Chalk me up as one more person who'd like to see a reorganization and simplification of the Pathfinder Core Rules. Just because I can figure out the rules as they are presented doesn't mean that's the ideal way to present them. I also agree with the OP's observation that much of the book's organization is patterned after that of 3.X to foster familiarity with players of that edition. One thing to remember moving forward is that just because 3.X did something that way doesn't make it the best way to do it.
It's looking more and more like I'll be buying a copy of the Beginner's Box just for the streamlined rules presentation. Hopefully it will bring about a paradigm shift in Pathfinder where focus is on keeping play simple, forward-moving, and action-oriented. I wish my own players argued half as much about what their characters were doing as they did about rules interpretation, and I think the complexity of the system is largely to blame for that.
I just want to add to this, as I just recently picked up Pathfinder, so I have a kind of new player mentality.
I started out by picking up the Core book and the bestiary. I read the Core book cover to cover (with the exception of spells, at the time I figured I could get to that during play).
Since then I have picked up the APG and Gamemastery Guide.
For my background, I vaguely remember taking a look at AD&D and thinking it was too complicated. I have only played a session or two of D&D over the years and a few sessions of someone running it in a minimalist style with only abilities and spells written down.
Now when I came to Pathfinder, I didn't know if I wanted to try it out. I didn't know if I wanted to put the time and effort into it, but in the end my Wife wanted to play so I started DM'ing. (Keep in mind I only recently acquired the GMG)
So, I am currently running a game with 2 brand new gamers (to tabletop at least) and one with a little experience from D&D (I think he has some anyways).
I think I am doing a pretty good job as my players are having fun. I feel it is a little bit of a pain at times coming up with plot. (I spent the better portion of a week designing a dungeon, but in retrospect, I have never done it before). I am basing my playstyle on half plot and half players having a "job board" they can go to.
To get to the point though, I am having fun. I think I am having more fun with PF than I could of had with D&D (yes I know PF just has improvements, but that is one of the main reasons I picked it up). I still screw things up and forget things at times, but I am learning.
Yes, a 2nd ed with a layout improvement and errata added in would be great. (I for one haven't bothered with the errata really.... yet) Also I think the beginner box could be really neat. I do not think though that the book is TOO complicated, though at times it can seem to be. The forums have been a great help though, in times where I just wasn't getting how something worked. I greatly appreciate all the help I've found from my fellow forum users and the Devs and such who roam the boards. Especially as at times, I still wonder if I am doing things right. Like when my band of a Barbarian, Cleric (Domains = Death/Fire) and Fighter/Witch, smote my carefully planned encounter w'o too much difficulty. :D
Also, I just want to add that the GMG's NPC gallery has been an immense help, as now I don't have to write-up every mob my players need to fight that isn't a "monster". I still need to do that for spell casters they face, but having the Gallery alleviates that quite a bit. I feel the NPC Gallery would have been rather helpful to have in the Core book, to help save time and trouble for those starting out.
Just wanted to add my thoughts to this. Thanks for reading.
My only problem now, is not having a game I can play in myself. :)
|
@Hama
I don't think Paizo wants people running their games straight from the PRD. I already steered him that way but he prefers the books. Casual gamers can be just as fun as hardcore gamers. I have a family game with casuals and a weekly game with hardcores. Both are a blast in their own way.
w
I'm sure it is, it's just that i have little patience as it is.
I prefer books too, but the PRD is an invaluable tool for quick referencing. I would not give it up for the world. Since i have been using it, our game has sped up 15% at the least.
|
Ya know what I'd like to see in a Pathfinder 2.0? Smoothing out the level progression and tightening class imbalance.
As it stands, there are some levels where either monsters or players experience REALLY big leaps in power or ability, and it can be kind of jarring at the table when, all of a sudden, traps that have been dangerous for 6 levels suddenly pose no threat at all; encounters at CR+2 have been fairly manageable, but suddenly a CR+1 will kill you if you don't play your cards right, that kind of thing. I'd like to see a more even progression in ability, and maybe a changing of the relative power of spells and what they should mimic as far as effects and abilities go.
That, and classes could be a little more cohesive. A lot of the classes new to Paizo have this quality, and it's awesome. When I look at the Cavalier, Oracle, Magus, Inquisitor, Summoner, Witch, and Alchemist, they all have about the same power level. They may shine in certain situations, but that's what makes them interesting. They all sort of fit together. On the other hand, the base classes carried over from 3.5 don't really have that cool sense of togetherness. There's still a sense that each class is kind of an island, and I feel like more could be done to help them work together, or bring them closer in ability (things like the Rogue and Monk problems people talk about, I'd LOVE to see Fighter get personal damage nerfed a little in favor of some sort of group utility ability, change up some spells so they aren't as powerful/easy to get, etc.). I think what Paizo should do is look at THEIR classes and make the base classes more like those.
I'm with the other posters — that was some unnecessary preamble. Take it under advisement!
However, I completely agree with your point. The presentation is the weakest part of the CRB*, and the latter Paizo books have shown a considerable improvement (although archetypes could still use some work).
Yes, for a 2e, they need to break everything down and reorganize it. I think that's pretty well known in-house at Paizo (but who knows).
Some very large sections of the book, mainly the treasure tables and spells, but others too, need to have their basic role re-examined. As it stands, nobody is generating treasure randomly from scratch. It must be nobody because there are missing parts of that system (filled out in the GMG) that took months to surface in discussion, and you still barely hear about them.
The original rules were written without a clear picture of how the game was going to expand. In the subsequent releases, we realize now that the game has gone in radically different directions than expected, and then some. Remember when prestige classes were in the DMG? Imagine how much easier it would be to choose an archetype if there was a table of class abilities including archetypes?
They don't need to change anything, really, just sort it out.
Thankfully, I think the upcoming Beginner Box is an earnest testing of these waters, and I look forward to seeing the rest of the game represented in a more user-friendly manner over time.
*though not the art and layout, which are sweet!
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.
No sir, you load up Mount & Blade because that's the funnest option there.
But on topic... I would like to see a more cohesive and better laid out version of the rulebook, simply because even now, having had the CRB since it came out, I keep finding bits that surprise me. I'm not interested in a complete change of the core rules, but a redo of the order. Make sure all grapple rules are in one spot, make sure everything follows the same set up, etc.
How PFRPG 2e should be fixed:
1. Make the math work.
2. Make melee characters interesting without feat investments.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have to agree with Hama. If a player wants to learn, he will take the time.
Correction: if a player who fits the kind of gamer profile of people like you and me and Hama wants to learn, he will take the time. If a player who is not that wants to learn, he will start to look around at the rules and decide it's not worth the front-end time investment and find something else to do.
For example: I, like Hama, am a nerd. In MTG, I'm a certified Rules Advisor and answer ruling questions on a forum where I'm a mod/admin. I like rules. I'll read the CR for fun (sometimes with my wife reading Sense and Sensibility next to me).
My wife, however, does not get enjoyment from reading the rules. She loves playing games with me - we often play Yahtzee or card games together, or various "traditional" board games, or Settlers of Catan, etc. She's also interested in sharing my interests with me, so at least at some level she's interested in Pathfinder. But to a virgin player, learning enough of the rules to make your first character takes HOURS. On top of that, if she shows up at a table where she's the only non-veteran, everyone's channeling Sun Tzu while she doesn't even know what an Attack of Opportunity is (or a touch attack, or flanking, or a host of other things that don't come up until you're in your first game).
This leaves my wife and I with a bit of a dilemma - either she can spend hours upon hours doing reading boring rules so that she can be better equipped to share one pastime with me, or she can spend those same hours playing countless other games, or pursuing her own other interests.
TLDR: There are non-nerds who want to play but for whom the initial time investment is a chore that makes the game not worth it. If this Beginner Box thing will make it less work for my wife to join me at a PFS session, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there really people arguing that dense, obtuse rules are a good thing, and that "real nerds" will find the time to understand them?
That's just...special.
|
Are there really people arguing that dense, obtuse rules are a good thing, and that "real nerds" will find the time to understand them?
That's just...special.
Of course, you might also be a nerd lawyer - which means, among other things, that to you the PF Core Rulebook is a clear, verbose, focused document that's a joy to read and reference.
|
|
Are there really people arguing that dense, obtuse rules are a good thing
Not sure where you got that idea, but then I only skimmed the thread.
Jiggy: you didn't actually refute my statement. You showed that people are more or less willing to learn depending on the ease of that learning. A player who decides the rules are too obtuse to learn has decided he does not want to learn. Which is what I said.
Wanting to learn is not the same as wanting to play.
So you didn't have similar issues prior to PFRPG?
I believe a big part of the problem came from fusing the PHB and DMG.
Oh, I did. However, putting them in one volume should have included more integration work than was applied. I'm not saying it is worse than 3.5 -- though I can see making that argument -- just that it could have been a whole lot better than 3.5.
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.
... or you escape the false dichotomy by playing with a rules system where you don't have to have spent countless hours memorizing rules.
Most of the things I enjoy doing can be done well, at least at the level I enjoy them, without more than a moderate time commitment. I would prefer my tabletop gaming be the same.
.
..
...
....
.....
You can't not communicate..
..you can communicate better.
.
..
...
....
.....
I can not communicate.
I do it to my wife all the time!
..then you are communicating your will to not communicate!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This leaves my wife and I with a bit of a dilemma - either she can spend hours upon hours doing reading boring rules so that she can be better equipped to share one pastime with me, or she can spend those same hours playing countless other games, or pursuing her own other interests.
TLDR: There are non-nerds who want to play but for whom the initial time investment is a chore that makes the game not worth it. If this Beginner Box thing will make it less work for my wife to join me at a PFS session, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.
I did not learn to game this way. I learned by practical application, just like everything else. We learn by doing.
When I first started gaming, I played Palladium. I had no clue what was going on, but by the 3rd or 4th game session I had it figured out, and that experience made it easier to learn other systems.I get that in group settings, people do not like to look incompetant in front of their fellow gamers and/or friends. But guess what? You are going to be incompetant at a new endeavor. Learning a new game is just as much a group activity as playing one. Unless the people you game with are elitist jerks, she should have no problem.
I don't accept the premise that one needs to read a core rulebook cover to cover to begin play. Even more so in a group of veteran gamers.
Just my 2 cp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the level of commitment thing... we could use bowling as an analogy.
I don't have an issue with competitive bowling leagues, or the fact that a league team isn't going to want me there unless I've invested a lot of time learning how to bowl well.
However, most people who bowl don't make that commitment. They can pick up the basic rules of bowling in just a few minutes, and the nuances of scorekeeping in a few more. And then they can bowl. While they may not get a very good score, they have sufficient knowledge of the game to play at whatever level of skill they have.
Consider, however, if the rules of bowling required you to carefully select one of a hundred different balls on the rack every time you bowled a frame. The balls are racked in no particular order, and you have to figure out which ball to select based on the ratio of the sum and product of the last three bowled frames of you and the other players (with a special exception based on the number of spares bowled, which is nullified by a 7-10 split in any of the two frames directly proceeding)... etc, etc.
League bowlers would have no trouble; they'd memorize the rules and do just fine selecting the right ball in a couple of seconds. But everyone else who went to bowl would be essentially unable to -- thanks to a set of rules designed simply to add complexity to the game and force a more serious commitment.
PF is not bowling, and the complexity of rules in PF are not arbitrary like in my analogy. However, the idea that, unlike any other enjoyable passtime or activity, tabletop complexity should remain specifically as a barrier to casual play is silly. Casual gaming should be possible.
And, heck, even as a serious gamer who has memorized all these rulebooks, I find the notion of truly simple and intuitive rules to be very refreshing. So any method that we can use to preserve the choices and fun of character-building in Pathfinder while removing some of the barriers to entry, should not be seen as a negative.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy: you didn't actually refute my statement. You showed that people are more or less willing to learn depending on the ease of that learning. A player who decides the rules are too obtuse to learn has decided he does not want to learn. Which is what I said.
Wanting to learn is not the same as wanting to play.
I think I wasn't clear, let me try again:
There are varying degrees of interest in learning the rules. There are also varying degrees of willingness to invest the time to do so. For instance, someone might want to learn badly enough to spend two hours doing so, but not three hours. Someone else might want to learn badly enough to spend ten minutes, but no more. Yet another person wants to learn so badly that they'll spend however long it takes as long as they can still feed themselves. And of course, there are people everywhere in between.
Your statement that "A player who decides the rules are too obtuse to learn has decided he does not want to learn" implies a simple either/or situation instead of that continuum I just described. Maybe it takes, say, 2.5 hours to learn enough to get going and make a character. If Bob is cool with spending 3+ hours to learn, but Alice is only cool with up to 2 hours, then Bob will be the only one who ends up playing even though both really do want to learn. Their desires to learn are at different levels, but they're both there, and in this example both desires are nontrivial. Basically, you're taking everyone whose "limit" is less than what the current layout requires and lumping them into a single category together, making out the guy who has no interest in PF at all to be equivalent to the guy who really wants to learn but just not *quite* badly enough to spend *quite* that long. You're equating the near-misses with the don't-cares.
I think the sentiment expressed by (I believe) the OP and several others is that if you smooth things out a bit, you could move that threshold such that the near-misses become included. This will of course create a new group of near-misses, but somewhere there is a sweet spot between trying too hard and leaving too many people out, a sweet spot where the near-misses are fine with being such. The current CR is not at that sweet spot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please.
Any rule designer aspires to clarity.
Obstuse rules are more expensive, and less playable, if not just harder to learn.
The whole "real gamers will slog through" argument is just crass.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't accept the premise that one needs to read a core rulebook cover to cover to begin play.
I don't think anyone was suggesting such a premise - at the very least, I sure wasn't. But you do need to read quite a bit to be able to make your first character. You have to learn what an ability score is, the relationship between the scores and their modifiers, what types of actions/statistics are modified by each ability (and what all of those actions - or at least the main ones - and statistics are), you have to look over the classes enough to decide what looks interesting, etc. Yes, a lot of it can be learned at the table (and the more I think of it, the more of it I realize that's true for - you make a good point). But even if you learn the processes mostly at the table, choosing your ability scores, class(es), feats, spells, skills/ranks, traits, etc all takes a fair bit of time. And even if a lot of that time can be saved by learning on the fly, the minimum before-play investment is still a lot more than, say, a traditional board game. Even if that investment is less than I first implied, that does not entirely negate what I said about the value of lowering the threshold.
EDIT: Also, if you have suggestions for getting my wife playing at my side in PFS... :D
Also, if you have suggestions for getting my wife playing at my side in PFS... :D
Talk to her about what she would like to play, and then make her first character for her. Explain her options in combat and out of combat, then let her announce her moves and role her own dice.
If you're always willing to make her characters for her, to equip them and work out their attacks and spells and statistics, then she only needs to know the 20% of the rules that players actually need at the table (mainly the combat chapter). Even that can be boiled down pretty far if she's not a character that uses combat maneuvers or a mount.In my experience, you can greatly reduce a new player's initial time investment by doing as much as possible for them at first, and then letting them slowly "take over" different tasks as they feel comfortable.
Any rule designer aspires to clarity.
While the game designer may aspire to clarity, the game publisher aspires to have clarity in as few words as possible.
I don't accept the premise that one needs to read a core rulebook cover to cover to begin play.I don't think anyone was suggesting such a premise - at the very least, I sure wasn't. But you do need to read quite a bit to be able to make your first character. You have to learn what an ability score is, the relationship between the scores and their modifiers, what types of actions/statistics are modified by each ability (and what all of those actions - or at least the main ones - and statistics are), you have to look over the classes enough to decide what looks interesting, etc. Yes, a lot of it can be learned at the table (and the more I think of it, the more of it I realize that's true for - you make a good point). But even if you learn the processes mostly at the table, choosing your ability scores, class(es), feats, spells, skills/ranks, traits, etc all takes a fair bit of time. And even if a lot of that time can be saved by learning on the fly, the minimum before-play investment is still a lot more than, say, a traditional board game. Even if that investment is less than I first implied, that does not entirely negate what I said about the value of lowering the threshold.
EDIT: Also, if you have suggestions for getting my wife playing at my side in PFS... :D
Well if everyone starts out to have a 'perfect' character right off the bat, I could see this being frustrating. Making fun but impractical toons is usually how beginners start. As they play, they absorb what stat means what, and they start better fitting character concepts to paper.
RPGs are more complicated than traditional board games because they require more interaction from their players, and are meant to be played over a much longer period of time. Most board games have rules sheets the size of a pamphlet, and I'd hate to see PF rules reduced to such for the sake of ease of learning.As far as getting your wife to play, I agree with Avalon. It's worked for me and my friend's ladies over the years.
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.
Let me toss in a bit more pocket change with some alternate viewpoints.
a) Restricting your market to people who are already hard core gamers isn't really giving yourself growth potential. Me, I'd like as many people to find and play the game as possible -- it means that Paizo will keep making new stuff since it's selling, and it should mean I'll always be able to find people to game with.
b) Reorganizing the presentation (and clarifying) the rules helps even those of us who are hard-core gamers because it means we can find the rule in question when we need it, and better still - if it's clarified - reduce or avoid issues of interpretation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Most board games have rules sheets the size of a pamphlet, and I'd hate to see PF rules reduced to such for the sake of ease of learning.
You do realize, of course, that this thread was not about changing the rules at all, right? Just cleaning up the presentation.
@Avalon: Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try. :D
EDIT - @Tilnar: Yes, but as the Malfoys of the thread have been trying to point out, there's no room for mudbloods in the PFRPG, so why make it easier for them to sneak in? ;)
Any rule designer aspires to clarity.While the game designer may aspire to clarity, the game publisher aspires to have clarity in as few words as possible.
In my opinion, the CRB achieves neither.
But I know full well the context that lead to this state of affairs. The developers had specific mandates and a serious time crunch. That's why it is how it is.
A total rebuild of the presentation (again, not a revision of the rules, but a repackaging) would be a huge undertaking. It should be done eventually, but I think we have more to learn from the current, flawed edition.
When it is done, it will be great, I hope. They've probably learned a great deal from the Beginner Box development, and I can imagine they will know to bring in "naïve" users to parse any second edition. You can't evaluate an instruction manual if you know all the instructions already.
By all accounts, they've learned this lesson for the Beginner Box, which bodes well.
Most board games have rules sheets the size of a pamphlet, and I'd hate to see PF rules reduced to such for the sake of ease of learning.You do realize, of course, that this thread was not about changing the rules at all, right? Just cleaning up the presentation.
@Avalon: Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try. :D
I can hope they can make them easier to understand or be more concise without changing them.
Perhaps instead of changing the format of the rulebook, a quick start sheet could be done, like what comes with a GURPS core book.Or a DM could do that for his own group...
My hesitance probably comes from me working in the corporate world; change is never easy or painless (or logical for that matter).
Any rule designer aspires to clarity.While the game designer may aspire to clarity, the game publisher aspires to have clarity in as few words as possible.
In my opinion, the CRB achieves neither.
But I know full well the context that lead to this state of affairs. The developers had specific mandates and a serious time crunch. That's why it is how it is.
A total rebuild of the presentation (again, not a revision of the rules, but a repackaging) would be a huge undertaking. It should be done eventually, but I think we have more to learn from the current, flawed edition.
When it is done, it will be great, I hope. They've probably learned a great deal from the Beginner Box development, and I can imagine they will know to bring in "naïve" users to parse any second edition. You can't evaluate an instruction manual if you know all the instructions already.
By all accounts, they've learned this lesson for the Beginner Box, which bodes well.
Yeah, you're right. I hope that other thread about "what you should know" about pathfinder is a good step in where to present those rules in their logical places.
|
I think there is a conflict between making a text good for learning how to play a game versus making it good as a reference. For example, a good reference tends to clump all of the rules of a given topic in one spot which is quite handy for an experienced player looking up an unusual or obscure rule. However, such a structure can be overwhelming to the new player who just wants to a get a basic grasp on how to start playing without being buried by all the details.
Personally, I think since the advent of online resources like the d20pfsrd there is less need to go the reference book route, and am liking what I see with the Beginner Box approach.
I can hope they can make them easier to understand or be more concise without changing them.
Perhaps instead of changing the format of the rulebook, a quick start sheet could be done, like what comes with a GURPS core book.
Or a DM could do that for his own group...
My hesitance probably comes from me working in the corporate world; change is never easy or painless (or logical for that matter).
I hear you on the corporate world thing.
I do, however, think the CRB could shed 50 pages and end up clearer in the process. I would buy such without a second thought. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to learn that such a product would not be viable, if for nothing else than the confusion that would result.
I think the best we can hope for is a new edition several years down the line in which this (and other lessons) are applied.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
a quick start sheet could be done
Now that, my friend, is not a half-bad idea.
Or I bet one of us users could make some sort of Excel spreadsheet that "hides" all the bewildering calculations (like the string of boxes next to AC, etc), asks you for a few inputs, and gives you something clean and simple to print out and bring to the table.
This leaves my wife and I with a bit of a dilemma - either she can spend hours upon hours doing reading boring rules so that she can be better equipped to share one pastime with me, or she can spend those same hours playing countless other games, or pursuing her own other interests.
TLDR: There are non-nerds who want to play but for whom the initial time investment is a chore that makes the game not worth it. If this Beginner Box thing will make it less work for my wife to join me at a PFS session, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.
I did not learn to game this way. I learned by practical application, just like everything else. We learn by doing.
When I first started gaming, I played Palladium. I had no clue what was going on, but by the 3rd or 4th game session I had it figured out, and that experience made it easier to learn other systems.I get that in group settings, people do not like to look incompetant in front of their fellow gamers and/or friends. But guess what? You are going to be incompetant at a new endeavor. Learning a new game is just as much a group activity as playing one. Unless the people you game with are elitist jerks, she should have no problem.
I don't accept the premise that one needs to read a core rulebook cover to cover to begin play. Even more so in a group of veteran gamers.
Just my 2 cp.
SERIOUSLY, THIS.
A game book, particularly PFCR is a REFERENCE BOOK. You have to be some sort of SUPERNERD to be able to read a reference book from cover to cover and retain most of what you've read AND be able to call up that information during a game. Youre an aberration at best.
I had a long response written here but I'll just leave it at this: I think that people learn the game best FROM OTHER PEOPLE. Not a reference book. The game is a living breathing thing and is best learned by doing it with living breathing people. Every game that I eventually learned to run (Mekton, Cyberpunk, DCHeroes, Champions, D&D, Rolemaster and M&M) I learned by actually playing with people who already pretty much KNEW the game.
In my experience, you can greatly reduce a new player's initial time investment by doing as much as possible for them at first, and then letting them slowly "take over" different tasks as they feel comfortable.
When running games for newbies, I really have to agree with this method. Eventually they'll get it and want to know how to do more. And as youre effectively mentoring new players you chould be there to hold thier hands when they do want to eventually do more.
a quick start sheet could be doneNow that, my friend, is not a half-bad idea.
Or I bet one of us users could make some sort of Excel spreadsheet that "hides" all the bewildering calculations (like the string of boxes next to AC, etc), asks you for a few inputs, and gives you something clean and simple to print out and bring to the table.
Those exist already, but they don't teach a person anything.
I was thinking more along the lines of a step by step quick reference sheet just for character creation. It'd be maybe be 4-6 pages, but it would only contain info relevant for creation, leaving the details in the corebook.
Things I hope for from PFRPG 2E:
1. Loose the backwards compatibility.
So you don't want it gone, but don't want so much of it?
2. A more retro sensibility.
Retro? What does that even mean?
Anyway, Pathfinder is the spiritual successor of 3e's. It should remain that.
3. Less overly damned codified. Make the GM an arbitrator, not a reference tool.
More overly damned codified for me, please. GMs who let themselves be turned into reference tools have no one to blame but themselves.
|
|
When I first started gaming, I played Palladium. I had no clue what was going on...
To be fair(and from the perspective of someone who still has a love for Palladium and Rifts), no one else did either.
More seriously and on topic, I think the pathfinder book does a good job or organizing its information and making it playable, especially compared to a lot of the more dense books. Things like the beginners box can be great for new players, but also will result in lessening of rules in order to make the game easier to pick up just giving the most important instructions.
I am not sure how you could really take the main rules and make them more organized in the way the original poster is implying, simply because there isn't a real way to organize in that fashion because all the sections are so entwined. The attribute section is going to reference skills and damage and bonus spells and half a dozen other things. However you are going to space things out you are going to be referencing other sections of the book and bounce around and due to that rules will occasionally be overlooked.
My experience has always been that even with a standard rule book as opposed to some sort of beginners rules the first sessions of a new system tends to involve a lot of page flipping and running a bit more 'rules light' version of the game which over time fades to a more full version as everyone learns the details. Think of how big the thread about 'rules most pathfinder players may not know' has gotten.
Even after years of playing its easy to have someone show up at game with a 'did you know we were doing this wrong?' comment. I think that is a result of there being a lot of rules to remember and learn based on the fullness of the system rather than how they are presented, and as long as you and your group end up on the same page of how things work you aren't necessarily playing incorrectly.
|
Things I hope for from PFRPG 2E:
1. Loose the backwards compatibility.
So you don't want it gone, but don't want so much of it?
2. A more retro sensibility.Retro? What does that even mean?
Anyway, Pathfinder is the spiritual successor of 3e's. It should remain that.
More overly damned codified for me, please. GMs who let themselves be turned into reference tools have no one to blame but themselves.
3. Less overly damned codified. Make the GM an arbitrator, not a reference tool.
1. Sticky key. It needs to go away. It's served it's purpose, and given Paizo a loyal fanbase. I'd be interested in seeing them come up with their own system that actually fixes problems, instead of a modified 3.X that slaps a band-aid on on the problems.
2. So you want to stick with the 3.X/d20 base? Then why even bother with a 2E? As for what I mean about a retro sensibility, it's a lot of things. One of the big things is making the game dangerous again...poisons that actually kill you instead of inconvenience you, save or die effects, etc. A stronger emphasis on good old dungeon-crawling. Basically, making the game more akin to the 0E/1E days.
3. This is actually sort of a sub-set of the previous point. Give the GM some power back. I know that very idea offends some of you who want the GM replaced with a computer program.
1. Sticky key. It needs to go away.
If you took better care of your keyboard, it wouldn't be there in the first place :P
It's served it's purpose, and given Paizo a loyal fanbase. I'd be interested in seeing them come up with their own system that actually fixes problems, instead of a modified 3.X that slaps a band-aid on on the problems.
I'd be all for a new edition, as opposed to the revision that PFRPG was. I'd be against a new game, the way 4e was.
That said, rules backwards compatibility would have to go, I agree there. New editions in D&D have often made changes big enough to make old rules incompatible. I'm okay with that. making omelette and breaking eggs and all that.
As long as it stays recognizable, and story backwards compatibility remains at 100%.
2. So you want to stick with the 3.X/d20 base?
What's that have to do with retro?
If you want to know whether I want the basics of the game to basically stay the way they are now, then you are right. Definitely don't want to go back to 2e or earlier.
Then why even bother with a 2E?
Because I think there are some things that could use an improvement, one they couldn't have given them because of the revision thing.
As for what I mean about a retro sensibility, it's a lot of things. One of the big things is making the game dangerous again...poisons that actually kill you instead of inconvenience you, save or die effects, etc. A stronger emphasis on good old dungeon-crawling. Basically, making the game more akin to the 0E/1E days.
I think you're fresh out of luck with killer effects - they went (further) away with Pathfinder than they were before. I don't think they'll do a U-Turn on that.
The fact is, things that just kill you after one failed save aren't any fun. You roll a 1, you sit there the rest of the evening. If that is the "right" way to play, it's good to be wrong.
Dungeon Crawling? No, just no. The game has enough emphasis on that already. Besides, how would the rule do that, anyway? You could definitely use the game to do an all-DC campaign right now. The APs aren't like that because most people would probably not buy them.
And I can't tell you too much about anything before 2e, but 2e was a mess, and I don't want to get back to that.
Basically, I like how PF does things. I want it to become more like that, not less.
3. This is actually sort of a sub-set of the previous point. Give the GM some power back. I know that very idea offends some of you who want the GM replaced with a computer program.
You could sell this as prime fertiliser you know. "Some of you". Who's that, exactly? And this nonsense "I'll defend my extreme view by pointing out the other extreme view" should stay in politics, where people only pretend to be courteous, anyway.
Here, it has no place.
As I said: The GM has as much power as he wants. If he lets the players walk all over him, it's his own fault. He's a crappy GM. Blaming the rules for it only means he's really crappy.
Pathfinder is a well-defined system. It will remain so. It should remain so.
It doesn't mean that the GM can't exert his power.
But "some of you" want the GM to be Tyrants, ruling with an Iron Fist, Telling Their Novel And The Players Better Obey.
That's the other extreme to "the GM becomes a computer program".
GMs have the last word. But players have a say, too. This "It's my story, you better shut up and play your part" is no better than "We're the player, you the GM must serve us".
|
|
I have no problem with Pathfinder 2E having no backwards compatibility. Just like Ktulhu said, it has served it's purpose. Paizo has an enormous, loyal fanbase now, and there is no need for them not to do stuff they actualy want to do.
As for retro, not all retro is good. I agree that the game is not as dangerous as 2nd edition, but the mindset of most players has changed, and most of them do not want their player characters to be debilitated in a permanent manner, or having them die on a single die roll. But poisons that actualy do something at mid to high levels of play would be greatly appreciated. I really hate it that i have to ad-lib the DC of most poisons and diseases to actualy be able to affect the PCs in my games.
There is no need for more emphasis on dungeon crawling then the game has already. It would be too much. Unlike the original D&D, the world is not a vast dungeon waiting to be plundered, and people have differing tastes. Not everyone likes dungeon crawl best.
By all means, give the GM some power back. I agree, because i have mostly been demoted down to the position of calculator/monster AI and a bit of a storyteller.
I have no problem with Pathfinder 2E having no backwards compatibility. Just like Ktulhu said, it has served it's purpose. Paizo has an enormous, loyal fanbase now, and there is no need for them not to do stuff they actualy want to do.
If they're doing it wrong, that enormous, loyal fanbase will evaporate faster than you can say "hype".
What they need to do is do the stuff the fan base actually wants them to do.
As for retro, not all retro is good. I agree that the game is not as dangerous as 2nd edition, but the mindset of most players has changed, and most of them do not want their player characters to be debilitated in a permanent manner, or having them die on a single die roll. But poisons that actualy do something at mid to high levels of play would be greatly appreciated.
One of my players' characters (well, actually, his eidolon) was almost killed by wyvern poison last session. It was a close call, and if they hadn't dispatched the wyvern when they did, it would probably have been worse.
I really hate it that i have to ad-lib the DC of most poisons and diseases to actualy be able to affect the PCs in my games.
What's their power level?
By all means, give the GM some power back. I agree, because i have mostly been demoted down to the position of calculator/monster AI and a bit of a storyteller.
How would the game give you your power back? It was you who gave it away. You let it be taken away. And only you can take it back.