I'm currently working on a simplified version of pathfinder, translated to Swedish as that's the country I live in and we lack good, newbie friendly action roleplaying games (most of the swedish RPGs are very rules heavy and more focused on realism than action, for good and for bad). If it turns out a success, I might translate it into english, but that's in the future. The target audience will be people who haven't played roleplaying games, including young people, and those who's played RPG's but not D&D and/or want a rules light system.
I need some input on the layout though. My current plan is this:
- Having a "quickstart" booklet with pregen level 1 characters, the absolutely most basic rules (the combat sequence and the d20 rules), and a short adventure throwing them right into the action so to speak.
- Then having the real rulebook which includes basically a toned-down version of the whole PF game. Consolidated skills, less feats (around 15 feats total, I think), less spells, five classes (fighter, sorcerer, cleric, rogue and a "guide" ranger from the APG) and max level of 6 (epic 6 gaming ftw). A bunch of monsters and a few special items. This should be a complete game, just simplified, with fewer combat rules (for example, no charging and just 3 combat maneouvers).
Now as I've come to the "quickstart" part, I have to decide whether to include squares or not, because of mapping. This is a hard choice, because there's good arguments for all three options:
1. No squares of any kind. Pros: No need for rules on them, more storytelling, more akin to other swedish RPG's, no markers required. Cons: Combat takes longer because more detailed descriptions are needed, harder for those who like tactical gaming more than storytelling.
2. Squary (YES THAT'S A WORD!) squares. Pros: The standard for D&D/PFRPG, well-established rules. Cons: Complex rules, especially for diagonals. Might distrurb the immersion.
3. Hexagonal squares. Pros: Easier rules than squary squares, especially for diagonals. Easy to understand how area spells and the like work. Cons: Non-standard, might disturb the immersion, hexagonal squares on maps with flat walls look ugly as hell.
Any suggestions?
Anything else in particular I should consider when making this?
Can't seem to edit the post anymore, sorry for double post but I also wondered if you guys have any idea where one could get creative commons image objects, like rocks and the like, for the mapmaking. I've been using different image packs for maptool when making maps for home games, but since this will be for publication (on the internet, if nothing else) it'd be really nice to have some creative commons sources. I've found CGTextures, but they mostly have... well... textures, not so much objects.
Bumping this... Help would be appreciated.
I've been working on a new FRPG myself based on the idea of making an easy-to-learn and easy-to-play game that puts the emphasis on imagination rather than a heavy ruleset. The base system I settled on was that of Atlas Games' Feng Shui RPG (one of the all-time most underappreciated RPGs, in my opinion).
My suggestion to you is to keep Pathfinder's game *world* if you enjoy it, and start with a different game *system* that is closer to what you're looking for already, and then adjust it until you feel it suits your vision.
I like the idea of an easy to play FRPG--emphasis should always be on imagination and story telling because those are the main strengths.
Anyway, to answer you question I think it depends on how complicated your spells get. If there's lots of crazy area effects, I think hexagons will work better (obviously), but if you keep it simple I think squares are the way to go. And no grid would just require an even more complicated movement system.
I've been working on a new FRPG myself based on the idea of making an easy-to-learn and easy-to-play game that puts the emphasis on imagination rather than a heavy ruleset. The base system I settled on was that of Atlas Games' Feng Shui RPG (one of the all-time most underappreciated RPGs, in my opinion).
My suggestion to you is to keep Pathfinder's game *world* if you enjoy it, and start with a different game *system* that is closer to what you're looking for already, and then adjust it until you feel it suits your vision.
Actually, I'm doing quite the reverse; this will be designed to be mainly a sort of "introduction" or "demo version" to D&D/PF, so I want to keep it compatible. The game world will not be part of this, since not only isn't it OGL/copyleft, but also because it might be too much for new players to learn about all the cultures of golarion. In that case, it's easier for the group to come up with something themselves, I think.
So I will be keeping the system, since it's a good system for this kind of game (just a little too many options and some things that could get simplified).
I like the idea of an easy to play FRPG--emphasis should always be on imagination and story telling because those are the main strengths.
Anyway, to answer you question I think it depends on how complicated your spells get. If there's lots of crazy area effects, I think hexagons will work better (obviously), but if you keep it simple I think squares are the way to go. And no grid would just require an even more complicated movement system.
The spells will be from those that already exists, but just a select few (of the level 1 spells, 8 sor/wiz and 5 cleric spells, for example). Spells that will be included is for example color spray and fireball.
How do you mean grid would require a more complicated movement system? Do you mean grid at all vs. handwaving distances, or do you mean hex grid vs. square grid? In the first case, I kind of agree, but on the other hand, it's easier for new players to know where they are if there's a grid. In the second case, hex vs square, I don't see how hex would make things more complicated. There's no diagonals, and that's huge, since diagonals is something I still find disturbing after 10 years of gaming.
Of course, diagonals WOULD actually become easier in the swedish version as it's based on metrics; one square is 2 meters, so a diagonal could simply be stated as 3 meters