Contributor
|
CAUTION: Long-winded essay ahead.
I've avoided entering the playtest discussions (both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat) for a couple of reasons. But I've enjoying skimming some of the discussion threads and reading the different viewpoints.
This morning, as I considered the rancor associated with some of this "new stuff" being added to "my game", I had a thought that I considered worth sharing. It doesn't apply to any specific playtest, but to the RPG rules as a whole.
The central point of my argument is that Paizo has done a very good job of learning from the mistakes of past editions. If you don't agree with that, then I will have to ask you to bear with me, at least. Fundamentally, I think they've already corrected a central mistake that the 3.5e publisher made...too much closed content.
I firmly believe that Paizo's choice to include so much of the PFRPG rule content into the PRD is why the new classes and other options are good for Pathfinder and all of us who play it.
The official 3.5e D&D books had a ton of options for all kinds of campaigns. Some were good and probably would have seen a lot of use by other publishers, had they been allowed to use them. Unfortunately, the spirit of the OGL didn't really extend beyond the core rule books.
As a result, publishers of non-D&D settings were forced to create their own rules material (classes, feats, etc.) that often duplicated characters and abilities that the "official" D&D rules already had. Sometimes, it resulted in identical abilities with different names. Other times, it encouraged companies to make subpar design choices in order to avoid copying the non-OGL work in the 3.5e D&D expansion books, even if one of those resources had the exact thing they needed for their setting.
A quick look at the PRD or familiarity with Paizo as a company will show you that they have always embraced the OGL. The inclusion of the APG and GMG into the PRD encourages Third Party Publishers to focus their energies on creating other content. Tools to support game-play, like the template books from Super Genius Games or the work of Oone Games, for example, not to mention the neat PFRPG stuff in Kobold Quarterly, enrich the game, but don't need to duplicate the work that Paizo has already done.
What it comes down to for me is that Paizo's work in producing new options under the Pathfinder RPG rules is good for all of us, as long as they continue to make the rule book options available for use by other companies under the OGL.
Golarion is an awesome setting. I love almost all of what they've done with it and will continue to use it, whether they include more steampunk, guns, or ninjas. I like those options and think the world is big enough to manage how and when they show up. However, to put it mildly, many people have expressed their distaste for those options in their games. That's okay, too, because the PRD can handle it.
If there's a market for an "epic fantasy" setting, I'd like to see a publisher come along and create a setting using PFRPG that doesn't include the "non-epic fantasy" elements. Under the OGL, they can do that while still using the majority of the PFRPG content. Similarly, if people want MORE guns in their setting, it would be great for a company to produce a setting that does that under the PFRPG. That way, all of us who love the Pathfinder rules can have a common frame of reference, built around a balanced, stable rule system.
Golarion is Paizo's setting. My guess is that they'll continue to listen to the fan-base about what goes into the setting, but I also sense that they've already made hard and fast design decisions about certain elements. We, as fans, will either like or dislike those elements. The setting is huge and GMs can ignore some of these elements in their games, but there's always a chance that a Pathfinder Campaign Setting book will include something that players don't want.
If players decide to leave Golarion, for whatever reason, I want them to have somewhere else they can go, even if it's a setting produced by someone else, while still playing with the Pathfinder rules. I believe that Paizo is headed in that direction when they add more material to the PRD. For that reason, I firmly believe that these new options are good for the game.
I think you've got a good point here; but I also don't think you're going to see another wave of Spycrafts and Deadlands...es... just because the industry probably feels like they've been burned that way before.
OTOH, if they did a "Pathfinder Modern" that was mixable with the game in a way that D&D/d20 Modern weren't really, you would be able to do just about any game you wanted with it!
-TG
|
Contributor
|
I think you've got a good point here; but I also don't think you're going to see another wave of Spycrafts and Deadlands...es... just because the industry probably feels like they've been burned that way before.
OTOH, if they did a "Pathfinder Modern" that was mixable with the game in a way that D&D/d20 Modern weren't really, you would be able to do just about any game you wanted with it!
-TG
Unfortunately, you may be right about the other licenses not jumping on the PFRPG bandwagon the way they did with d20. "Once bitten, twice shy" and all that.
However, I hope publishers can be encouraged by the way the current PRD is being handled and that they will consider using the rules for their settings as a result.
I'm interested in seeing where the rules might go with more modern options, too, but that's a sticky subject with its own heavy baggage.
+1 to Paris' comments. I'd love to see the rules made out for Pathfinder Modern. I was dismayed when Super Genius Games tried to get that launched with a Patronage Project, but it only scratched a dent in the pledges and thus went by the wayside.
I would definitely like to see some form of standardization to exist as a base chassis for such, which would allow other 3PP's to expand from it. Sometimes, I wonder if certain parties are waiting to see what Paizo may or may not do so they don't feel that any of their work becomes invalidated because they're not the 'Source Zero' from which all existing framework of rules and options are borne from.
As long as everything non-core comes with a little fine print about being subject to GM discretion, I really don't see a problem with ninjas, pirates, or Rollerball teams.
There are all kinds of issues of balance, and while it would be great to say "Everything in all books is fair game", the reality is that not everything works in all groups. I don't even consider Core to be 100% open to the players. I would much rather have a game with 100 options I love, and 10 I won't allow, then 20 options that are "totally balanced".
One thing I would add is that the power of modern firearms ramps up too quickly to be really usable in any type of normal game. For example, there were cheap portable machine guns in WWII that fired 1,200 bullets/minute, or 120 bullets in a single combat round. I don't see a way to add that to the rules system in any way that is close to accurate, so I would prefer things like that to be left out, until there is some sort of system to balance that.
EDIT: I should also add that in general, I would like to be able to pick up a mod or AP, and be able to play it without needing a half dozen books to figure out all the domain, feats, and spells the monsters are using. Sure it would be cool for them to include the occasional witch or something, but things are already complex enough without adding an extra thousand pages of new stuff.
I very much approve of your thoughts, Paris- +1 overall, although I am a little disappointed in third party companies(or perhaps I should say overzealous gamers) for freaking out over the d20 stuff. If not for it, I would not have gotten as seriously into L5R as I did/am.
As long as everything non-core comes with a little fine print about being subject to GM discretion, ..
It should not even be needed, and if a player wants to tell me what to allow in my game I would simply go sit in one of the player chairs, and let him know my spot is open.
It should not even be needed, ...more
You'd think so right?
I think "The Most Important Rule" should be some sort of End User License Agreement you have to sign off on before you are allowed to open any gaming book.
It should not even be needed, ...moreYou'd think so right?
I think "The Most Important Rule" should be some sort of End User License Agreement you have to sign off on before you are allowed to open any gaming book.
In the core books it basically says the GM decides what goes. It is often repeated on the boards even by the developers. The same players that try to strongarm a DM won't let some writing in the book get in the way.
|
One thing I do worry about is rules bloat. Too many classes, in much the way the last edition had too many spells and way too many feats and this that and the other. Having it specifically tied to Golarion has one big advantage. A very detailed world with tons of material to choose from. The disadvantage, too many options and way too many rule books to look through.
I'd really prefer to see all of the oriental classes, equipment, etc. in an appropriately themed book, along the lines of Oriental Adventures. Exactly the same for the gunslinger, a steampunk book with gunslingers & gadgeteers would be preferable.
Publishing those in Ultimate Combat means that, instead of a GM declaring what setting the campaign is in, and letting the titles of the books be obvious signposts about allowable content, GMs are left to either disallow the "Ultimates" or pick through material page by page for permission.
I agree that it should all be published in the SRD and kept open though.