I like Pathfinder. I will play it any time I get a chance but as far as Dming goes it is just too dang rules heavy for me.After playing it for a while now im burnt out on anything rules heavy.
What I want to see is a Basic Pathfinder game. The basic class's.A very basic combat system and race and class mix. Something like Pathfinders version of the old Basic D&D.
No skill system, and needed a lot of DM wining it to cover holes ect..
I want 10-15 min combats. I want 10 min NPC creation and everything else just as simple.
I know not everyone else wants any of this and im fine with that. I also know there are tons of rules lite games and retro clones etc but I love the Paizo guys and the types of adventures they put out.
The Intro set might be good,I have not kept up with it other than a general feeling it is only a intro and not a separate game.
So here is to my hope and dream that I can get my cake and eat it to!
|
Just saw it on enWorld's front page - couldn't believe there wasn't already a thread here :-)
Dale has the scoop! Whooo!!! Can't wait for Christmas :-)
Actually, a few (hundred) people are talking about it HERE :)
|
I like Pathfinder. I will play it any time I get a chance but as far as Dming goes it is just too dang rules heavy for me.After playing it for a while now im burnt out on anything rules heavy.
What I want to see is a Basic Pathfinder game. The basic class's.A very basic combat system and race and class mix. Something like Pathfinders version of the old Basic D&D.
No skill system, and needed a lot of DM wining it to cover holes ect..
I want 10-15 min combats. I want 10 min NPC creation and everything else just as simple.
I know not everyone else wants any of this and im fine with that. I also know there are tons of rules lite games and retro clones etc but I love the Paizo guys and the types of adventures they put out.
The Intro set might be good,I have not kept up with it other than a general feeling it is only a intro and not a separate game.
So here is to my hope and dream that I can get my cake and eat it to!
As everyone's been pointing out, Paizo's plannin' to release a light version of its ruleset. It is not going to be Old School Renaissance, or OSR, though, since one can take the PCs into regular campaigns and Pathfinder Society-sanctioned games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well thanks for the thought guys but no. Putting out a intro box with the same rules 1-5th level will not help me at all. I have all the rules and all the books already and we know how to play the game. The game is just too dang rules heavy.
A lot of gamers love rules heavy games and frankly im cool with that. At the same time I wish a awsome company with deep pockets like Paizo would also put out a rules lite game for those of us that love those types of games more.
We do have some cool rules lite games out there. All the retro clones,Castles and Crusades,heck even Savage worlds ect..
But none of them really put out product like Paizo does or with that awsome style!
Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe most gamers do love heavy rules and so lite rules just do not make the same kind of money. I don't have a clue.
I do know that when I was young (8-30) The more rules a game had and support in the form of extra books I could buy the better!
Now that im a old geezer in my 4th decade of playing rpg's I just can't seem to find the rules joy I had before.
Now I just want to role play and want the game to go fast and fun. If a fight lasts over 30 minutes I lose some of the fun and want to move on.
Same with creating npc's and adventures. I want more creating and less book keeping. I want to think up crazy Pirate dwarves with peg legs and a crazy Irish accent and then spend 5 min writing his stats down.
Maybe as gamers get older now we develop a rare form of ADD? Hahaha oh well.
Hears to chasing the perfect rpg dream!
Thanks for letting me ramble on.
Hopefully someone with actual business knowhow will correct me where I'm wrong, but I would venture to guess that a "lite" version of Pathfinder would not be good business for Paizo. It would create direct competition for the Pathfinder line they currently support. And since Paizo seems to make a habit of supporting the rules they do produce, I'm betting that we as customers would lose out a bit by having them support two different games. We'd either have page space taken up with conversion notes or two separate lines that each cater to only one version of Pathfinder. We'd also get the basic D&D/AD&D dilemma of new customers not knowing the difference between the two brands.
That's not to say that a rules-lite version of Pathfinder wouldn't be welcome from some gamers, including myself. However, it strikes me as something that might be better worked on by a 3rd party publisher as compared to Paizo, who already has their hands full supporting Pathfinder in its current form.
The basic set doesn't seem meant to cater to folks who want Pathfinder Lite but rather potential gamers who see a 500+ page rulebook and run the other way. The fact that it will provide the Pathfinder rules in an easy-to-manage but compatible format is a good thing. Using the basic set, it seems like players who normally wouldn't play the game can enjoy Pathfinder adventures all the way up to level 5, at which point they can either start another low-level campaign or move onto the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and keep playing. It's comparable to the early 1990s basic D&D stuff, where you had a boxed set with all the rules to play up to level 5, then the Rules Cyclopedia to go on from there. The dilemma back then, of course, was that D&D was split into two lines that, while they could be converted back and forth, weren't really compatible with one another.
Just business-wise, though, I don't see that a lite version of Pathfinder would be useful for Paizo. (A lighter rules system in a different genre, like something to tie into Planet Stories, on the other hand...) But if you really are dying for a rules-light version of Pathfinder, I would guess that it would be a simple matter to use Swords & Wizardry or Castles & Crusades alongside Pathfinder adventures and supplements, which might be the closest you'll get to a Pathfinder Lite experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe most gamers do love heavy rules and so lite rules just do not make the same kind of money.
It might not be because of love, but from my read on the buying habits of gamers is is that ... we're busy. Day job, family, etc, they all time up and generally come before gaming. So gamers are gravitating more towards rules light games these days. So savage worlds and fate are rather popular.
But those that love d20 based games are playing Pathfinder. However, they are still busy people. So they need more help than a rules lite gamer does to enjoy their games the same. Hence why Paizo's adventure paths are their bread and butter. So yes, a rules heavy game makes more money because there is more assistance to sell. A rules heavy game without considerable support is going to fail.
Paizo, in my estimation, produces a good amount of support and we 3rd party publishers fill in the gaps that Paizo does not produce enough of.
A lot of gamers love rules heavy games and frankly im cool with that. At the same time I wish a awsome company with deep pockets like Paizo would also put out a rules lite game for those of us that love those types of games more.
I guess the problem is that there's no(t enough) money in that. A rules-light game would mean one book with a couple hundred pages and that's it.
Since it's rules-light, it already offers you all the options you'd need, or rather the basis to do all the options yourself. Making a book that spells out how to do all sorts of characters using these basic options would not be very rules-light.
And since it would be a different game, it would not get newbloods to try the game and see if they want to "graduate" to the "full version".
So Pathlight (A hypothetical name for a rules-light pathfinder) would be a short book with light, general rules. They might also do a Golarion Companion where they explain the major elements of Golarion in the new system (i.e. "Paladin: These are holy warriors, mostly concerned with martial prowess but also gaining protective and healing powers, as well as abilities that increase their fighting prowess further, from a divine source, usually the concept of Justice itself. They have a specific code to follow or they lose their divine powers"), but that's it.
Nobody would start with Pathlight and then go Pathfinder RPG because they like it so much.
And Pathfinder apparently is a full-time job, leaving little time for different projects.
So I think that's why the big companies stick to the rules-heavy stuff they know will sell to a lot of people, and will allow them to publish books on a regular basis.
|
Right now, there are so many OSR retro-clones out there based on the OGL that anyone looking to scratch their old school itch can find a rule set for free.I think Charlie Brooks did a pretty good job of pointing out why Paizo probably doesn't want two version of what is essentially the same game floating around. You can look at the historical example of Red Box Basic versus AD&D, or you can look at the current example of 4e versus Essentials as examples of the confusion that's created by different, concurrent editions.
-Skeld
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We haven't really said exactly how rules-heavy or rules-light this beginner's box will be. Before you dismiss it as not being what you want, I suggest waiting to see what it's actually going to contain and how the rules presentation works for you. We'll be giving lots of details on the contents of the box at the PaizoCon Preview Banquet in June, so it's only a few months before everyone will have a much better idea what to expect.
We haven't really said exactly how rules-heavy or rules-light this beginner's box will be.Doesn't matter. You can't use the beginner's box to run an AP using "lite" rules, because the box stops at 5th level.
Paizo would have to add an Expert Game box covering levels beyond 5th if they want a complete rules-light game.
Maybe the rules will be presented in a way where people could extrapolate on them and continue into higher levels on their own, one level at a time.
Before you dismiss it as not being what you want, I suggest waiting to see what it's actually going to contain and how the rules presentation works for you.
But ... but this is the Internet!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We haven't really said exactly how rules-heavy or rules-light this beginner's box will be.Doesn't matter. You can't use the beginner's box to run an AP using "lite" rules, because the box stops at 5th level.
Paizo would have to add an Expert Game box covering levels beyond 5th if they want a complete rules-light game.
1: We haven't said we won't do that.
2: I bet you can come up with other solutions than that if you think about it.
Paizo would have to add an Expert Game box covering levels beyond 5th if they want a complete rules-light game.
Who knows? If the basic set is a success, maybe an expert set wouldn't be out of the question.
|
As an alternative ...
I know it's not Paizo. And I know it's not fantasy.
That being said, just recently I ran Gamma World completely blind for a group of friends.
After 2 minutes of quick rules scans, I led three players through character creation in 15 minutes, total. I think we ended up playing around five hours and had some of the most fun role playing ever! I personally expected an absolute flop, but the players ate it up and we had a great time. It is 4E, but it's very fast to create characters and play (most of it is random, then fill in the blanks.) I don't know how hard it would be to write material for, I haven't messed with that yet, but it definitely was good for a quick and easy game to play.
** Gamma World First Edition was my very first RPG. I played this with my best friend back in '78-79, and then followed up into the old Red Dragon Basic D&D game, and then rapidly into AD&D. When it recently came out under 4E I had to give it a try, even though I avoid "funny" rpgs.
Well...if it is an intro game, then the goal is to bring in new players. They could certainly start an 'intro' game with an AP, and then...buy the core book and keep going? Isn't that the goal? You wouldn't necessarily need an 'expert' set etc. That's what the core books are for.
|
Well...if it is an intro game, then the goal is to bring in new players. They could certainly start an 'intro' game with an AP, and then...buy the core book and keep going? Isn't that the goal? You wouldn't necessarily need an 'expert' set etc. That's what the core books are for.
I think what some poeple were hoping for was a more rules-light version of Pathfinder. I was on that bandwagon for a while, but I've realized that it's akin to asking for water that's less wet. The d20/3.X system is just inherently over-complicated. If you want a rules-light fantasy game, you can do much better than a stripped down Pathfinder. My favorite at the moment would be Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rulebook by Mythmere Games / Frog God Games.
|
|
Well...if it is an intro game, then the goal is to bring in new players. They could certainly start an 'intro' game with an AP, and then...buy the core book and keep going? Isn't that the goal? You wouldn't necessarily need an 'expert' set etc. That's what the core books are for.
I think this is pretty much the point. The idea is to bring in new players who can then "graduate" up to the full Pathfinder rules once they have a handle on the game via this "intro" game.
I know I'll be getting a set for my nephews!
|
|
Well...if it is an intro game, then the goal is to bring in new players. They could certainly start an 'intro' game with an AP, and then...buy the core book and keep going? Isn't that the goal? You wouldn't necessarily need an 'expert' set etc. That's what the core books are for.
+1
And it gives those gamers the plus of accessing the entire library of Paizo products, plus, if they want to, the entire 3.x catalog as well. For a new young GM trying RPGs for the first time, there's a whole slew of low-level adventures to try! Sounds like a winner to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...if it is an intro game, then the goal is to bring in new players. They could certainly start an 'intro' game with an AP, and then...buy the core book and keep going? Isn't that the goal?The idea is to bring in new players who can then "graduate" up to the full Pathfinder rules once they have a handle on the game via this "intro" game.Yes, that's how an intro set works. But the OP states that the intro set by itself doesn't meet his needs. Restating the acknowledged goal of the intro set just further proves his point.
Right, thanks for clearing that up.
I was actually responding more to the people that were apparently hoping this was going to be some kind of complete rules light variation of the Pathfinder RPG that could be played over a full 20 levels and would exist along side the normal Pathfinder RPG. I was just saying that this does not appear to be that kind of product - and frankly I am glad about that. As others have pointed out, splitting into two variations of the rules set which would then need to be supported is not a great idea for Paizo. Creating an intro set that can bring in new players to the Pathfinder RPG is a great idea.
The last thing we need is a Basic D&D / Advanced D&D type confusion
You might be interested in this game: Warrior, Rogue & Mage
You might be interested in this game: Warrior, Rogue & Mage
Is it as inventive as its name ;-P
|
|
You might be interested in this game: Warrior, Rogue & MageIs it as inventive as its name ;-P
Its free and interestingly not a class based game :) Instead each character is a mix of Warrior, Rogue & Mage
|
|
+1 for a rules light Pathfinder..
I would SO like a rules-lite version of this game. As many have said before, I'm busy, and I just don't have time to spend the many hours digesting all the advanced rules in the CRB. I don't think I'll ever be able to GM a convention game with Pathfinder, as I won't ever be able to (or patient enough to) master the rules, and confident to deal with the rules-lawyers who have spent those many hours reading rules.
I don't think having a sanctioned rules-lite option means you have to 'split the customers' though. Imagine this: next version of the CRB tags advanced rules like AoO. There's one book, and you can run your games in 'lite' mode or 'advanced' mode. Same customer base. Same modules. Played in two different styles.
Then, when you run a Society adventure, you advertise it as 'run using Basic (Lite) Rules' or 'run using Advanced Rules'. New modules likewise tag advanced rules; if you're running it in Basic mode you just ignore them.
We're already doing this with the Tier system -- we ignore the monsters statted out for different levels.
To be honest, I'm using Savage Worlds at the moment because Pathfinder's current ruleset is just too heavy for the teenage audience I'm GM'ing for. None of these guys wants to read that 500 page book.
If I can get a fully sanctioned 'rules lite' mode in our Pathfinder games, I'll gladly return to the fold running Pathfinder games.
In any case, I'll be buying the box set and hoping something like this is in the working for future games! Best of luck -- I'm sure you folks are thinking about all these things. :-)
I don't think having a sanctioned rules-lite option means you have to 'split the customers' though. Imagine this: next version of the CRB tags advanced rules like AoO. There's one book, and you can run your games in 'lite' mode or 'advanced' mode. Same customer base. Same modules. Played in two different styles.
It seemed to work perfectly fine for TSR back when they had a "Dungeons and Dragons" (BECMI) and "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons." BECMI was geared for younger players but plenty of adults used it. And with just a little effort one could use BECMI modules in an AD&D game and vice versa.
I think it would be wonderful for Paizo to put out a rules-lite version that is created to be workable with other products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really did not work well for TSR. Spliting the player base into diffent groups lead to the downfall of TSR.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug*
Nothing wrong with old school.
|
It really did not work well for TSR. Spliting the player base into diffent groups lead to the downfall of TSR.
Not so much, it's more likely the splitting into a dozen different settings did this as Basic was around for close to 20 years before TSR went out. If it was Basic's fault, TSR would've been in trouble alot earlier I think. I started with Basic in 1980 and bought stuff for both games. It was pretty easy to use stuff from both games in your campaign.
For me, I use a basic Pathfinder - I strip out the tactical combat stuff. If I want tactical I'll play 4e. I take out AoO and maps. Combat becomes much quicker, especially with the CMB and CMD. Players spend alot less time worrying about where they're moving to and just attack.
This doesn't speed up character generation, but after the pc's are made, the game plays pretty quick. I like the options at PC gen that Pathfinder has and don't really want to change that part for my home games.
I did not say cause, I said lead to. It was indeed the splitting of the fan base, into setting, advanced?basic or in any other manor. Basic/ advanced were two game systems, people who bought for one did not buy for the other. This started them down the road that lead to the companies downfall.
Really!?
I never met a single player in almost 30 years who didn't start on Basic and then graduate to AD&D. It was the other way around, Basic was the accessible product, the gateway drug that got us hooked on the harder stuff.
Really!?
I never met a single player in almost 30 years who didn't start on Basic and then graduate to AD&D. It was the other way around, Basic was the accessible product, the gateway drug that got us hooked on the harder stuff.
I started with mechwarrior, then MSH, then Ad&d 2e, then a few other things. Then I found basic.
But yes we know spliting of the fan base killed TSR, it started with haveing two game systems with competing products, that lead to many systems for each system spliting an already split fan based to the breaking point.
Must have been a regional thing.
Getting the Basic set was always easy in this country, and you could sometimes find the Expert set. Past that was almost impossible.
BECMI Modules were rare as hens teeth as well, and you normally had to go to a specialist gaming store.
By contrast, AD&D products were abundant in any toy or department store, with Basic always being sold as a 'primer' product.
Ahhh how strange the old days were before the internet, and when Dragon magazine was our only glimpse at any 'bigger picture'.
They did nit sale much at all here. One store,hidden awaythat i did nit even know about till years later sold the stuff.I mail ordered the MW game after finding an add in the back of a book.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
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 would say that setting proliferation killed 2e(and, by extension, TSR)...BECMI was pretty much dead a few years before that. They also had management that didn't "get" some of their settings.
OT, I'm fairly certain that there exist some fans out there willing to "Beginner Boxify" higher level rules.
My local groups don't use tactical movement either, we still just describe what is happening and use imagination for positioning. We still use AoOs, though, when it's obvious they would happen (mostly moving away, spellcasting, and ranged attacks).
|
|
Back to the original topic from way back when... I think that the Beginner Box introduces a prototype "rules-lite" version of PFRPG that people can use.
Pathfinder has a reputation of being complex because there's a lot of subsystems built on top of it, but the Beginner Box takes away a lot of those subsystems.
The things I've noticed so far that impact play the most are:
1. No attacks of opportunity. You simply CAN'T cast spells if you're next to an enemy. The main effect I see this having is that it makes it easier for the Rogue to move in to backstab.
2. No armor check penalties.
3. No domain spells.
4. No combat maneuvers.
Off of this foundation, you can introduce other parts of "full" Pathfinder that you like: perhaps introduce the AoOs for movement ONLY, and use the Acrobatics skill for moving past creatures. Or just hand-wave that a player can't swim because he's in medium or heavy armor. Or incorporate domain spells for the limited number of domains that are included in the Beginner Box. Grapples can be opposed BAB+strength checks, with the loser being immobilized for a round until they get out of it.
I think a lot of Pathfinder's complexity comes in at higher play, or with certain other classes (such as those with animal companions or eidolons).
One thing I think would be great for someone to do is help young players venture into levels 6-20 by making a pared-down list of high-level feats and a pared-down list of 4th through 9th-level spells, with 10 spells for each level and with four-line spell descriptions in the style of the Beginner Box. (Sure, some things would need explanation, like negative levels for people raised from the dead...) Because one problem for people new to the system is the sheer amount of options available, so having shorter lists would help. I looked at the class tables for the fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard just now and it seems pretty easy to run them up to 20th level using simply their pages from the CRB and the Beginner Box rules.
For some of us who learned to play using the BECMI format moving to AD&D was to simply add more options. There were complete sections of the rules for AD&D that we ignored (weapon speed I'm looking at you) or things that we modded with houserules (level restrictions for demi humans). These were some of the best memories that I have of gaming and if this basic set will allow more new gamers to experiment with the rules that they want to use (in a modular format) then it has to be a good thing.
I doubt that will see much "basicifacation" of other material since you can just ignore the rules that you don't want to use or sub creatures or classes that you don't have access to. I was so happy to read that (even though I know I don't NEED permission to do so) in the GM kit PDF that I jumped onto the subscription wagon for Jade Regent. I believe that if players know that there are other options out there (bestiary 1/2/3, etc) that this product will lead to increased sales for those books(especially since most monster entries in the new AP are just a note to see the stat block in the bestiary...proves taht the staff are using their heads for more than a hat rack) in addition to the core rules.
|
|
But yes we know spliting of the fan base killed TSR, it started with haveing two game systems with competing products, that lead to many systems for each system spliting an already split fan based to the breaking point.Really!?
I never met a single player in almost 30 years who didn't start on Basic and then graduate to AD&D. It was the other way around, Basic was the accessible product, the gateway drug that got us hooked on the harder stuff.
You do realize that Basic was in the 70's and early 80's right? TSR lasted well in to the 90's. They did not split their player base but it started to go bankrupt from some bad business decisions.
Shifty,
I have played now for almost 37 years now and since then I have introduced many players in to the game with almost every edition from Basic, Advanced (1st edition), 2nd Edition, and 3rd edition as well as 3.5 and Pathfinder. The least players I introduced to the game was with Basic edition. The most was with 2nd edition.
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 Basic as a gateway to the game back then... it ceased being one in the latter years.
While Basic as a gateway to the game back then... it ceased being one in the latter years.
Yeah I'd agree with that, as I say - an Intro to AD&D, but I should have stipulated 1st Ed.
Once second ed was around people just started on that instead.
It really did not work well for TSR. Spliting the player base into diffent groups lead to the downfall of TSR.
Wait. What?!? You need a lesson in history, my friend.
The fact that there was a basic box set (and an expert box as well) had zero to do with TSR's eventual sale to Wizards. Most of their troubles were a matter of pure mismanagement, largely due to one person.
I've played the game since 1981. Everybody I knew had the basic box. Everybody I knew had an AD&D Players Handbook. There was never any controversy over it, nobody ever complained. And I'm talking scores and scores of players. I've never heard anybody complain about the original basic boxes, nor any implication that there was any separation of groups or a single disgruntled customer until your post. In going on 31 years, I have never, ever heard or seen this mentioned until now.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have mistakenly assumed this in your own mind for a long time, rather than that you totally made this up just to cause trouble.
Seriously.
The fact that there was a basic box set (and an expert box as well) had zero to do with TSR's eventual sale to Wizards. Most of their troubles were a matter of pure mismanagement, largely due to one person.
Actually, splitting the player base with multiple campaign settings* and even multiple versions of OD&D/AD&D** definitely had much to do with TSR's problems.
* Which players perceived as exclusionary, even though that wasn't the case. As in "I play Birthright, so that Ravenloft supplement is useless to me."
** Though TSR didn't really do much with OD&D for the last few of years before the WotC buyout. Even the Mystara/Red Steel sets in that period were AD&D rather than OD&D. But the campaign setting splittage was very significant.
Once again, normally all the gamers I ever knew played multiple settings...
Sounded more like lack of clear planning for their product was a key problem, all down to that one person really.
As SKR has said it was a big factor in the downfall. I know I myself loved that era as a gamer, but that does not change the fact that era and splitting of the fan base lead to the downfall of TSR.
If I recall Paizo's CEO herself was in charge of going though the paperwork when WoTC acquired TSR to find out just what caused the issues. And the driving issue was indeed splitting of the fan base.
So yes while Basic/Ad&d was not the sole cause, it was an issue that lead to what became a chief factor in the death of TSR.