|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a fundamental problem with Pathfinder. A situation created with 3.0, grafted into 3.5 and again grafted into the PFRPG. This problem spurred the creation of 3.5, 4th Ed, and PFRPG; yet none of those thing fully addressed the problem. For the last 10 years we have struggled with the problem, fixing the symptoms but never the core sickness. In this way I think that 4th edition, PFRPG and 3.5 are all the same.
What am I talking about? I'll get to that in a moment; more important is where I am coming from.
- I first played D&D after my Dad (an AD&D vet), gave me the 3.0 handbook when I was in sixth grade. Saying something like "maybe you'll get something out of this" (he wasn't a fan), this was sometime in 1999. For such a broken game and unfun, we sure played the crap out of it...
- Around the time 3.5 was being discussed (I still have my Dragon magazines discussing the development actually...), I stopped playing D&D for a bit due to a move(moved to a new area, didn't have the allowance for new books; not that I couldn't enjoy my current books). I returned to the scene towards the end of the 3.5 cycle in late 05, early 06. For such a broken and unfun game, we sure played the crap out of it (didn't seem all that different from 3.0 to us).
- Around this time I started dabbling with WW's games (I was even a cammy for a bit), and other rpgs (mainly sticking to wotc and ww though). We struggled with d20 future and shadowrun, having loads fun (but feeling the stuff was 'unsustainable' for our playstyles).
- Then 4th edition rolled around. Me and my group groaned at every new announcement, and were in general dismay. But something strange happened for me, I got an early leaked copy of the books... and LOVED them. My high school group didn't share my enthusiasm, but it ended up not mattering a whole lot; I was off to college. It took no time at all to find a 4th ed group and get to playing. For such a bleached and unfun game, we sure played the crap out of it.
- Around the PHB 2 though (more like a few months after, honestly) I was started to feel bored with 4th ed. Conveniently, PFRPG was released shortly after; and we are playing the crap out of it.
So what's the problem that all these things tried to address over and over again? It was 3.0's initial rules. Except for 4th edition, the later incarnations were a large bit of copy paste with no fundamental shift in book design and layout. Let go through it case by case.
- 3.0 to 3.5: This is the shift I understand the least (due to my age I assume). To be fair you could hardly call my 6th grade adventures into the tombs of the undead lord 'Tenchum' D&D. We played heavily by rule of cool, and DM fiat. We had tons of fun, but it wasn't truly by the rules. The main shifts were skill changes and the removal of some 'dumb stuff' that was dumb in hindsight.
- 3.5 to 4th ed: This I understood a lot more, or at least I understand the marketed hatred of 3E. I don't love the system until I read it. They redid everything with a focus on 'playing the game'. And for a system called "Dungeons and Dragons", it is great for going into dungeons and killing dragons (the best I'd argue).
- 4th ed to PFRPG: PFRPG seemed to take that "stimulus pack of fun" that 4th ed had, and injected it into all of the classes. Redid some more rules that were 'dumb' in hindight, and overall did '3.5' to 3.5.
But here are some more fine angles on the evolutions.
- 4th to 4th ed PHB2: Rituals seemed to be getting phased out due to non-use. We got more classes that did the same things(roles) in different ways. While interesting at first, I think new player options alone wasn't enough for me. I wanted to see more rules options. (like how MTG releases new mechanics with new releases). Overall book format was the same as 4E core (that is, it was superb).
- PFRPG to APG: Paizo taking some creative licence. The core book was meant to be a rehash of 3.5, with updates. APG was meant to be paizo's vision for going forward (less focus on prestige classes, more on archetypes, blah blah blah, you guys know). But you know another big difference in APG and PFRPG? Navigation. Because they were going their own way, they wrote the book from scratch. And it reads GREAT. The 3E book was a mess, thus the copy-paste to 3.5 was a mess, thus the copy-paste to PFRPG was a mess.
The rules aren't a mess, the book is a mess. Paizo came leaps and bounds from 3.5, just like 3.5 came leaps and bounds form 3.0. But in navigation, because the team is still rehashing the 3.0 book, navigation can be awkward at times. I understand why they did it, it make sense from a business standpoint; it's reliable.
Many times a session, rules that seem to be half descriped everywhere (having to cross reference the combat chapter, the magic chapter, and the glossary). 4th ed got this right. The rules aren't really more simple, they're just clear.
This gives me two thoughts. If PFRPG 2ED was a rewrite of the same rules but with a ground up re-presentation of the rules, I'd buy it today. The second idea is a project idea. I want to rewrite the book myself if I can't hope for someone else to. Existing projects like d20pfsrd are great for posting the content. But they don't help digest all the rules, they're still copy-pasting from PFRPG. I don't think the rules need a re-do, just a re-write. Take notes from books like 4E's PHB. I am going to start some brainstorming personally, but if others are interested let me know. The idea is to approach it like writing a book from scratch, but describe the existing rules.
Btw, I made an alarmist title on purpose, I know we wont see a 2e for a good while. And to be fair I wouldn't call the idea a new 'edition'.
nervously hits submit
Let me make sure I got this...
TLDR: The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves.
That's all I got out of your post. Is that what you intended?
So a rules compendium like WotC did for 3.5 would be a great help to you?
Not a bad idea. Must admit I found the 3.5 rules compendium to be quiet handy, but if a GM or players have an iphone or ipad/tablet at the table then you've kind of already got that.
Exactly.Let me make sure I got this...
TLDR: The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves.
That's all I got out of your post. Is that what you intended?
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you really could have said that without including a life story and history of D&D.
Almost every single paragraph of the OP is quite superfluous to your point.
You know, for someone complaining about the books being a rambling mess, you sure take a very, very long time to get to the point :-P
Why don't you tell us (in a short and to the point matter ;-)), how you'd go about that rewrite?
|
|
Honestly, I was verbose because I wanted to walk though my thought process.
If I just say "TLDR: The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves." I don't feel it conveys the full spirit of what I'm talking about. I also wanted to touch on the mentality behind 'new editions'. Most of all I wanted to spark discussion.
I did my best to partition things and not make it a wall of text. I apologize if it bugs you.
I first played D&D after my Dad (an AD&D vet), gave me the 3.0 handbook when I was in sixth grade. Saying something like "maybe you'll get something out of this" (he wasn't a fan), this was sometime in 1999. For such a broken game and unfun, we sure played the crap out of it...
I feel old. I still have my Dr Seuss "My Book About Me" where you fill in a bunch of information it asks you about yourself. Among them are the answers:
By 6th grade I was playing Palladium Fantasy (I was a kid, don't judge me! It was "way better than D&D, it has skills!") then moved on to Warhammer FRP and Talislanta before returning to D&D with 3.0.
|
Honestly, I was verbose because I wanted to walk though my thought process.
If I just say "TLDR: The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves." I don't feel it conveys the full spirit of what I'm talking about. I also wanted to touch on the mentality behind 'new editions'. Most of all I wanted to spark discussion.
I did my best to partition things and not make it a wall of text. I apologize if it bugs you.
Actually, your gaming story does have some significance - you weren't that active in the 3.5 era. Pathfinder is presented as it is in order to give existing 3.5 fans (a majority of the fanbase, I'd dare to say) a book that's easy to navigate for them - they know that grapple is in combat, general spellcasting rules are in magic yadda yadda.
Now that PF is slowly catching new players (and winning over the people who are playing That Other Game), the Beginner Box will be an opportunity to present the rules in a more streamlined format.
Honestly, I was verbose because I wanted to walk though my thought process.
I have no problem with the revealing of thought processes.
I think the designers realized that their book is hard to learn from for new players. With any luck, the Beginner's Box will be much better. That's what I plan on giving my 7 year old niece for the holidays.
|
|
My initial thoughts on the rewrite though?
Start with the Table of contents.
- Chapter 1: Overview An abstract discussion on the game. Discuss concepts like ability scores and modifiers, 'spontaneous' vs 'preparation' based casters. The chapter being for those new to the system.
- Chapter 2: Creating a Characterdescribes exactly what it says. Includes characters above first level and the wealth by level table.
- Chapters 3-6races, classes, skills, feats.
- Chapter 7Equipment rules (including magical items, but maybe not the full listings of the items in question).
- And so on
I think merging some of the content in 'combat' and 'magic' would be called for.
Contributor
|
Deinol and Gorbacz, you are correct. At PaizoCon, I spoke with Lisa Stevens and Ryan Dancey about the Beginner Box and Jason Bulmahn made similar comments at the banquet.
The design philosophy was to make the game approachable and quickly playable by newer, younger players. The target age is 12+.
All three told the story of how Paizo utilized blind testing, in which a group of 14 year olds were presented with the box set and told simply to "play the game".
They had to figure out how to play the game without any help at all. Within 20 minutes of opening the box, they were playing Pathfinder.
The beginner box rules have certain aspects removed (for example, there are no Attacks of Opportunity), but they are, essentially, the Pathfinder rules.
If the anecdotes and explanations I've heard carry over to the experiences of most customers, I think the Beginner Box will be an excellent way to bring a whole new generation of gamers into the Pathfinder community.
All three told the story of how Paizo utilized blind testing, in which a group of 14 year olds were presented with the box set and told simply to "play the game".
They had to figure out how to play the game without any help at all. Within 20 minutes of opening the box, they were playing Pathfinder.
I really wish they had recorded this session. I would be absolutely fascinated to see how they played the game out of the box like that.
|
|
Thank yas :D
I can't wait to see the box in October. It sounds much more nimble.
But I feel strange with the way this is going. I play pathfinder right now (I am DM'n CoT part 5). So these beginner rules are great for newcomers. I would be more excited to see the mindset carried to the game as a whole. As it stands the product won't really help me at all (though I don't plan on dropping my PFRPG subscription for october). I've now learned to cope with the current book's layout and am pretty confident that I can find exactly what I need pretty quick. But just because we can all handle the book well doesn't mean it is a perfect book (not that anyone is claiming it is).
I guess I don't see myself as a newcomer to PFRPG, because I've been playing it since release.
|
Contributor
|
I really wish they had recorded this session. I would be absolutely fascinated to see how they played the game out of the box like that.All three told the story of how Paizo utilized blind testing, in which a group of 14 year olds were presented with the box set and told simply to "play the game".
They had to figure out how to play the game without any help at all. Within 20 minutes of opening the box, they were playing Pathfinder.
Actually, to hear them tell it, it was supremely frustrating, due to their inability to jump in and show the kids how to do it. ;-)
But they did learn a heck of a lot about how the rules should be written for those who have never before played the game. I'm pretty sure that the developers applied every bit of what they learned.
Lisa seemed supremely proud of what the team has accomplished. And I, for one, am greatly anticipating this product.
I guess I don't see myself as a newcomer to PFRPG, because I've been playing it since release.
Of course. But welcome to the joys of the Paizo Messageboards. The staff are very active here. Soon you'll be joining us in wild speculation about future APs, bestiaries, and planar cosmology. Or whichever topics inspire you.
I know I'd buy a revised rulebook where they take what they learned from writing the Beginner Box, do a bit of rule clean-up, and reorganize things to make it easier to find and follow the appropriate rules.
|
|
Could not agree more that there is a need for a more clear and concise presentation of the rules.
I've come to realize that after years of playing 3.x, I've grown accustomed to an environment in which there is a large amount of minutiae. It was not until I attempted to educate a somewhat virginal roleplayer in the nuisances of the game, that I realized this is complicated! Computer geeks, engineers, science majors, et al. might consider all the details trivial and inherent to the game, but for some they only serve to obstruct.
Personally, I will regularly rebuild a character every 2 or 3 levels to make sure there isn't a bonus or penalty I missed. In a former gaming group, I was the least prone to miscalculation so I acted as auditor for the group... there is so much to track as you level, that our group needed an accountant. At the time I thought nothing of it, but now it seems kind of silly.
One thing I would like to see in a potential revised edition is a more thematic presentation of feats. The current alphabetical listing makes it very difficult to find the feat most appropriate to your character concept/archetype. Combat feats, racial feats, magical feats, divine feats, skill related feats, etc. are all mashed together in one giant table. It would be nice to be able to go right to the selection of feats most relevant to my rapier wielding, fast talking, high-born courtier, half-elven bard.
Removed some posts and their replies. Please post nicely, thanks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a new copy of the core rulebook which is both well-organized and deals with some of the FAQ/Errata sort of things that have come up -- I fully agree that the core PF book, as written, kind of assumes their players are familiar with 3.5 - which was fine for people like me, but less good for people like some of my players.
I'd pay money for that.
|
|
I would love to see a new copy of the core rulebook which is both well-organized and deals with some of the FAQ/Errata sort of things that have come up -- I fully agree that the core PF book, as written, kind of assumes their players are familiar with 3.5 - which was fine for people like me, but less good for people like some of my players.
I'd pay money for that.
+1. I'm looking at my poor abused Core book right now wishing such a product would be released BEFORE this one feels its death throes. :)
Duct taping the cover DOES NOT present it as an attractive RPG; just well-loved!
the posts I'n general are making me look forward to the beginner box. I GM currently with a group with several new players and the game is am hour from my home so the core rulebook is heavy to haul that way.
I recently got the Pfr app and I've found it has been a godsend for both finding and easily reading rules.
|
|
Also some of what you're talking about simply isn't true. There was no transition from Pathfinder to 4th edition,
I think you misunderstand. First it was 3.5 -> 4E; then when that didn't please certain people, they did 3.5 ->PFRPG. The reason I speak of a transition from 4e -> PFRPG is because without 4E there wouldn't be a PFRPG, and to think some of the lessons of 4E weren't applied to PF seems a bit silly.
unless you're talking about you the player moving from one system to another. There isn't just simply one game, you're talking about the history of at least three companies here.
I'm talking about the design mentality approaching each transition. Specifically how they tried to improve on that which came before, and generally seemed to just apply duct-tape fixes as they went.
Also keep in mind that Pathfinder is NOT the only D20 successor to 3.5.
I shall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves.
This. A fact underscored by heavy use this past weekend.
I believe a big part of the problem came from fusing the PHB and DMG.
|
|
I believe a big part of the problem came from fusing the PHB and DMG.
So you didn't have similar issues prior to PFRPG?
I feel that all of the rules players need should be in one book. So the DMG having magic items and prestige classes comes off awkward. If the current CORE book has pages 374 - 548 as DMG material, there are 174 pages of DMG content, with 107 pages being player rules, and leaving 67 pages of 'dm only' material.
|
I liked something my friend said once. It was something along the lines of, "We're gamers. We're the ones that can read a rulebook and make sense out of it to play the game. Rules doesn't have to be simplified for everyone else and that doesn't make the game automatically better."
Just my two cents.
|
|
"We're gamers. We're the ones that can read a rulebook and make sense out of it to play the game. Rules doesn't have to be simplified for everyone else and that doesn't make the game automatically better."
I think there is a difference between 'simplifying the rules', and making them easier to digest. The current rules are great, the presentation of them needs work.
|
|
Not really. I agree with Morgen. We are gamers, which generally means we are one type of nerd or another, and i use the term 'nerd' fondly and as a compliment. We can make sense of rulebooks written a little strangely. For god's sake, anybody who has ever made a sailing ship by GURPS rules should work for CERN...
Bottom line, we are smart, while simple is easier, it is not necessary.
Bottom line, we are smart, while simple is easier, it is not necessary.I cannot argue with that.
In our group the GM and I started Pathfinder at exactly the same time. I have more available time and therefore have a superior grasp of the rules in general than he does. He and I are equals in intellect, surpassing each other in our respective areas of expertise, and we'd both fit into Hama's group of "nerds" - it's not an inability to learn, it's the time it requires to piece together everything about a single topic from the various chapters.
If the time it takes to absorb the rules were lessened then it would be a much more even playing field. We're smart, but look at it this way:
I'm not going to load up "Mount and Blade" (video game) in preference to "Oblivion" or "Gothic 3" because I simply don't have the time/desire required to work out the combat system in "Mount and Blade" when I know I can just start playing in the other two. I have options and will take the easiest route to having fun. I'm sure there are people who pick up the Core PDF and start reading then think "No way, too complicated" simply because of the design.
|
|
Time has never been an issue for me. If i really love something, i will find time to devote to it. Instead of reading novels before sleep, i read rulebooks when i get them. You make time if you need it.
Plus, as people has said it before, PF players were assumed to have come from 3.5, so they were pretty much familiar with the system and had to adjust to some changes (fundamental). That maybe has been a dealbreaker for those who just picked up the crb, but Paizo was aiming at the experienced crowd. Now, with an established fanbase, they are expanding, making the beginner's box. An amazing marketing move by them if i may humbly say so. This will draw in new players very easily, because the system is beautiful.
Ladies and genltemen from Paizo, i take of my hat in respect.
|
|
Exactly.Let me make sure I got this...
TLDR: The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves.
That's all I got out of your post. Is that what you intended?
I agree that rewriting the rulebook (especially after an hard look to some discussion in these forum) to make it clearer and more streamlined in rule access would be great. Sadly it cost money. While a good number of hardcore players will buy it (myself included) it is not sure they will be so numerous to make it feasible (at least in the near future).
The Beginning book, while interesting, don't seem to cover our needs.
We will see.
|
Not really. I agree with Morgen. We are gamers, which generally means we are one type of nerd or another, and i use the term 'nerd' fondly and as a compliment. We can make sense of rulebooks written a little strangely. For god's sake, anybody who has ever made a sailing ship by GURPS rules should work for CERN...
Bottom line, we are smart, while simple is easier, it is not necessary.
Yes, gamers worked with much less and made the gaming good. Is that really a reason, not to critizize what you find to be sub-optimal presentation and argue that it could be made better if there ever is a 2nd edition of pathfinder?
Really. No one asked for dumbing down the rules, no one asked for 2nd. edition now.
I'm playing with some people who are not nerds, for years now (thus, anybody saying gamers are all nerds just hit a nerve with me), who just have fun playing characters within stories, relying on the rules to resolve their actions and sometimes getting frustrated because the rules (pathfinder is not the worst "offender" here") seem not to be written for easy access. Some of these are far more fun to game with then some hardcore nerd roleplayers I met through my life.
Changing that if possible is not a bad thing. It may not be top priority, especially not if a introductionary ruleset helps out new players who may not (yet?) consider themselfs nerds, but when the necessity to work on the core rules, again arises, feedback like this might proof beneficial to pathfinder, feedback like
"nah, don't change it, we are gamers, we can work it out" probably will not.
P.S. Please don't take this as an insult, as I wrote, the "nerd" thing just hit a nerve.
|
Time has never been an issue for me. If i really love something, i will find time to devote to it. Instead of reading novels before sleep, i read rulebooks when i get them. You make time if you need it.I never thought to think of it that way. Once again, I cannot argue with that.
Much as I love RPGs, I love my kid, and keeping my job more — the time isn't always there to find.
An improved presentation of the core rules, with clarifications/updates of rules that have proven to be troublesome, would therefore be of great interest to me. I'm not in any great hurry for it though, I'll just keep winging things if I can't find/understand the correct rule in 5s.
Note that since most of the required content for such a book is OGL, there is nothing stopping the fanbase (apart from time and talent) from doing a respin of the rules in this way.
As far as a rulebook with bad organization goes, the 1e DMG was king! That was one of the main fixes in 2e!
|
|
Not really. I agree with Morgen. We are gamers, which generally means we are one type of nerd or another, and i use the term 'nerd' fondly and as a compliment. We can make sense of rulebooks written a little strangely. For god's sake, anybody who has ever made a sailing ship by GURPS rules should work for CERN...
Bottom line, we are smart, while simple is easier, it is not necessary.
I could not disagree with you more. Why should the game be limited to an elite group of nerds? The idea that elegance is not needed goes against every notion of progress to which I've ever been exposed (engineering major). Scores of scientists and mathematicians ("smart" people) would also seem to deny you. Certainly most people have been exposed to the idea of simplifying a fraction. This spirit of this idea is expressed across every branch of science. Simplicity is necessary to facilitate the transmission of data.
Furthermore, the sentiment that "You make time if you need it" is nonsensical. Why should a game be inaccessible? I would argue, barring professional athletes, most people play games as a hobby, not a lifestyle choice.
|
|
I disagree...elegance does not automatically mean simplicity, just as simplicity is not automatically elegance.
Why? Because it was conceived as such. By nerds, for nerds. I know it should be open to wider audiences, but i'm elitist like that. I feel good about being a nerd.
Math in PF is pretty much as simple as it gets, and makes data transmission easy. Everything is worked out in the system, you just have to roll a d20 and add or subtract a few numbers.
As for making time, why is it nonsensical? Where did i say that the game should be inaccessible? I play games as a hobby. So i invest in that hobby. I by a rulebook and then i read it, cover to cover. In my spare time. Because it is my hobby.
Some people go fishing for a whole day, would you call that nonsensical? If not, then why would you call several hours devoted to reading something that you love nonsensical?
Would you call hours a modeler spends assembling that newest WW2 submarine two feet long nonsensical? No you wouldn't. If you have a hobby, you will make time for it, or you will not have a hobby. It's that simple.
I know that some people have kids and long jobs, but there can be always fount those several hours of self time that can be used constructively. I have, and since i love RPGs i do not find reading rulebooks and trying to make sense of them a waste of time. If you do, think about it.
|
|
I disagree...elegance does not automatically mean simplicity, just as simplicity is not automatically elegance.
Why? Because it was conceived as such. By nerds, for nerds. I know it should be open to wider audiences, but i'm elitist like that. I feel good about being a nerd.Math in PF is pretty much as simple as it gets, and makes data transmission easy. Everything is worked out in the system, you just have to roll a d20 and add or subtract a few numbers.
As for making time, why is it nonsensical? Where did i say that the game should be inaccessible? I play games as a hobby. So i invest in that hobby. I by a rulebook and then i read it, cover to cover. In my spare time. Because it is my hobby.
Some people go fishing for a whole day, would you call that nonsensical? If not, then why would you call several hours devoted to reading something that you love nonsensical?
Would you call hours a modeler spends assembling that newest WW2 submarine two feet long nonsensical? No you wouldn't. If you have a hobby, you will make time for it, or you will not have a hobby. It's that simple.
I know that some people have kids and long jobs, but there can be always fount those several hours of self time that can be used constructively. I have, and since i love RPGs i do not find reading rulebooks and trying to make sense of them a waste of time. If you do, think about it.
Guess what! I read rulebooks to, I try (and mostly do) comprehend them in my spare time - I guess most posters here do, it is part of the hobby. However, it isn't the only part, nor (at least for me) what is most enjoyable about roleplaying.
As far as I understood, the OP doessn't want the rules to change, he just wants the next edition, whenerver it will happen, to be presented in a more user/beginner friendly way using the same rules , and I can agree with that - frankly I don't see why such a change would take anything away from a proud nerd like you.
Arguing anybody can take the time to work through the rules as they are is nonsensical. Not because the argument per se is wrong, it isn't (I strongly suspect most posters in the Pathfinder general discussion play pathfinder and thus did take the time to do so), but because that is not the point of this discussion.
We have the rulebooks as they are and we work with them - but we can wish for them to be modified for a second edition (again, this is not about changing the rules). But perhaps paizo should remove the editing, the layout, the full color art and the bindings, we were able to work with OD&D, too, weren't we?
|
|
I wouldn't mind the rules to be presented more simply and easily, but i have no problem with the way they are now. And i think that Paizo had made great progress in making stuff more approachable. For instance, pretty much everything you need to make a character is right there in the races/classes section. Except for spell lists and feats. I agree that the combat section could have been written a bit more comprehensively, but not much. When i compare PHB and DMG to the core rulebook i see Immense progress in simplicity and general ease of access.
I guess it could get even easier, but for me, there is no need for that. For other people maybe. I will certainly not whine if Paizo presents the rules in a more simple and concise manner in the second edition.
As for devotion, i find the 'i just wanna play' attitude annoying. You either game or you don't. You either know the rules or you bother everyone around yourself about every little thing that you fail to remember over and over again. I for one do not have the patience for casual gamers. Everyone in the group of people i play with are not casual gamers. They are gamers. They know the rules, they spend time to familiarize themselves with those rules. If you are going to game every week, read the rules. If you are going to game every few months during cons, fine, just don't ask to play with my group.
As for new players, i have successfully brought at least twenty people to the world of roleplaying. How do i do that? I teach them, i answer every single one of their questions to the best of my ability and i do it two or three times, and most of the time through an in game example. Some of those players now have a better comprehension of the rules then myself even.
My brother is just starting to explore the game with some neighbor kids. He's busy with school, guitar, and sports. He loves the game but can't afford the hours upon hours it takes to fully digest the rules. He needs to be able to quickly reference rules so the FUN can continue without getting bogged down. The last thing I want to see is him getting discouraged with the complex presentation of rules and decide it's not worth it.
For ease of reference, have him use the Pathfinder Reference Document and a find option in his browser. That works like a charm.