CFTP —
I don't know where that thread went. :/
The CRB was amazing as a product of that time and place. If there's one thing I want to make clear about my expectations, it's that making something simple is anything but simple.
Sean knows more directly than I do, obviously, but even during the Beta test it was clear that PF was evolving from 3.5 and would inherit some of its flaws.
We are looking at it from a vantage of a few years later, of course there are some things that are obvious in hindsight. Our job as the users is to make those obvious issues clear!
One more thing: Although I love Paizo, I DO blame them for the mess of the CRB. That was a golden opportunity to rewrite and reorganize those rules as the foundation for years of undead 3.5 gaming. Especially because they chose to make the behemoth CRB; at 50 bucks I feel jipped every time I have to dig through the SAME disarray from 8 years ago!Given more time, I would have loved to reorganize it more. But we had new APs coming out that, without the PFRPG, would be using a rules system whose core books were disappearing in stores, and couldn't wait another 6 or 12 months to get the reorganization done--we had to focus on (1) getting the rules changes made, and (2) getting it out on time so we wouldn't lose the 3E audience.
I know you would have. I'm still happy that PF exists(!) and I support Paizo 100%. (I subscribe).
SO, here is a heartfelt vote for a Revised edition. I know many dislike such things, but I think it is the best way to pull off an update with (massive) reorganization, since it seems PF 2 is a REALLY long way off.
Oh, and go ahead and break the book into two with an expanded GM volume. PLEASE--it is SO big it is inconvenient to reference.
Thanks for the note Sean.
CFTP —
I don't know where that thread went. :/
The CRB was amazing as a product of that time and place. If there's one thing I want to make clear about my expectations, it's that making something simple is anything but simple.
Sean knows more directly than I do, obviously, but even during the Beta test it was clear that PF was evolving from 3.5 and would inherit some of its flaws.
We are looking at it from a vantage of a few years later, of course there are some things that are obvious in hindsight. Our job as the users is to make those obvious issues clear!
Well, I for one saw immediately how messed up the book is. I know the text of 3.5 pretty well, and it is verbatim through most of the CRB. Inheriting the flaws of 3.5 was unavoidable with backward compatibility, but inheriting the disarray is regrettable.
Moved to the Homebrew forum for some reason.CFTP —
I don't know where that thread went. :/
Thanks TOZ.
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?
This and more.
I get the feeling that when Paizo originally redid 3.5, they:
1. Had a lot to accomplish, and so less time to be able to devote to consolidation/cleanup.
2. Were cautious about introducing so many format changes at once. 4e's format alienated a lot of people, and one of the things that Paizo sold themselves on was a continuation of tradition.
PF 2e will likely be more reflective of the "clean style" of the Beginner Box than not, because they've had the time to devote to it, and because changes* are always better introduced:
1. Slowly
2. When demand has built up and has proven to exist
There is some solid middle ground. What I would like to see, and what I think we will see, is some attention to detail on the information design.
* "Changes" referring to information streamlining, cleaner references, greater use of tables or charts, elimination of redundant information, and so forth. Of course, elimination of confusing/redundant rules could also be included without compromising the game itself. Paizo's an experienced company, and has access to an impressive amount of playtesting and feedback. I believe they can pull it off.