| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have given Pathfinder short-shrift. Why would I want to play that if I had grown to dislike 3.5?? It is just the same system, house ruled. Plus, it runs into the same problem of splat/rules bloat as 3.5. So, I ignored it.
I have always liked the idea of Paizo's Adventure Paths. I love reading adventures from all types of systems. I have read Kingmaker, and have been impressed with it. Rise of the Runelords and others have gotten a lot of attention in gaming circles. I have not looked much at Golarion, however. Ug. It's Pathfinder.
I have had a change in thinking. I love 5th edition D&D. It runs fast and smooth. It is everything I ever wanted in D&D. I have even given up on playing Moldvay/Cook 1982 D&D because of 5th. I am running one of the best campaigns I have run in a long time, a 3.5e Eberron converted to 5th edition. Life is great!!
Looking ahead to my next campaign, I wanted it to be Kingmaker. I have loved that adventure path. I looked at running it in 5th edition. Lately, especially with the DM's Guild open, I have started to conclude if you want to run something, run it in the system it was designed for. Want to run a 1974 D&D adventure? Run it in the original system. Want to run a Star Wars d6 adventure? Run it in the original (classic, updated, or REUP)!!
So, I decided to pick up and read my old Pathfinder Core book, having only glanced at it when I bought it., with the eye of running Kingmaker with it. It was a lot worse for the wear because two different friends had borrowed it over the years for gaming. No pages coming out or anything. Just 'floppy' from use.
Age and perspective being what they are, I have found that it is not that bad of a system. A greatly improved 3.5. Sounds stupid, but I can see why everyone calls it 3.75. It is a good evolution. D&D took a rocky road to 5th edition; Pathfinder just honed the most popular style of play.
In looking at the system from a usability stand point, I see ALOT of options for players. As a DM I see the largest plethora of monsters and adventures for one continuity in RPG existence.
I have learned, no matter the rules system, it is good to sit down with the principles and hash out the expectations of the campaign. From length of time to how to handle experienced players (give them more options) and less experienced players (give them less options). The expected length of the campaign in levels, the distribution/rarity of Magic Items, to DM fiat and player agency. A good campaign starts with a firm foundation, and that foundation starts with the DM and players deciding these things together. Down the road, new players can be brought in and know the expectations of the table. DM's and players get different things entirely out of gaming, but they both need to get what they want.
Given this perspective of creating a new campaign, my worry about bloat in Pathfinder fades away. Pathfinder is a system with a large amount of options. Setting expectations on what the group wants to use beforehand is necessary. I know as a DM of any system, I want my players to be proficient mechanically in what they want to play. From the DM's side, I am expected to be mechanically proficient in the system we are playing. Setting these expectations beforehand makes for a more enjoyable experience in mutual story telling.
In looking at gaming from that perspective, and thinking back on all the campaigns in different rules systems, the most enjoyable have been where these expectations, whether talked about beforehand or manifesting through play, have coincided.
With this perspective, I am going to run Pathfinder for my next campaign. I find a system with a huge amount of play potential. I am really enjoying The Inner Sea Guide. In my opinion, Golarion ranks as one of the best, well supported, campaign worlds out there. Even from three measures, longest continuity (ie without fan discourse, rules changes, etc.), largest amount of adventures produced, and official play, I would say it is the number one campaign world to hit the RPG market.
I am looking forward to my next campaign with Pathfinder.
Glad you're on board, and thanks for the well written review. I still house rule the heck out of it, but Pathfinder is all I run any more.
The big difference between 3.x and Pathfinder is that in 3.x each splat book had better options. If you did not have the latest books your character was weaker. With Pathfinder they have tried and mostly succeeded in keeping the new options balanced vs the existing ones. In 3.x you always went with a prestige class because they were so much more powerful, and the later ones were even more powerful than the earlier ones. With Pathfinder having more books simply gives you more options, not a more powerful character.