod pack which will have everything they need to run the mod, then the player adventure guide.
Big problems – need to new team to work on material and/or diverts resources.
Need new material if you want to get core crowd to buy, rehashed stuff while cheaper will reduce the number of purchases if the current customer base already has the product in another form.
Pitch – needs to get out to target demographic and due the job it's supposed to do
Keeping a product like this cheap to produce - less color, color quality paper, recycled art can help bring the price down.
How well will it be supported?
Rules and product should ideally attract –
New players
Younger Players
Old Players who want something similar to BECMI (at least the first two box sets) experience
People who want an easier game to play
Something familiar yet different
Something with some crossover power (should be greatest intent, unless line can wholly sustain itself)
Something with some crossover power pt II – get more people to buy into Golorian and have some "lite" rules conversions for the crunch. These could help on the "competing with self" issue.
Just some ideas
|
|
PF LiteOk, this is going to get me flamed, but I think 4E Essentials, the red box, would be a perfect fit.
And you can still play in Golarion, all the world-building stuff from Paizo and the simpler rules from essentials, especially since it's so easy to build/convert monsters in 4E.
No, you shouldn't be flamed - while I don't play 4th I did get to look through the red box set and it does the trick as an introductory product - for wotc. So, yeah your idea is right on - it just doesn't work for Paizo - unless they are planning to put out product for Essentials.
I think the idea here would be for paizo to put out a product which -
Increases new players/customers which
A) Stay with lite/Basic
B) Migrate over to core PFRPG rules
C) Buy into Golarion - rules neutral campaign material, fiction, game mastery product, etc
I think this can be done so that it supports and doesn't split the customer base.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I honestly don't know why they haven't done this yet ("limited resources" just means they need to get their priorities straight, imo).
Our priority is to solidify our position within the existing market before attempting to expand that market. Rest assured, though, the latter is becoming a more viable strategy every day!
|
Here in Brazil we have something like this, is called First Adventure. It uses d20 rules, but is focused for kids. It has only 5 levels and 3 customizable classes (warrior, expert and caster)and you can easily convert your character for D&D later. It uses simple and funny writing, ideal for the little dudes. I bought it to play with my brother and cousin, who were around 9, and they really enjoyed it.
Its also very good to introduce new, older players to the game. It is cheap,less than 10 dollars each of the 2 books with 60 pages each (player's and dungeon master's), so the new players dont have to spend a small fortune on a game they dont know, they buy it and if they enjoy it, they buy the player's handbook. Two dudes in my table started this way.
I honestly don't know why they haven't done this yet ("limited resources" just means they need to get their priorities straight, imo).Our priority is to solidify our position within the existing market before attempting to expand that market. Rest assured, though, the latter is becoming a more viable strategy every day!
BTW, Vic, that came out much harsher than I intended. I am very aware that I'm strictly an armchair quarterback! ;)
|
I wish I'd had access to something like this a few months ago, and this is with adults.
My current group, when we began:
Me - knows too much
girlfriend - has learnt enough to GM CotCT for me
Andrew - has played 4e a couple of times
Fiona - has played computer rpgs
Rachel - likes LotR, has never even heard of tabletop RPGs
So, to begin, we created characters...
2 confusing hours later, with much running around by me and cheerful goodwill and beers we have characters - although after playing for a few hours I take in the sheets and correct a lot of stuff.
The problem here is that creating your own character is a big part of the fun and excitement, players want to take control of their characters, not somebody else's, but creating a character is a complex undertaking. I kept on reassuring my players that: "This bit is complex so that the actually game can be simple."
They all got 1d20+X quite quickly, learnt to navigate a character sheet at speed and are generally becoming more adventurous with each session as they come to understand the options/limitations of their characters.
The biggest thing a new player could ask for is streamlined/simplified character creation. A creation system that allowed customisation/ownership of the character without 2 hours minimum spent juggling a dauntingly huge rulebook.
|
|
This would be handy to have, especially for conventions or with new players. I remember getting started with the AD&D2nd "First Quest" boxed set with the audio CD, pregens and four simple adventures.
Any reason we couldn't make this a community effort? This could be a stripped-down version of the d20 Pathfinder rules, with fewer options and limited stat blocks.
|
Any reason we couldn't make this a community effort? This could be a stripped-down version of the d20 Pathfinder rules, with fewer options and limited stat blocks.
I've wanted to do this for some time. If we could get enough people contributing I'd be more than happy to devote a section of d20pfsrd.com to this entire concept.
|
|
A "Pathfinder Basic Set" could include the first part of Burnt Offerings as it's introductory adventure. Sandpoint is already Paizo's "Hommlet", and goblins are like unofficial Paizo mascots thanks to this adventure. Attack on the town, and then a trimmed down version of Thistletop.
As for the rules, have it go from levels 1-3, with just half the classes (Fighter, Ranger, Sorcerer, Rogue, Cleric for example), and pregenerated characters with feats pre-chosen and kinda rolled into class abilities (i.e. the fighter pregen doesn't get bonus feats, he gets Power Attack at 1st level, Cleave at 2nd, etc). Trimmed down spell lists and combat maneuvers left out completely and I think it would fill it's niche quite nicely.
|
|
I would suggest levels 1 to 6 with some simple extra rules to allow basic levelling beyond that - basically the E6 system people already use.
Races could be Human, Dwarf, Elf and maybe Halfling (though I would actually prefer Half Orc).
Three classes:
Sorcerer and only present a small spell list that actually matches the known spells, this saves space and means people don't have to choose which spells to know. Have just 1 bloodline built in.
Fighter with bonus feats pre-chosen to minimise the number of feats to be presented
Rogue, for sneaky stuff
This mirrors the choices in a free RPG where the class names are actually stats (I forget the name of it, its something like Wizard, Fighter, Thief)
No cleric as that would involve adding more spells in & that eats up space. Simply have Potions of "Healing" as part of the equipment chapter.
Try to get it all to come in at under 90 pages if possible.
|
|
I especially like the three class (warrior, expert, caster) idea for simplification. It makes for a very nice breakdown of the central mechanics of the game, and once these are grasped, splitting into classes with arcane vs divine casting, different BaB progressions and skill points per level will be a simple step up in complexity, as opposed to an entirely new and complicated rules system.
Important things to consider: Each stat still needs to have importance:
Strength: carrying capacity, attack and damage
Dex: AC, initiative, reflex saves
Con: HP, fortitude saves
Mental stats are more challenging with the three class system. What do you choose as the casting stat? Without casting, we have:
Intelligence: skill points
Wisdom: Will saves
Charisma: ?
This indicates that Charisma should be the casting stat for the "caster" class.
For a simple cross over of basic casting on both the divine and arcane sides, I propose a ready made solution: the adept spell list.
Adept spell progression would probably not work so well, so I would do a spontaneous caster based off the sorceror. If we only go up to third level, we'll only need 1st level spells. If we go up to 5ht level, we'll only need 2nd level spells. This should cut down on page count needed nicely.
Adept Orisons: create water, detect magic, ghost sound, guidance, light, mending, purify food and drink, read magic, stabilize, touch of fatigue
Adept 1st Level Spells: bless, burning hands, cause fear, command, comprehend languages, cure light wounds, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law, endure elements, obscuring mist, protection from chaos, protection from evil, protection from good, protection from law, sleep
Adept 2nd Level Spells: aid, animal trance, bear's endurance, bull's strength, cats' grace, cure moderate wounds, darkness, delay poison, invisibility, mirror image, resist energy, scorching ray, see invisibility, web.
|
|
Continuing my thoughts (apologies for the stream of conciousness, but I'd love to see paizo come out with a successful product like this):
Re: shortening character creation
Picking stats and understanding how they cascade througout the character's abilities is important - and, I find, time consuming for new players unfamiliar with the rules.
I'd start with the basic scores for a 15 point buy: 8,10,12,13,14,15. Then I'd sort out some samples for two or three archtypes per class.
The expert class would need to be better defined. I think you have to give the expert sneak attack, and essentially go rogue with it. Bard and Ranger, the two other skill heavy classes, lean as much toward either warrior or caster as they do expert and confuse the issue.
For archtypes within each class, I'd think simplest would be:
Warrior: meleer, archer
Expert: rogue(fighting, sneak attack), explorer(stealth, traps and knowledges)
Caster: battler(attack spells), healer(healing/buff spells)
|
|
I especially like the three class (warrior, expert, caster) idea for simplification.
+1. Limit to three core "archetypes" and those three cover the bases. You could have a few feats that let a caster feel divine, or arcane, or spontaneous (sorcerer) etc.
Important things to consider: Each stat still needs to have importance:
Strength: carrying capacity, attack and damage
Dex: AC, initiative, reflex saves
Con: HP, fortitude saves
I'd throw out the idea to consider just using the stat modifier as "the stat" meaning, someone has Constitution 4 means in our terms 18 but in game terms just say their Constitution is 4. That way you can just tell people to add their Constitution to their Class bonuses to determine their Fort save. Or hell, just cut to the chase and stick with "Con Save" "Dex Save" and "Wisdom Save" etc. Take out the unnecessary additional terms of Fort, Ref, and Will. Then tell people to add their Dex to their d20 roll for Init etc. Basically just cutting out the conversion step of (ability / 2) - 5 = modifier etc.
Mental stats are more challenging with the three class system. What do you choose as the casting stat? Without casting, we have:
Intelligence: skill points
Wisdom: Will saves
Charisma: ?
If we use feats to delineate the flavor of caster you can say
"Divine Caster" You use your Wisdom score to determine... (x, y, and z)"
"Prepared Arcane Caster" = Intelligence
"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" = Charisma etc
If we only go up to third level, we'll only need 1st level spells. If we go up to 5ht level, we'll only need 2nd level spells. This should cut down on page count needed nicely.
I say limit detailed class leveling rules to levels 1-5 as that allows spellcasters to get 3rd level spells. Also, not going to 6th level means that high bab classes like fighters won't get to 2 attacks per round, which also complicates things.
I would suggest levels 1 to 6 with some simple extra rules to allow basic levelling beyond that - basically the E6 system people already use.
See above - I say stick with 1-5 to avoid multiple attacks. I do like the idea of using the e6 model after that though.
Races could be Human, Dwarf, Elf and maybe Halfling (though I would actually prefer Half Orc).
I don't really see any issue having all of the races so long as we simplify their racial abilities.
Try to get it all to come in at under 90 pages if possible.
A "Pathfinder Basic Set" could include the first part of Burnt Offerings as it's introductory adventure. Sandpoint is already Paizo's "Hommlet", and goblins are like unofficial Paizo mascots thanks to this adventure. Attack on the town, and then a trimmed down version of Thistletop.
I really like the idea of including a modified initial adventure and campaign starting point with some relatively developed NPCs etc.
...and pregenerated characters with feats pre-chosen and kinda rolled into class abilities (i.e. the fighter pregen doesn't get bonus feats, he gets Power Attack at 1st level, Cleave at 2nd, etc).
I think some small level of feat selection should be included as it gives the ability to make your fighter different than every other fighter. However, I am all for taking the feats that are available as choices and rewording or reworking them for speed and simplicity. Also, there should maybe only be a few options at each level instead of hundreds.
Trimmed down spell lists and combat maneuvers left out completely and I think it would fill it's niche quite nicely.
Well one of the big things that makes PF *not* 3.5 is Combat Maneuvers. We could fix those up a bit too. Otherwise, why not just make it 3.5 Lite? Not snark, just saying, we'd have to identify the things that make PF not 3.5 and then try to incorporate those things in some fashion.
|
|
The expert class would need to be better defined. I think you have to give the expert sneak attack, and essentially go rogue with it. Bard and Ranger, the two other skill heavy classes, lean as much toward either warrior or caster as they do expert and confuse the issue.
For archetypes within each class, I'd think simplest would be:
Warrior: meleer, archer
Expert: rogue(fighting, sneak attack), explorer(stealth, traps and knowledges)
Caster: battler(attack spells), healer(healing/buff spells)
So what I'm imagining is 3 "core" classes:
Warrior
Expert
Caster
Then, you can pick special "focus" feats at first level to "specialize" in a particular direction. So...
Warrior + Melee Focus feat = standard fighter type
Warrior + Ranged Focus feat = archery type fighter
Expert + Shadow Stalker focus feat = fighting, sneak attack, light traps, light on knowledges
Expert + Guile Focus feat = strong on traps and knowledges, weaker sneak attack and fighting
Caster + Prepared Arcane Focus feat = wizardly sort
Caster + Prepared Divine Focus feat = cleric sort
Caster + Spontaneous Focus feat = sorcerer sort
therefore, you stick with three core classes, and use "focus" feats to choose a particular path or character type. To simplify things you could say that "focus" feats can only be chosen at 1st level, and you can choose only one. Alternatively, if you don't choose a "focus" feat, you get a broader base of abilities but no single "focus"...
and yes... just stream of consciousness here lol
|
|
would somebody hate me if I recommended 0e for starting? It's basic dnd with perfect rules for a child to grasp. In a few years, you can easily talk them into playing an actually good game
I'm probably the odd one out here but... your post assumes we have all heard of 0e. I have no idea what that is, do tell?
|
|
I see a conflict in what different posters envision this game to be. If this game is for kids, you need to pay attention to what kids will find fun. For that reason, gnomes need to be an available race. Roleplaying options need to be wide, not straight jacket the kid's imagination. Spells like summoning need to exist (though simplified), spells like illusions need to exist, Bards need to exist.
Magic items need to be simplified (perhaps put on cards with each card given a number and the sum of all such numbers equalling the character's level).
Really good points but I would suggest that it needs to work for kids and adults new to roleplaying.
Still, I second the idea that gnomes, summoning, illusions and bards are really engaging things for first-time players to get into.I would replace summon monster/summon natures ally with 'summon magic badger' and 'summon faerie dragon'
illusions would be ghost sound and minor image
bards are okay as all you are giving is bardic performance, the list of options could be smaller.
Paizo have made gnomes cool but lots of kids will fancy playing Hobbits, which is halflings. The races to leave out are half-races.
You can slim down the races a lot. Elves don't need to fiddly bonuses, they just need stat bonuses, perception and bows. Who cares about Dwarven Stability in a level 1-3 introductory game? On the other hand, remember what is awesome the first time you use it (ie. speak with animals).
|
|
I would envision this as an introductory product to the full Pathfinder game. Thus, it needs to use all the same classes, stats and terminology as the "Advanced" game has. It just needs to have the overwhelming ammount of options pared down and pre-chosen for the archetypes. It really needs to have a complete theme from start to finish, that being the introductory adventure. Then when the players are level 3 and completely comfortable with how "Basic Pathfinder" works, they can get the core rulebook and it'll be like a candystore, full of the familiar but with TONS of "new" options (feats, combat maneuvers, more spells and magic items, classes, etc etc).
|
|
It's important to define what the goals of this set are.
The goals I work off from:
Introduce new players to Pathfinder RPG with a simple ruleset. This ruleset should:
- Be faithful to the current rules and concepts of PRPG - this will make going to the full set of rules easier, as a strong understanding of rules basics has been created
- Introduce as many aspects of the rules as possible in a short, friendly way
- Introduce as many aspects of play as possible in a short, friendly way
- Streamline character creation without removing too many choices - a character should be easy to generate, but allow enough customization to feel special for each player.
- Keep the amount of rules to be printed as minimal as possible.
- Leave the new player wanting more!
Replacing stat scores and modifiers with only the modifier is a simplification, but I fear it will make the learning curve from pathfinder lite to PRPG greater than it needs to be. Simply using the elite stat scores keeps the stat generation work to a minimum, but still introduces the core mechanics truthfully and fully, to make transition to the full game as painless as possible - because in the end turning lite players into core players is probably the company's goal.
Introducing too many choices on caster type is also likely to be an issue in the other direction - not simple enough. I understand the desire to use all the casting stats for the appropriate spell type, but I don't know that it's necessary to get the feel of casting inserted. If you want to go that route, I think it'd be better to introduce three casting classes instead. Charisma, of all the stats, has no in-game impact on anything other than its related skills if you discount casting. Therefore Charisma should be the casting stat of choice for the "caster" class. As all Charisma based casters in PRPG are spontaneous casters, this indicates the "caster" class should be spontaneous as well.
This is a happy consequence, as spontaneous casters are easier for new players (fewer spells to keep track of, don't need a spell list every day) and will keep the spells available in a 5 level lite game to 2nd level...also cutting down on rules that need to be printed out!
Heh, this discussion finally got me to register...
I feel that what Paizo (or the community) should do is design an introductory adventure designed not just for new players, but also for new DMs. It should include pre-generated characters, so that they can start playing immediately, but also include rules so that if they want to create new characters, they can. I'd say a small 32 page DM's guide (including a small beastiary), a 32 page player's guide, plus the adventure itself.
I'd say limit it to first level to third level, for a couple of reasons. It means those rules that say things like half for level, minimum one would simply be +1. It also means anything higher than 3rd level we can ignore. I also feel that it should be as compatible as possible to the full game, so that there isn't too much confusion when they step up.
Quick Outline of player's guide:
pp 1-4 Introduction to gaming, how to game, basic mechanics.
pp 5-6 Races: Quick summary of what races are, half page for four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling)
pp 9-12 Classes, Quick summary of classes, what they are, etc. I'd go with six classes, half page each. Fighter, Ranger (archery only), Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer. Only include first level information
pp 13-14 Skills. What they are, how they work.
pp 16-19 Feats. I'd say about 40 feats (10 general, 25 combat, 5 other)
pp 20-21 Equipment. Simplified equipment list. 8 armors (leather, studded, scale, chainmail, breastplate, (full) plate + light and heavy shield), 15-20 weapons, adventurer's pack (things most adventurer's carry) maybe a few special items.
pp 22-25 Combat, how it works, with examples.
pp 26-31 Magic, how to do it, brief list of spells and a few magic items.
pp 32 glossary.
If you want to include more fluff (like art), take it up to 48 pages.
DM's guide should include What a GM does, how to GM, how to run the story, how to advance the characters, a bit of info on how to create their own adventures and a brief list of monsters in the adventure.
Other things: Two sided poster map of adventure site(s). Cardboard punchout of all pregens plus all monsters they will face in the adventure. Dice. Coupon for full book, including code for free copy of the pdf. (Assuming the game costs $10 or more.)
Adventure should be something like: PC's Master wants widgit from ruins, asks PC and friends to go get it for him, with the understanding the PC's get to keep whatever else they find, give them the map to the ruins. A couple of non-combat encounters on the way, where they can (but don't have to) earn a small reward (potion of CLW, or something similar). above ground parts of ruins have become a camp for bandits (goblins? Orcs?), plus other nasty animals and vermin that have made it their home. There is a door to the underground section, and the keys are in different parts of the ruins. Players can choose which part of the ruins they explore first, etc. Clearing out the ruins and finding all the keys should be enough to take the party to second level. Underground should be nastier monsters, enough that the PC's should hit third level about 2/3's the way through. Final boss should be hard, but not impossible to beat.
|
|
If we stick to the basic adept spell list up through second level, and the concept of a basic charisma based spontaneous caster, you can introduce two basic caster paths: Healer, with channel energy, and Battle Sorceror, with one of the really easy bloodline powers (I would think one of the basic ranged touch attack powers would be simple).
d6 HD, 1/2 BaB, High Will, low Fort and Reflex, 2 skill points. Sorceror casting progression, and at first level you choose a path: healing or battle.
This is the one I'm least sure of. If we wanted to do a rogue/magicless bard sort of dual path, we could do sneak attack with 4 skill points, or inspire courage bardic music uses and 8 skill points. It might be easier in this case to simply use the basic rogue alone, though.
d8 HD, 3/4 BaB, High Reflex, low Fort and Will, 8 skill points. Rogue sneak attack progression.
This is simplest. Feat choice determines everything. I'd have three feat paths:
- Archery: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot
- Sword and Board: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Two Weapon Fighting
- Two Handed: Power Attack, Cleave...hmm...and Improved Sunder?
d10 HD, 1/1 BaB, High Fort, Low Reflex and Will, 2 skill points. Fighter feat progression.
It's funny, but the caster/expert/warrior game you guys are designing reminds me a lot of Shadow, Spell & Sword. It's not nearly as heavy as Pathfinder, and is a purely skill based system. I highly recommend people who want a light old-school feeling game check it out.
|
|
I would envision this as an introductory product to the full Pathfinder game. Thus, it needs to use all the same classes, stats and terminology as the "Advanced" game has. It just needs to have the overwhelming ammount of options pared down and pre-chosen for the archetypes. It really needs to have a complete theme from start to finish, that being the introductory adventure. Then when the players are level 3 and completely comfortable with how "Basic Pathfinder" works, they can get the core rulebook and it'll be like a candystore, full of the familiar but with TONS of "new" options (feats, combat maneuvers, more spells and magic items, classes, etc etc).
This is one of the main points I was getting at. It should be an easier game - with some simplified mechanics but heavily based on the core rule set so transition isn't a whole new experience in gaming.
What Basic was to AD&D - with some heavy emphasis on teaching people how to play and on how to DM (walk-thru samples, simple instructions on creating encounters, modules).
I, also, believe we should get rid of the battle mat.
The system should be designed to emphasize mat-less play. Spells should have fuzzy sizes (eg. Small, medium, large, cone, line, ray), not discrete sizes (Eg. 30 foot radius).
I agree with the no battle mat, but I think fuzzy sizes is a mistake. It's just asking for confusion and arguments at the table. As far back as I can remember fireball has always had a defined size. Of course, my memory may be fuzzy and I don't have a copy of the red box any more.
|
|
Skills take up 20 pages in the core rulebook. The basic mechanic is simple, but descriptions need to be pared down. You can do this by not describing each skill as much, but I feel this would do a disservice to new players and dms, who this product is geared toward. They need a full understanding of whatever rules are presented. Instead I would suggest paring down the skill list.
Acrobatics: Useful, iconic, easy to visualize. This is too fun and useful for expert classes to remove. Keep
Appraise: This is used less often, and can be somewhat glossed over for introductory adventures. Remove
Bluff: Again, iconic, especially for experts. Also, I think this can be used in a pinch in place of the less often used Disguise, meaning this is a very good candidate to keep to allow the removal of Disguise. Keep
Climb: Given my druthers, I'd love to combine swim and climb into athletics - but that violates my own rule of sticking as close to PRPG as possible. ::sigh::. It's pretty iconic and easy to understand and describe. Keep
Craft: This is useful, but it's confusing at first, I think. What can I craft? How much does it cost? Can I make magical stuff? How long does it take? The rules tax on this is high. Let's keep it simple. Remove
Diplomacy: Too iconic to throw - also introduces a need for charisma in non-casters to players. Keep
Disable Device: Much too iconic to remove for experts! Keep
Disguise: For a simplified game, I'd replace this with Bluff Remove
Escape Artist: This is a fun one! And simple too...but I really want to minimize rules as much as possible, so...I say remove, and use acrobatic for these situations in the lite game. Remove
Fly: No third level spells, no flying. Remove
Handle Animal: In the interest of minimizing rules, I'd say use diplomacy in the place of Handle Animal. Remove
Heal: This is useful for the healing casters. I'd say keep it to give them viable skill choices. Keep
Intimidate: Whether or not to keep this depends on if you want to include Dazzling Display as a feat. If not, use Bluff or Diplomacy in place. It's a great warrior skill, however, and a good use of Charisma. I'm of two minds on this one. Keep
Knowledge (arcana): Need options for casters. Keep
Knowledge (dungeoneering): Iconic for dungeons and underground monsters. Keep
Knowledge (engineering): Rarely used - save rulebook space. Remove
Knowledge (geography): I'd use knowledge(nature) here for simplicity's sake. Remove
Knowledge (history): I'd remove for simplicity's sake. Remove
Knowledge (local): This can be used for knowledge(history) too. Keep
Knowledge (nature): This is useful for monsters and such. I'm half tempted to remove and shunt this and knowledge(geography) over to survival for simplicity's sake...yeah. Let's do that. Remove
Knowledge (nobility): I'd remove this too - knowledge(local) and Diplomacy can cover a lot of the cases you'd use this.Remove
Knowledge (planes): This will not come up at low levels much. Remove
Knowledge (religion): Good for casters. Keep
Linguistics: This can be used for talking to monsters. Good skill to keep. Keep
Perception: One of the most iconic and important skills. Keep
Perform: Just to save rules space, I say remove. Remove
Profession: As above. Remove
Ride: I'm of two minds on this one. Introducing rules for mounts seems to be a complication we really don't need. Remove
Sense Motive: With Bluff, we need Sense Motive as well. Keep
Sleight of Hand: I'm of two minds on this one too. Not terribly used, but iconic, fun, and not to complex rules wise. Keep
Spellcraft: Must have for casters. Keep
Stealth: Must have for experts and many many iconic fantasy stories. Keep
Survival: Can substitute for knowledge(nature) and knowledge(geography) in a pinch (or a short adventure). Keep
Swim: Keep, for the same reasons as Climb. Keep
Use Magic Device: This one is cool - I take it all the time and love this skill. It introduces a lot of complexity that I"m not sure we need at this juncture, however. Remove
So the pared down skills list could be:
Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge(arcana), Knowledge(dungeoneering), Knowledge(local), Knowledge(religion), Linguistics, Perception, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Stealth, Survivial and Swim.
There are still plenty of attractive choices for experts - enough they will feel some tugs toward different skills - and enough choices for fighters and casters that they're hopefully considering other options.
This is actually an idea that I got yesterday as I was watching the 10 years old kids playing down in my yard.
I figured out it could be cool to ask them if they want to try the game, yet I believe Pathfinder might be a bit too tricky to grasp for a very young non-player.
I started playing D&D with my kid when he was 6. My experiences with this is that he did not 'need' to know all the details of his character (which I'd build & print with TOS+). I explained the 'basic' combat, and helped him through combat (like suggesting courses of action). Soon enough, he could pick up the right dice (not a given if you can remember when you first saw all these different dice!) and could tell an attack from the Damage. I slowly introduced elements of the game, like Saves and Skills as we progressed. If there was something not yet know to him, I'd just ask him to 'roll' and would get the total myself, as to not confuse him. As he gained levels (and confidence), I added feats that he could use in combat.
This worked very well and and before long, he was asking when next we could play!!
|
|
I grabbed a box set of the D&D Basic Set when I was first getting back into playing after not playing since 2E. It did a decent job of getting everything you needed to get started - very basic subset of rules, pregen characters, a few minis, a simple starter adventure, some flipmats for said adventure, and dice. I could certainly see something like that being a good Pathfinder product.
You can still buy it for just over $20, which is a steal even just for the 12 minis, maps, and dice that come with it.
There was a version for 3.0 as well, and the listing on amazon has scans of a bunch of pages of the included rulebooks, including pregens and combat rules.
The thing I really liked about it was it gave a little booklet for each player (and the DM) that only contained the specifics they needed for how to run their character.
It was simple enough that I actually got my parents to play with me once. Aside from my dad getting frustrated at not being able to hit anything with his fighter, and my mom forgetting she could cast spells, it went...well.
|
|
Heh, this discussion finally got me to register...
I feel that what Paizo (or the community) should do is design an introductory adventure designed not just for new players, but also for new DMs. It should include pre-generated characters, so that they can start playing immediately, but also include rules so that if they want to create new characters, they can. I'd say a small 32 page DM's guide (including a small beastiary), a 32 page player's guide, plus the adventure itself.
I'd say limit it to first level to third level, for a couple of reasons. It means those rules that say things like half for level, minimum one would simply be +1. It also means anything higher than 3rd level we can ignore. I also feel that it should be as compatible as possible to the full game, so that there isn't too much confusion when they step up.
Quick Outline of player's guide:
pp 1-4 Introduction to gaming, how to game, basic mechanics.
pp 5-6 Races: Quick summary of what races are, half page for four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling)
pp 9-12 Classes, Quick summary of classes, what they are, etc. I'd go with six classes, half page each. Fighter, Ranger (archery only), Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer. Only include first level information
pp 13-14 Skills. What they are, how they work.
pp 16-19 Feats. I'd say about 40 feats (10 general, 25 combat, 5 other)
pp 20-21 Equipment. Simplified equipment list. 8 armors (leather, studded, scale, chainmail, breastplate, (full) plate + light and heavy shield), 15-20 weapons, adventurer's pack (things most adventurer's carry) maybe a few special items.
pp 22-25 Combat, how it works, with examples.
pp 26-31 Magic, how to do it, brief list of spells and a few magic items.
pp 32 glossary.If you want to include more fluff (like art), take it up to 48 pages.
DM's guide should include What a GM does, how to GM, how to run the story, how to advance the characters, a bit of info on how to create their own adventures and a brief list of monsters...
I think this is the best way to go about it. I don't like the idea of changing anything (no special classes, no special spells or attacks), just leave enough to run a few simple adventures. You don't want to make people "unlearn" anything if/when they switch to the full game. The full PRPG should just agg more to what they already know from PRPGLite.
The costs of dice, seprate booklets, etc would be the biggest constraint. This might best be served with a PDF that people can print themselves.
"Fuzzy" areas are a Bad Idea(TM). If people want to go mapless, that is OK, but again, changing rules just makes it hard for when they go to the full game.
|
I'm probably the odd one out here but... your post assumes we have all heard of 0e. I have no idea what that is, do tell?
Here's an OGL remake. Yes, it's clunky, weird and lacks a lot of explanations, but that's how people rolled in the begining:
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=6
Very rules-light :)
very detailed Skill stuff
I have been using a modified pathfinder for my 8 year old. I used 4 classes, which are close but not 100% the same as core and a modified skill list. I renamed some stuff for her to grasp easier.
Acrobatics
Athletics{ rolls swim and climb into one skill}
Convince {just diplomacy}
Disable device
Heal
Knowledge {Magic]
Knowledge [Nature]
Knowledge [other]
Lie [bluff]
Look [perception]
Profession
Ride
Sneak[just stealth]
Steal [slight of hands]
Survival
So far it seems to work ok
If I were a one-eyed ENnie award-winning publisher, I'd look to the following for inspiration for an Introductory Pathfinder game.
1. The Basic and Expert sets of 1981 (Yay!)
2. Microlite20
3. The two 3.5 Dummy's Guides.
4. The NPC classes as possible chasses for introductory classes.
5. The two boxed sets most recently pitched for new players (one by Hasbro, one by a wild man in the Lappland).
6. The three boxed sets of the 3.x era (as much as negative examples as positive.)
Also, I'd pick Ryan Dancey's brain for reaching new players.
The problem here is that creating your own character is a big part of the fun and excitement, players want to take control of their characters, not somebody else's, but creating a character is a complex undertaking. I kept on reassuring my players that: "This bit is complex so that the actually game can be simple."
I wrestled with this problem myself preparing a game for zero experience players. I wanted the first game session to serve as incentive for them to return. Two hours fighting through the character creation process was not going to do it. Not to mention, that was two hours less playing.
My solution was to create characters and base them on the players RL personalities. If a player wants to play something different, they can start taking levels of the new class starting at level 2.
|
|
I'm probably the odd one out here but... your post assumes we have all heard of 0e. I have no idea what that is, do tell?Here's an OGL remake. Yes, it's clunky, weird and lacks a lot of explanations, but that's how people rolled in the begining:
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=6
Very rules-light :)
Ah, right, 0e is a way of saying 'The original dnd'.
If we remove the battle grid but include location maps people will want to have a scale and will start measuring distances with some string or a ruler.
Which is just a more complicated, time-consuming version of the battle grid.
|
|
If I were a one-eyed ENnie award-winning publisher, I'd look to the following for inspiration for an Introductory Pathfinder game.
1. The Basic and Expert sets of 1981 (Yay!)
2. Microlite20
3. The two 3.5 Dummy's Guides.
4. The NPC classes as possible chasses for introductory classes.
5. The two boxed sets most recently pitched for new players (one by Hasbro, one by a wild man in the Lappland).
6. The three boxed sets of the 3.x era (as much as negative examples as positive.)Also, I'd pick Ryan Dancey's brain for reaching new players.
Ah, cryptic industry references. This thread has become to cool for me.
A lot of what has been suggested in this thread has already been released in the form of the Dragon Age box set for levels 1-5. It's not quite the same as D&D, and the setting is too dark for most kids, but it is a very robust and flexible system that could easily be used for quite a few settings.
Ah, good point. I add that to my #5.
Ah, cryptic industry references. This thread has become to cool for me.5. The two boxed sets most recently pitched for new players (one by Hasbro, one by a wild man in the Lappland).
It took me a while to figure out he was referring to Lamentations of the Flame Princess. I think. It's a cool box that I've been meaning to check out. But if he wanted to encourage people to check it out, he did it in a way that only people who already knew about it would understand. I certainly never associated it with Finland before. Someone on the internet made a cool gaming product is all I needed to know previously.
I wasn't sure which part was cryptic; I guess I mystified myself.
Deinol: right on all counts. James Raggi lives and works in Finland.
Redacted:
If I were a one-eyed ENnie award-winning publisher, I'd look to the following for inspiration for an Introductory Pathfinder game.
1. The Basic and Expert sets of 1981 (Yay!)
2. Microlite20
3. The two 3.5 Dummy's Guides.
4. The NPC classes as possible chasses for introductory classes.
5. The three boxed sets most recently pitched for new players (The Dragon Age boxed set, the D&D Essentials Starter set, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess).
6. The three boxed sets of the 3.x era (as much as negative examples as positive.)Also, I'd pick Ryan Dancey's brain for reaching new players.
I wasn't sure which part was cryptic; I guess I mystified myself.
Deinol: right on all counts. James Raggi lives and works in Finland.
I'm sure there are plenty of people here on Paizo who have never heard of James Raggi who might still be interested in the product. I only heard about it because I read the Grognardia review.
I think compatibility should be a priority in a boxed set release. The game can be very simplified by scaling back options and the scope of levels, but if it remains compatible (or at least mostly compatible) with the core rules, it's easier to make the jump in-game. Play the boxed set for three levels, them jump over to the core rules.
I loved the D&D basic set, but one of the frustrations was that when I wanted to port my game from D&D to AD&D, I had to stop the game and figure out the minor but plentiful differences between the systems. Races changed, classes changed, hit points changed, levels changed, even Armor Class was on a different scale. I much would have preferred a boxed set that introduced the early levels of the AD&D game and didn't require a conversion process.
Also, the flip side remains true with compatibility - if the basic and core systems are compatible, someone who might not want to jump to the 500+ page rulebook could still port in, say, the paladin if they wanted that in their basic game without having to refigure how everything is done.