I was talking with a friend at 2 a.m. and I thought I'd start a thread here based upon it. (This can't be good...)
So last night we were discussing the flaws and considerations of pathfinder and other role playing games in general. Role playing games are far different from things like chess where there are simple defined goals and unbendable rules. The nature of role playing games is that expansions and new content are expected. Here are some questions we have been pondering:
What, as a gamer, do you like to see in your games?
What do you hope to see from the people who produce role playing games?
How much do you hold the producers responsible and how much do you hold the people who demand change responsible for the way a role playing game evolves?
Do you prefer a game that's complete and playing a variety of ways within that finely tuned system? Or do you enjoy a game that begins with a finely tuned system, yet continues expanding upon it to make it more interesting, perhaps at the expense of the original balance the game had?
Is power creep okay?
Do you think Pathfinder is destined to end up like 3.5? With so many options and broken combos that GMs have to start arbitrarily banning certain content?
What are your feelings over things like Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat? Do you think it will change the game for the better?
Ugh, I feel like I'm throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Feel free to discuss whatever question you like.
I guess the overall thought I'm trying to communicate is that expanding the game with new content is all well and good, but expanding the rules can be somewhat perilous to the balance of the game. ...and from what I've gathered, people love Pathfinder because it's like the d&d 3.5 system we all know and love, except balanced. What do you think about the future of Pathfinder, balance, power creep, etc?
Is power creep okay?
Do you think Pathfinder is destined to end up like 3.5? With so many options and broken combos that GMs have to start arbitrarily banning certain content?
What are your feelings over things like Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat? Do you think it will change the game for the better?
I think that it is troubling that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are coming out this close to the APG. I worry that if they sell well, it will provide an very tempting impetus to continue books in a similar vein.
I can't say what will happen, overall, its just something that concerns me about the pacing of very player centric options rulebooks.
At this point, I am saturated on rules.*
I will probably look into getting whatever rules my players want to bring to the campaign with new characters, but I now have the CRB, GMG, APG, Bv1 and Bv2 on my shelf. That's about 7 inches deep in pages.
Now, adventures and setting products don't have a saturation point. At least not the way Pathfinder has been handling continuity and metaplot. I have Kingmaker on my shelf right now and it might be two years before I run it, but I am glad to have it and I flip through it all the time!
So that's where I stand. I'm not against new rulebooks, I just don't need more. And I suspect a lot of people feel the way I do. I suspect many disagree as well.
As long as it doesn't interfere with the production of adventure content, I'm perfectly satisfied to see Paizo do whatever they need to to stay in business.
* There is one exception. I would buy in to a book that compiled and condensed the rules. I mean like a "revised edition", I guess. Not the kind of "edition" which changes the game, but rather the kind where they break everything down and reorganize it. I know it will be a while before we see such a thing, but I will welcome it when it comes.
I'm looking forward to more archetypes from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, but I don't expect to use any of the base classes. The Oracle and the Witch are the only ones I'm really fond of from the APG.
|
I'm saturated on Paizo content already. Including adventures. I had to cancel my AP charter subscription after Kingmaker because I'm still using Shackled City. I've mostly been keeping the RPG line for new character options, but after UC, I will probably kill that as well. The main problem being the reprinting of many 3.5 rules in new ways. I love having the hardcover books, but I just can't justify the price anymore.
I'm not really sure.
I'm kind of disappointed in the lack of power creep.
Now, what I mean by that is that there is this wealth of rules that have been written that have been spread over all manner of books. However, they've done such a good job of keeping the power creep down that the vast bulk of extra rules are so sub-optimal that they basically just get ignored.
That's what I find sad. Huge amounts of creative time and ink get spent, only for these options to only get picked up by the hard core sub-optimal roleplayers, which aren't that many folks. So to me it seems like a lot of wasted effort.
I would like power creep in the form of lots of new rule items to invalidate older rule items that ought to have been fixed originally, but for whatever reason were deemed fine.
As an example, every feat in the game ought to be keyed to power attack in its value. Every time a feat slot opens for a character the player should be laying awake at night sweating before the game the next day, paralyzed because the choices are so overwhelming tempting to go this or that way with every feat.
Anyway, I want lots and lots of revision. With 3.0 we've only got two revisions in 11 years. That's not enough. There are just too many bits of rules that ought to continue to be tweaked until the whole system is completely cleaned up through rigorous measurements of data.
I don't think I'll really see the kind of ruleset until it's built from the ground up in a digital environment. A ruleset ought to be a living document, like a software program, that just keeps getting revised over and over again until all of the bugs and balance issues get weeded out. And along the way more efficient and effective revisions of rules happen.
Once we have a gamer population where most people are using tablets and everything is distributed via pdf or just web srds, then we can have this happen. There would just be this rule committee that would handle the rules like major software standards... like a committee that handles the underlying standards for the internet. The committee meets on a regular basis, examines what needs to be fixed and then implements it with major roll outs.
I guess that's it. I want a rule set that is treated like an operating system, run by a committee and it just slowly, over decades, continues to be refined. All of course OGL.
Never heard the phrase "too many cooks spoil the soup" eh?
Anything done by committee will by its very nature never get done.Just ask congress.
If you want to kill a Bill (potential law) send it to committee.
Same happens in business as well that is why there is just one or two who end up making decisions. Middle managers (committee types) cannot make decisions too much fear of "making" a bad one. That is why they never get out of middle management.
I don't much care for power creep.
The reason is because I want the first book I buy to be as mechanically useful as the most recent book they produced. That doesn't mean they can't have more things and some interesting things and even new things- but the new things should supplement the original material not over write it. Think of it like.. the witch compared to the wizard or cleric. They supplement the originals they do not replace them. That is good.
What I'd really like to see is the proliferation of information for various "campaign worlds" rather than more and more rules and such. Give us Golarion and Campaign world 2 and campaign world 3. 2 and 3 can each have a little "crunch" in them.. maybe changing the way the core rules work with a twist (like how dark sun did with the metal dependency, or how Spelljammer did with magic flying ships) but mostly I'd like to see them flex their creative muscles on providing vibrant worlds rather than more and more rules.
We have alot of rules already. We don't really need alot of more rules. Information written by awesome writers though- that never gets old.
At least not to me :)
-S
At this point, I am saturated on rules.*
I will probably look into getting whatever rules my players want to bring to the campaign with new characters, but I now have the CRB, GMG, APG, Bv1 and Bv2 on my shelf. That's about 7 inches deep in pages.
Now, adventures and setting products don't have a saturation point.
That is pretty much exactly where I stand as well. I'm still going through the APG and have more character options than I will ever get to play or use.
Perhaps a good idea would be to recognize the situation for what it is, and cater to what people want.
Here's what I mean... train of thought time:
1. You can't please everyone. This is because people want different things.
2. Power Creep can mean that you end up having invalidated options, basically making previous options (and thus books) obsolete.
Sub-Conclusion: Some people like having more and more powerful options, while others like things staying similar in power, just more options (stuff that opens up more character concepts instead of being outright stronger).
3. What we learned from guns is that the best way to approach such a highly divided player base desire is to give options for both.
Conclusion: We need a book called 'Ultimate Power'.
This book would have options that redesigned the core mechanics to make certain features more powerful, or to allow focusing on a particular aspect of the game so that it'd be more powerful than the baseline.
Mostly, I could see things like non-magical, mundane things (like grappling or ranged combat, etc) being boosted to a more unrealistic level (grappling any sizes and doing more in a grapple, full attack + full movement), and opening up magical options that felt more like the epic magic (crafting spells to do powerful things as long as you could meet a DC check, etc).
With all these things in a single book, it'd be easier for people to know what to ban from their game: the book is intended to break a baseline power assumption, so you know what you are getting into by using it.
Best of both worlds?
I was talking with a friend at 2 a.m. and I thought I'd start a thread here based upon it. (This can't be good...)
So last night we were discussing the flaws and considerations of pathfinder and other role playing games in general. Role playing games are far different from things like chess where there are simple defined goals and unbendable rules. The nature of role playing games is that expansions and new content are expected. Here are some questions we have been pondering:
What, as a gamer, do you like to see in your games?
As a player who also enjoys competitive games as a primary form of entertainment, I play RPG's as a source of completely non-competitive non-closed system enjoyment. For that reason, crunch, while a necessary evil in games, is very very unappealing to me because the idea of having to have system mastery over something which is a an imagination exercise seems trite.
What do you hope to see from the people who produce role playing games?
I want two things. Highly detailed settings with lots of interesting places and ideas; and a developer who understands that a decent metabalance is important.
How much do you hold the producers responsible and how much do you hold the people who demand change responsible for the way a role playing game evolves?
I rest the blame with both. Producers want to make alot of money for both success and to keep the game line going. I blame players because I feel that the playerbase largely needs to be spoonfed new content or they cry like children who don't have all the toys
Do you prefer a game that's complete and playing a variety of ways within that finely tuned system? Or do you enjoy a game that begins with a finely tuned system, yet continues expanding upon it to make it more interesting, perhaps at the expense of the original balance the game had?
I prefer the former, but I understand the latter is inevitable.
Is power creep okay?
It's not ok; but it is inevitable.
Do you think Pathfinder is destined to end up like 3.5? With so many options and broken combos that GMs have to start arbitrarily banning certain content?
I think because one of Paizo's "unsaid" selling points is "we are not 3.5", Probably not. If anything like whats happening with the current "asian/gun backlash" is going to continue, that particular customer base will stop patronizing Paizo.
What are your feelings over things like Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat? Do you think it will change the game for the better?
It's better and worse all at the same time. Archetypes are an amazing idea, then they go and ruin the whole concept by introducing "alternate classes". I also feel like no mater what supplements they release, the system has inherited the problems 3.5 had. PF 2.0 might be able to overcome these things; but not the current version.
Ugh, I feel like I'm throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Feel free to discuss whatever question you like.
I guess the overall thought I'm trying to communicate is that expanding the game with new content is all well and good, but expanding the rules can be somewhat perilous to the balance of the game. ...and from what I've gathered, people love Pathfinder because it's like the d&d 3.5 system we all know and love, except balanced. What do you think about the future of Pathfinder, balance, power creep, etc?
Final thought: power creep is inevitable because gaming is a business, and the grass us always greener on the other side.
-Idle
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At this point, I am saturated on rules.*
...
Now, adventures and setting products don't have a saturation point. At least not the way Pathfinder has been handling continuity and metaplot. I have Kingmaker on my shelf right now and it might be two years before I run it, but I am glad to have it and I flip through it all the time!
...
* There is one exception. I would buy in to a book that compiled and condensed the rules. I mean like a "revised edition", I guess. Not the kind of "edition" which changes the game, but rather the kind where they break everything down and reorganize it. I know it will be a while before we see such a thing, but I will welcome it when it comes.
I am buying the Ultimate books, but won't be allowing the new classes since they won't fit into my campaign. Just like I don't allow the summoner or alchemist. I don't like PrC either and I allow only a few into my game.
I did love the APG. Since it has come out, I have created 40+ archetypes. Only been able to playtest 9 so far though.
My favorite part of the GMG was the expansion of rules. Especially the settlements, chases, fast play ship combat, and haunts. That is the same type of content I am looking forward to in the Ultimate books. Magic is going to have the section on spells and Combat will have vehicle combat and fighting schools.
I like options, I like books that have options in them. My group tends to run lots of relatively short games, so I have played a huge number of characters compared to your average gamer. And its important to me for my characters to be mechanically diverse as well as diverse in their background and personalities. So I want more options to be produced to keep things fresh and interesting.
As for power creep what I want is well thought out and interesting options. Balance is important but it isnt in my view the most important goal. The core book isnt perfectly balanced, so I dont expect any other book to be as much. As long as the power spread if you will is roughly similar to what came before I am ok with having both strong and weak options in every book.
In the end, an ever expanding game isnt actually a problem so long as a group as a whole has a view of what they want out of it. Either you let everything in, or you go core only, or you pick and choose (by the dm or by concensus or whatever). The issue is when members of a group want different things, and that isnt a problem with the expanding game, that is a problem within the group.
And of course regardless of the volume of material not everything can be perfect. Things can be exploited, mistakes by devs or misinterpretations by players and dms happen and things get out of hand. But that risk is there with 1 book as much as with 10. Look at the whole paladin smiting team evil issue, that is straight out of the core rules.
The reality is like others have said you cant make everyone happy, but it seems paizo is more interested in giving us the tools to make ourselves happy. If they dont produce new stuff, they are gauranteed to make those who want it unhappy. So they have been taking a measured pace (compared to wizards and 3.5) but are still putting things out, and they are at least making an effort to keep things compartmentalized. Leaving it up to individuals to user or not use what they want.
In the end that is the only solution. Use what you want and what you dont, it is wrong to ask paizo do deny customers things they want because you dont want it to exist.
|
I never really signed up for Paizo as producers of rules. I signed up for adventures and Golarion.
The move to PFRPG made sense but I never really saw the need for APG or the Ultimate books.
I will get Bestiary 2 eventually but fear that Bestiary 3 will be pretty thin.
If Paizo never made another rules book I would be fine with that.
If they do continue I hope they'll go for environment books (ghostwalk et al.) and other things that are clearly optional and don't have to be used to run an AP or module.
I find learning rules a chore and learning about the world of golarion terrific fun. I'd love it if they stopped producing rules and increased their output of setting books.
Sadly for me, I suspect I'm in a significant minority.
|
I never really signed up for Paizo as producers of rules. I signed up for adventures and Golarion.
The move to PFRPG made sense but I never really saw the need for APG or the Ultimate books.
I find learning rules a chore and learning about the world of golarion terrific fun. I'd love it if they stopped producing rules and increased their output of setting books.
I think that if you're truly looking for a more rules-light game, looking to a d20 product is the wrong place to be looking. I'd suggest taking a look at either a pre-3.X edition of the game, or a retro-clone of those editions.
I think that somewhat Power Creep, for an extent, is inevitable. This is a rule heavy game.
Nevertheless, I think that can be "kept at bay" at reasonable levels, and I think that the game is in a good direction - not the best but very good.
I state this seeing what they are trying to accomplish 'til now: it seems to me that diversity is encouraged more than everything else (with few exceptions), with new build now available (S&B PF compared to S&B 3.5 as an example) or new classes able to accomplish whole new concepts from level 1 (Gunslinger, Magus).
I have the concern of power creep after APG.. but is for 3-4 things in a book full of stuff. Actually, in the same book I've seen far more stuff that maybe has been kept "low power" fearing Power Creep (Cockatrice Strike as an example).
If you ask me, I'd prefer "pimp" Cockatrice Strike more than "nerf" Persistent Spells ;)
Myself, I'm overall quite satysfied from the rules and I'm looking forward to new content from UM and UC (rules hardcover customer).
I will get Bestiary 2 eventually but fear that Bestiary 3 will be pretty thin.
Seeing the fonts of inspiration in the real world myths and legends, I think that abouts sources and idea developers are fine untils Bestiary 500 :)
Is the quality of the bestiary the concern. I have to say, I think Bestiary 2 is equal, if not better than Bestiary 1. Paizo is very strong in the monsters department, IMHO.