There were other issues that led to TSR's downfall. Partly they didn't do enough accounting and analysis to know which of their products were doing well. Other things like every boxed set ever made (with the exception I assume of the Basic boxes) they lost money on.
But yes, splitting the fans between too many settings was the biggest factor.
I have a half-remembered internet post from somewhere-or-other by someone-whose-name-escapes-me. (In other words an extremely high calibre source) who laid the blame for TSR's death at the feet of two significant miscalculations:
1) The multiple campaign settings eroding the margins as fewer and fewer people bought each of more and more supplements
2) A standard clause in book-distribution agreements where the publisher agrees to buy back any surplus copies from the major bookstores. As I understood it, TSR gambled on placing a line of products in the mainstream bookstores and, when they sold abysmally, were forced to buy back a truckoad of merchandise which wasnt moving. As I heard it, they were in a position of selling out of D&D books and having no cash to finance a reprinting - whilst simultaneously having a warehouse full of unwanted product.
I'm sure Lisa Stevens posted a definite statement that the first reason was the primary factor (even if not the sole factor).
You just have to love the thinking of the Bosswoman of a GAMING company prohibiting the employees from actually playing any of the games at work.
R&D and playtesting clearly not on her radar.
|
Joy, joy, joy <jumping for joy>.
So this will be Pathfinder minus the convoluted b$&%%!&s - just JOY!!!
Can I ask that it be developed into a fully fledged 1-20 level, no wait 1-36 level game, please, please.
The Starter set for me was meh? But this, this is perfection waiting to happen.
I have such great hopes, ditching rules from the 3e school of "advanced calculus meets game theory" rule writing.
I had best pre-order at least two copies as I'm hoping the first will not the survive the flood of tears of joy poured onto it's pages as I read it for the first time.
Hmmmm, perhaps water proof paper?
Nice,
S.
|
Basic was a stepping stone back when Advanced was barely even out at the time. 2nd Ed did not have a basic set.. and yet I still introduce more to the game with that edition then any other edition.
While there was a version of the Basic Set that was essentially a stepping stone, it was a pretty limited kind of deal, and I don't know of many people that actually had it. The Basic/Expert sets were no longer really a stepping stone..they were their own variant of the game. And the BECMI sets took players well beyond the level limits of AD&D.
Of course, some people realized that the different systems were VERY compatible, and used ideas or mechanics from one with the other.
Im very keen, much of my group arent though
looking at some of the pdfs i like the simplicity of grab and posions for example
and as i dislike CMB's, and see no need for AOO.looking forward to it
if nothing else its lots of stuff in a box at an ok price!
By contrast, AD&D products were abundant in any toy or department store, with Basic always being sold as a 'primer' product.I bought my first RPG (Star Frontiers) in a grocery store.
I just found Star Frontiers at a used book store. I was going to buy it on eBay but $10 for both boxes was a good deal. Everything is there except the dice (where to find 10-sided dice...hmm...). I wish I had not gotten rid of all my old games. I miss them.
Now to convince my players that dralasites and yazarian are fun to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a basicPathfinder version that is different from Pathfinder and I highly doubt that Paizo would produce something like that.
It hasn't worked for TSR, it hasn't worked for WotC and it isn't needed.
Buy the beginners box and get some experience in GMing as you level your players to 5. Then switch to full rules and simple ignore all the rules you find too complicated. Works pretty well, in fact, almost everyone does it one way or the other.
Then switch to full rules and simple ignore all the rules you find too complicated. Works pretty well, in fact, almost everyone does it one way or the other.
This is true, especially the bolded part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me raise my hand in favor of continuing the line of products with simpler rules and presentation started with the BB.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to consider when making the TSR comparison:
AD&D wasn't nearly as crunchy as Pathfinder is. I don't recall many people yearning for a simpler system in the AD&D days. People who played B/X (et al) either moved on to AD&D or stayed with B/X or BECMI because they were happy with it and it was, in some cases, less expensive. I don't ever remember hearing someone say they were moving back to Basic because AD&D was too crunchy. That isn't the case with PF. There are people who will not play PF because of the crunch level, but who *would* play PF Basic.
As a person who's written for AD&D 2E, D&D 3E, and Pathfinder RPG, I'll give you a little 2E vs. 3E rant:
Yes, AD&D 2E was a simpler game than 3E.
Mainly because much of the rules were written to rely more on DM rulings than hard numbers in the books.
In 3E, much of the "the DM will make a ruling on this" was replaced with actual DCs for various game elements. Some examples of 2E vagueness:
Animal Handling: This proficiency takes up 8 lines. No details on how long it takes to use the skill on an animal, how long it lasts, and so on. (Animal Training is a separate prof that takes up about half a page.)
Disguise: 14 lines.
Healing: less than half a page.
Yet, strangely, the 2E DMG devotes 5 pages to creating magic items (compared to the 3.5 DMG's 6+ pages, not including the text for item creation feats), with detailed advice like Because that's helpful and fun.
And advice like
(Oh, plus the 2,000 gp cost of the alchemy lab. And the 10% upkeep cost every month. And there's only a base 70% chance of success, even with this investment. And note that the game doesn't tell you how much treasure a character should have at a particular level, or what gp value you could sell an item for, so you have no idea if 2,000 gp is supposed to be pricey or trivial. The game does tell you how much XP you receive for making the item, though).
And don't get me started on how 2E doesn't tell you what hard sneaking roll should be, or an easy one. My best example of this was writing the free game store adventure tie-in to the Slavers book. There was a smugglers cove inhabited by slaver pirates. The PCs could approach from land, and I wanted to give the slavers a reasonable chance to spot them. What is "reasonable"? The game doesn't really say, so I had to estimate their chances of noticing PCs creeping up. Maybe 1-in-6? The PCs also had the option to approach from the water, and I wanted to give the slavers a slightly a harder chance to spot them. What is "harder"? Again, the game doesn't really say, so I estimated the slavers' chance at 1-in-8. Completely arbitrary, and much different than "the PCs make Hide checks, and get a +2 bonus if they approach from the water instead of the land." In 2E this, like so many things, was left for the DM to just make up, with no firm guidelines, and no way to know if you'd be consistent from one game session to the next.
So yes, AD&D was a simpler system--because it put the brunt of the decision-making on the DM. You could simplify the game even further by just printing one rule: "Make the players roll to succeed at things, just make sure it's challenging enough that they have fun and don't feel like it's a cakewalk." Simplest tabletop RPG ever... but what is "challenging" to one DM isn't going to be the same to another. One DM may think jumping across a 5-foot gap is challenging, another may think a 15-foot gap is challenging. 3E added a lot of complexity by creating a lot of detailed examples of how to do things so everyone who played would have a consistent play experience, where a 5th-level rogue with maxed ranks in Climb can easily scale a typical dungeon wall no matter whose campaign your in.
End rant.
Is the Beginner Box a simpler version of the rules than the Core Rulebook? Certainly. But even where the BB rules are the same as the CR rules, I believe the BB explains things more clearly than the CR--because I rewrote it to be so. I'm sure you could easily add other Core Rulebook rules into BB play if they were rewritten for clarity. And I'm sure, if that happened, people would be ok with using those rules and wouldn't feel the game is too complex.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a smart guy, I use big words, and when I was playing as a kid, after the D&D Basic and Expert sets I started reading Gygax's 1E AD&D PH and DMG. I understand the beauty of using interesting/archaic language to add to the feel of an adventure or campaign. And reading those books challenged my mind and made me want to look up all the weird words so I'd know what they meant. But when you're writing rules, it's better to aim for clarity rather than beauty. Especially in a game where a simple word like "level" could, in context, mean class level, character level, spell level, or dungeon level.
If that means you don't use phrases like "possessions" when you mean "gear," or "a host of" when you mean "many," or "the number of levels in the cleric class that you possess" when you mean "your cleric level," so be it--write for clarity.
TLDR: It's okay to have a crunchy, complex game if you present the rules in an easy-to-understand and easy-to-remember way.
Now that I have the beginner box in my hands, I wanted to say please, please, PLEASE re-do the core rulebook with this clarity and presentation. You don't have to change a single rule -- just the way they are presented.
And while I would also like a "Pathfinder Basic," I don't think it's viable compete against oneself in that manner. What I think *might* be viable is to break out as optional at least some of the complexity left out of the Beginner Box -- an approach that would not break backward compatibility.
What I would personally find ideal is a Pathfinder 2E with a pared-down rulebook that looks a lot like the Beginner Box, just with more content: More classes, more races, more spells, more equipment, etc. I'm not expecting that any time soon, of course, but it would be freakin' amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...even where the BB rules are the same as the CR rules, I believe the BB explains things more clearly than the CR--because I rewrote it to be so. I'm sure you could easily add other Core Rulebook rules into BB play if they were rewritten for clarity...
..If that means you don't use phrases like "possessions" when you mean "gear," or "a host of" when you mean "many," or "the number of levels in the cleric class that you possess" when you mean "your cleric level," so be it--write for clarity...
I can haz new CRB? Will pay monies. Kthxbye.
;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think probably the best way to do things is the way the Basic Box does things - keeps things simple and clear, letting the GM handle edge cases.
Here's an example: In the full game, the burning hands spell states that it can set unattended objects on fire. The fireball spell specifically states that the fire doesn't last long enough to catch objects on fire. The scorching ray spell doesn't say either way.
The Basic Box handles this by only providing the basics of what the spell does, leaving the GM to decide whether or not any of these spells will catch an object on fire.
I think leaving out these edge cases is a good idea - it lets the GM decide what can and can't be done with a skill, spell, or ability.
Sure, if you leave out the edge cases, that invites players to abuse vague rules. This is good - this encourages players to think creatively. And if the rules are vague, this allows the GM to "veto" unreasonable uses of skills or spells without the players bringing up "but the rules say I can".
I'm currently playing in a couple of 4th edition games. While 4E is fun for what it is - a fantasy-themed miniatures combat game - it's definitely very restrictive, which makes it very hard for me to play it creatively. Every ability has exactly what it does spelled out with unquestionable clarity - sure, I can teleport, but I can only teleport next to an enemy, and only when they attack one of my allies. Why can't I mark an ally, and teleport to his side when he attacks one of my enemies? The answer is simple: the rules don't say what you can't do, but restrict you even more by clearly stating the only things you can do. 4E breaks down almost immediately under lateral thinking.
I think simple and sufficiently vague rules, like the ones the Pathfinder Beginner Box has, are the key to making a fun and flexible role playing game. The GM can say that no matter how good at swimming you are, you sink if you're in full plate armor. A player can say he wants to use scorching ray to ignite a barrel of gunpowder. The rogue can attempt an Acrobatics check to leap on top of the ogre's back. If you fall into lava, you die, no save. Sure, you can do these things in the full game, but that requires you to ignore existing rules while inventing new ones, which can be stressful, especially if your players become upset that you're "breaking the rules" against their favor.
Sure, making your own rulings on the fly can be hard work, but memorising and referencing rules that try to cover every edge case - often under the scrutiny of players who know the rules as well or better than you do - can be harder work.
I too am surprised that Paizo feels that a basic line would cannibalize their core PF sales. I would think those who buy the basic line would either buy both or just the basic line.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that a PFB line of products should harken back to the lack of detail in key areas (stealth, et al) that characterized pre 3e stuff. I'm saying that there are a lot of players out there that would be drawn to PFB because it is simpler and more focused than PFC... people who aren't currently playing PFC.
I don't disagree. What is uncertain is how interested those people would be for mid- and high-level play (6-12) where things get a lot more complex than levels 1-5. In other words: We know there is a potentially big market for an intro product, we don't know how much of a market there is for a 6-10 product, especially when said product largely comes down to "ignore AOOs, ignore combat maneuvers," at which point I'm wondering why you don't just use the core rules and ignore those parts of the came, rather than needing a specific product that rewrites the game to ignore those rules.
Like I said, we don't know if such a product would be profitable--whereas we know the core rulebooks are profitable.
To be fair, I like a simpler game. I volunteered early to work on the BBox because I believe simplifying and clarifying the game is very important for new players, and if we were to do a 6-10 expansion I'd insist on working on that, too. But having experienced the decline of TSR first-hand, I am very cautious.
I too am surprised that Paizo feels that a basic line would cannibalize their core PF sales. I would think those who buy the basic line would either buy both or just the basic line.
That's cannibalizing the core PF sales. If someone's just buying the "basic" products, they're not buying things like the APG, Bestiaries, and so on.
...even where the BB rules are the same as the CR rules, I believe the BB explains things more clearly than the CR--because I rewrote it to be so. I'm sure you could easily add other Core Rulebook rules into BB play if they were rewritten for clarity...
..If that means you don't use phrases like "possessions" when you mean "gear," or "a host of" when you mean "many," or "the number of levels in the cleric class that you possess" when you mean "your cleric level," so be it--write for clarity...
I can haz new CRB? Will pay monies. Kthxbye.
;-)
+1 (revised edition)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree. What is uncertain is how interested those people would be for mid- and high-level play (6-12) where things get a lot more complex than levels 1-5. In other words: We know there is a potentially big market for an intro product, we don't know how much of a market there is for a 6-10 product, especially when said product largely comes down to "ignore AOOs, ignore combat maneuvers,"...
That's cannibalizing the core PF sales. If someone's just buying the "basic" products, they're not buying things like the APG, Bestiaries, and so on.
But you did say yourself that there is a lot more than just the omission of complicated rules that goes into making the Beginner Box different. And if that difference is clarity then I think there is a market for clarified 6-10, and clarified 10-20. In fact, I think the market would get more enthusiastic as the game gets more complicated.
I love Pathfinder but I am at my wit's end GMing for mid-high levels (we're 12th now). The same game with a reference as clearly-worded as the basic box would mean fewer cross-references, fewer gotcha rules, less prep time, and many improvements with few to zero drawbacks.
I don't think it should be a different product line. I think it should be a revised edition. I think that the treatment of language in the Beginner Box should be the new model for a total re-wording of the CRB. (EDIT: Someone is going to read that as "new edition". Let me repeat: same rules, clearer wording.)
If the CRB weren't so damned byzantine, I would be relishing the next Adventure Path instead of patiently waiting for my current one to end so I can stop struggling against the wording.
Just to be "clear": great job with the beginner box, Sean. If I were CEO, you would be asked to begin a clarity rewrite of the CRB today. I would then publish it as a parallel "revised" edition compatible with the CRB. There's probably all sorts of good reasons that it doesn't make sense to do that, but man do I want that book.
I know its been posed as a response here before, but I don't find the "just ignore it" idea to be very compelling.
And I'm trying to tell you that the economics of designing, editing, and typesetting a book that's essentially "Core Rulebook minus X, Y, and Z" are still significant. Especially if that product is in direct competition to the Core Rulebook, which has already paid for itself and is profitable.
This depends a lot on how the product is done. I agree that it would see people bypass the hard cover player books like APG and the Ultimate series.
Which are profitable books for Paizo. So that's a loss of revenue.
But if designed correctly, it would see people buy adventures, setting books and bestiaries. You also have to factor in that a chunk of these additional sales may not have been generated without that additional expansion.
And it's really hard to judge X versus Y when X is "money they're not spending on APG/UM/UC because they're playing the simpler game" and Y is "money they are spending on adventures and setting books because they're playing the simpler game."
Like I said, I'm not ruling it out (not that I'm the one who makes decisions about these things), but it's a risky proposition.
I agree that splitting PF into "Basic" and "Advanced" editions is probably a poor business choice, but I would definitely like the Beginner Box's design principles to carry to the next revision of Pathfinder. That is to say, more or less the same rules written for clarity and simplicity, at the expense of covering specific corner-cases.
Ooh, and more guidelines / tables for improvising skill DCs! That's one thing 4th Edition does right that Pathfinder doesn't.
I too am surprised that Paizo feels that a basic line would cannibalize their core PF sales. I would think those who buy the basic line would either buy both or just the basic line.That's cannibalizing the core PF sales. If someone's just buying the "basic" products, they're not buying things like the APG, Bestiaries, and so on.
Sorry I was rushing on that post and didn't really say what I wanted to. I meant I am surprised that the "just the basic line" people would buy the core rules if the basic line were not available.
Let's just say that creating the Beginner Box was an enormously educational process, and that the fruits of that education will be delicious for many years to come.
Glad to hear that.
OP, you might like this. Check it out.
http://basicfantasy.org/main.html
I have that but I like PF basic better. BFRPG doesn't have the streamlined mechanics of PF or a skill system.
Let's just say that creating the Beginner Box was an enormously educational process, and that the fruits of that education will be delicious for many years to come.
:D
I have always thought Paizo capable of improving on the 3.5 text to a greater extent than has been seen hitherto. I'm very excited to see this in action.
May we please have a high level play guide the has a playability treatment of the core rules, plus a chapter on post 20th? I need a book to make 12th+ fun. Complexity is a key issue there. I need it two months ago. I don't see myself buying another rules hardback until then (though I do not speak for everyone).
At any rate, Erik, your comment might just pull me back from the brink!
I have that but I like PF basic better. BFRPG doesn't have the streamlined mechanics of PF or a skill system.FWIW Tombs & Terrors does :) http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=84759&.
However, I agree with you. Given the extensive wealth of Paizo support out there already and their amazing presentation, a simpler Paizo created entry point would be preferable.
Yep got that one too. Simon makes some great games, but you are right it doesn't have the presentation and support of PF.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let's just say that creating the Beginner Box was an enormously educational process, and that the fruits of that education will be delicious for many years to come.
I have always thought Paizo capable of improving on the 3.5 text to a greater extent than has been seen hitherto. I'm very excited to see this in action.
May we please have a high level play guide the has a playability treatment of the core rules, plus a chapter on post 20th? I need a book to make 12th+ fun. Complexity is a key issue there. I need it two months ago. I don't see myself buying another rules hardback until then (though I do not speak for everyone).
At any rate, Erik, your comment might just pull me back from the brink!
I for one would love to see the game broken into Normal play (1st - 12th) and high level 13-20. Or maybe even end break at 10th level. The high level book could focus more on the things that make high level play more challenging to run. And possibly even have some tactics and 'how to run' stuff.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one would love to see the game broken into Normal play (1st - 12th) and high level 13-20. Or maybe even end break at 10th level.
Here's how I'd like to see things play out for CR 2.0.
Have Beginner Box be the main reference for levels 1-5.
Have a new 'Core Rules Volume 1' which covers levels 1-12, with the same Beginner Box clarity and presentation. This would also match the Pathfinder Society level range.
Have a new 'Core Rules Volume 2' which covers levels 13+, with the same Beginner Box clarity and presentation. This would cover all the high-level stuff.
So for newbies, they'd start with Beginner Box. Soon thereafter they'd get CR Volume 1. Some power-players would get (or use at least) Volume 2, but many folks would be content with just Volume 1 and never play past Level 12.
I think this would be a great compromise for those not wanting the dense and daunting 500 page book, wanting something that seemed rules lite and approachable, while not splitting the 'Basic' crowd into a different product line.
And I think this would go a long way to making things easier for GMs. Playing 8th level? Maybe you digest 250 pages instead of 500. At the very least, the book would be lighter weight :-)
Put me firmly in the "no PF Basic line please". One box is enough for bringing in new players to the hobby, anything above that is going to drain resources from the main line.
Ditto.
It's been said before, but I'll repeat it: just drop the rules you don't want from the full system to keep the BB feel. Voila!
Is that really so hard?
I don't understand why people can't just accept the fact that this product was made as an entry point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Seems rather straight-forward to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people can't just accept the fact that this product was made as an entry point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Seems rather straight-forward to me.
The motivation behind the production of the Beginner box is irrelevant. Now that people have seen it, they want that clarity and presentation in the full rules.
That seems rather straight-forward to me. ;-)
I for one would love to see the game broken into Normal play (1st - 12th) and high level 13-20. Or maybe even end break at 10th level.Here's how I'd like to see things play out for CR 2.0.
Have Beginner Box be the main reference for levels 1-5.
Have a new 'Core Rules Volume 1' which covers levels 1-12, with the same Beginner Box clarity and presentation. This would also match the Pathfinder Society level range.
Have a new 'Core Rules Volume 2' which covers levels 13+, with the same Beginner Box clarity and presentation. This would cover all the high-level stuff.
So for newbies, they'd start with Beginner Box. Soon thereafter they'd get CR Volume 1. Some power-players would get (or use at least) Volume 2, but many folks would be content with just Volume 1 and never play past Level 12.
I think this would be a great compromise for those not wanting the dense and daunting 500 page book, wanting something that seemed rules lite and approachable, while not splitting the 'Basic' crowd into a different product line.
And I think this would go a long way to making things easier for GMs. Playing 8th level? Maybe you digest 250 pages instead of 500. At the very least, the book would be lighter weight :-)
I like this in theory: it would allow room for the kind of content some are asking for to support "Epic" play. Also, it would allow for the Core Rules to be less dense and give more room for better instruction/presentation as opposed to just straight reference.
That being said, I'm not exactly sure how much of the "crunch" you could leave out of CR Volume 1. Sure, you could choose not to include 7th through 9th level spells, and some of the feats. But those take up a minority of the current Core Rulebook -- you still need to know how to manage iterative attacks, all the combat maneuvers, etc., etc. if you're running up to Level 12. If you use up more pages to improve the presentation, I don't know if it would all fit within 576 pages.
I would use a different word for the Beginner Box -- instead of being "the main reference," it would remain the teaser/introduction to the new, straightforward Core Rulebook 2.0, which would trump the Beginner Box in terms of official play. Because hopefully a lot of people starting with the Beginner Box would buy because the new CRB because it would be much improved in presentation. I'm just not sure you could cover Levels 1-12 using The BB's visual style and approach, without it being even bigger.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to augment what the above posters have said:
I don't want the rule omissions from the beginner box to be implemented in the core.
I do want the clarity of rules and the user-driven approach to be implemented in the core.
The game is most popular at lower levels because the game is most playable at lower levels. I feel the Pathfinder CRB has usability issues that could be fixed through language and presentation alone, no actual rule changes.
I'd rather Pathfinder remain one game rather than splitting the line into Pathfinder and Pathfinder Lite.
I would like to see the current version of Pathfinder simplified and clarified at some point. Hopefully, the feedback about what worked and what didn't work with the Beginner Box will be taken into consideration when it comes time to do a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. Not that I'm clamoring for a new edition, but I'm sure that someone at Paizo is taking notes, and I hope the feedback from the Beginner Box (not just immediate feedback, but stuff that comes up after 2-3 years of various audiences playing) will all get taken into consideration down the road.
The motivation behind the production of the Beginner box is irrelevant. Now that people have seen it, they want that clarity and presentation in the full rules.
Clarification: SOME people want it - not everybody.
I get that some people like the presentational style of the Beginner's Box. I think it admirably achieves it's goal in teaching people how to play the game.
However, I prefer the look of the regular books the way they are. I think they are far more elegant and have a more "mature" feel (to me.)
I don't like stylistic changes in an edition. However, I would welcome it in a future edition, provided that it doesn't make me feel like I'm being spoon-fed. The goals and presentation of the BB make sense. That's not to say that I don't believe in clarity - but rather, that there is a balance between clarity and style.
Personally, I think that the style used in the BB reminds me a lot of reading a strategy guide for a video game.
Personally, I think that the style used in the BB reminds me a lot of reading a strategy guide for a video game.
Which, when you get to the heart of it, is exactly what it is. The level of complexity that requires a strategy guide for say Oblivion or Borderlands, possibly even Starcraft, is almost on par with that of an actual Tabletop game. Especially if you are seeking mastery of the underlying mechanics. Every non-computer based game asks players to do their own "processing".
I think you'd have to talk to Apple about that balance. Then again some people object to their style in the first place.
Dang rules heavy? We're talking about "Mathbinder", right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to think there is a lot of common ground in the disagreement upthread.
Nobody's really asking for changes in the complexity of the game. I happen to like the "mature" presentation of the CRB as the poster put it.
The problem is, there are major flaws with the information design of the CRB. Things are not where they need to be. Standards are not adhered to. Systems are incomplete. There are a ton of "hidden" clauses (some of the worst have come out in the errata thank god) and there are a number of places where the rules are hyper-specific with very little gameplay payoff (read magic? Deciphering scrolls? geez). Those same rules could be shortened, collected, and made into a procedure.
The book needs to contain procedures for play, not a partially-organized partially-thematic bundle of rules clauses.
I understand 100% why the book is the way it is. In its own way, it is a thing of beauty. But problems have come up over the years that I have been using it, and those problems find their root in the legacy text from 3.5 and the fact that this was actually two books crammed into one cover.
I know Paizo knows it; I'm wasting my energy ranting about this.
If they use the same usability process as they did on the beginner box, but get testers who are slightly older and represent the CRB's target audience, I have absolute faith that we will see an incredible reformat of the rules in the future. And I also have faith that those people who want the rules to stay the same (and reverse compatible) will not be left out in the cold. It's absolutely doable. Have cake, eat too.
BTW, I can clearly see that the BB had "naive" testers brought in and that lead to some great innovations. I hope this becomes a permanent consideration for future rules products.
*phew* Can you tell I just had strong coffee?
|
My vote is NO to a simple rules set. I like the crunch, and I want more crafting. I love the way the writing is right now in their publications.
You have the beginner box. Use that for levels 1-5, then move on from there to the CRB. If some of that stuff is too much, just don't use it. Plain and simple.
Changing what is working and what brought Pathfinder's devoted fans is not a good idea. The BB is the easy ruleset. (I love it btw, the BB) But, I'm all set purchasing a dumb downed product or worse, something that harks back to TSR's undoing. No way.
Paizo, continue what you've been doing, and if anything, give us the beautiful complexity we love. Complexity, the way pathfinder handles it is beautiful.
Clarity, not LITE.
No way for a separate line of rules and products.
Bel. :)
I happen to think there is a lot of common ground in the disagreement upthread.
Nobody's really asking for changes in the complexity of the game. I happen to like the "mature" presentation of the CRB as the poster put it.
The problem is, there are major flaws with the information design of the CRB. Things are not where they need to be. Standards are not adhered to. Systems are incomplete. There are a ton of "hidden" clauses (some of the worst have come out in the errata thank god) and there are a number of places where the rules are hyper-specific with very little gameplay payoff (read magic? Deciphering scrolls? geez). Those same rules could be shortened, collected, and made into a procedure.
The book needs to contain procedures for play, not a partially-organized partially-thematic bundle of rules clauses.
I understand 100% why the book is the way it is. In its own way, it is a thing of beauty. But problems have come up over the years that I have been using it, and those problems find their root in the legacy text from 3.5 and the fact that this was actually two books crammed into one cover.
I know Paizo knows it; I'm wasting my energy ranting about this.
If they use the same usability process as they did on the beginner box, but get testers who are slightly older and represent the CRB's target audience, I have absolute faith that we will see an incredible reformat of the rules in the future. And I also have faith that those people who want the rules to stay the same (and reverse compatible) will not be left out in the cold. It's absolutely doable. Have cake, eat too.
BTW, I can clearly see that the BB had "naive" testers brought in and that lead to some great innovations. I hope this becomes a permanent consideration for future rules products.
*phew* Can you tell I just had strong coffee?
Evil - thanks for not jumping down my throat. I'm definitely not wanting to provoke people.
I pretty much agree with everything you've written so far.
The way I see it, everybody was happy with Pathfinder the way it was before BB. Then, BB comes out and there are hollers for change.
I don't feel that change is needed at all. I feel that finding ways to introduce new players to the game *was* needed, and that need has been met. This box set wasn't designed to "change" the game, but was designed to serve as an entry point.
I am definitely in the camp of " keep things the way they are."
The majority of players that I know (and play with) feel the same way.