I may have lost the game

[Brian Bachman]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

Which is simply that the PF ruleset was designed to and can easily support a wide variety of playstyles within the fantasy genre.

In the friendliest spirit possible, I would like to contest that, Brian.

It all depends on what you mean by playstyle. Certainly, Pathfinder supports a few — but low magic? Not really... unless you have a different definition of "support" than I do.

I understand your point, and "support" is probably not the best word for what I was getting at. If I understand you correctly, you mean that Paizo currently (despite appeals from quite a few) does not currently offer any direct support for a low magic campaign option. The rules assumption is a pretty high magic campaign.

That said, with a fair amount of tweaking th basic rules can be adapted to permit low magic, in my opinion. Although I have not done so myself, I've heard enough people on these boards say they have done it that I believe it.

The key is that the ruleset is deliberately designed to be amendable by each group/GM to fit their playstyle. In every incarnation of the game, the basic rule of thumb has always been: Don't like a rule - change it.

[Bluenose]

Brian Bachman wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

Which is simply that the PF ruleset was designed to and can easily support a wide variety of playstyles within the fantasy genre.

In the friendliest spirit possible, I would like to contest that, Brian.

It all depends on what you mean by playstyle. Certainly, Pathfinder supports a few — but low magic? Not really... unless you have a different definition of "support" than I do.

I understand your point, and "support" is probably not the best word for what I was getting at. If I understand you correctly, you mean that Paizo currently (despite appeals from quite a few) does not currently offer any direct support for a low magic campaign option. The rules assumption is a pretty high magic campaign.

That said, with a fair amount of tweaking th basic rules can be adapted to permit low magic, in my opinion. Although I have not done so myself, I've heard enough people on these boards say they have done it that I believe it.

The key is that the ruleset is deliberately designed to be amendable by each group/GM to fit their playstyle. In every incarnation of the game, the basic rule of thumb has always been: Don't like a rule - change it.

The point I think Professor Cirno is making is that there are rules sets which, out of the box, are designed to do low-magic games. Or to handle social interaction, group-level conflicts, relationships, Samurai, Aztecs, Mesopotamian magic, etc, etc. Modifying Pathfinder to do something it's not really designed for when there are games which are designed to do these things would seem rather pointless. Better to spend time designing the campaign than modifying the rules.

At least, that's what I understand him to be saying.

[Brian Bachman]

Bluenose wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

Which is simply that the PF ruleset was designed to and can easily support a wide variety of playstyles within the fantasy genre.

In the friendliest spirit possible, I would like to contest that, Brian.

It all depends on what you mean by playstyle. Certainly, Pathfinder supports a few — but low magic? Not really... unless you have a different definition of "support" than I do.

I understand your point, and "support" is probably not the best word for what I was getting at. If I understand you correctly, you mean that Paizo currently (despite appeals from quite a few) does not currently offer any direct support for a low magic campaign option. The rules assumption is a pretty high magic campaign.

That said, with a fair amount of tweaking th basic rules can be adapted to permit low magic, in my opinion. Although I have not done so myself, I've heard enough people on these boards say they have done it that I believe it.

The key is that the ruleset is deliberately designed to be amendable by each group/GM to fit their playstyle. In every incarnation of the game, the basic rule of thumb has always been: Don't like a rule - change it.

The point I think Professor Cirno is making is that there are rules sets which, out of the box, are designed to do low-magic games. Or to handle social interaction, group-level conflicts, relationships, Samurai, Aztecs, Mesopotamian magic, etc, etc. Modifying Pathfinder to do something it's not really designed for when there are games which are designed to do these things would seem rather pointless. Better to spend time designing the campaign than modifying the rules.

At least, that's what I understand him to be saying.

Better to spend more money to buy a game which may or may not be written by staff as talented as Paizo's, and which almost certainly does not have the same wealth of support material available? Better to learn an entirely different ruleset than make some modifications to one you already know well? Better for who?

I always read these recommendations that if people don't want to play the game a certain way then they should be playing a different game as desperate attempts to convince themselves that the way they are playing is the best and only way. They certanly aren't going to convinve anyone else.

Not that I haven't played ther systems and enjoyed them over the years. I just don't see the need to learn an entirely new system when adjusting PF/D&D to match what I want isn't terribly difficult.

[Bluenose]

Brian Bachman wrote:

Better to spend more money to buy a game which may or may not be written by staff as talented as Paizo's, and which almost certainly does not have the same wealth of support material available? Better to learn an entirely different ruleset than make some modifications to one you already know well? Better for who?

I always read these recommendations that if people don't want to play the game a certain way then they should be playing a different game as desperate attempts to convince themselves that the way they are playing is the best and only way. They certainly aren't going to convince anyone else.

Not that I haven't played ther systems and enjoyed them over the years. I just don't see the need to learn an entirely new system when adjusting PF/D&D to match what I want isn't terribly difficult.

Better for people who like immersion, like rules that support the setting rather than fight against it. If you want the stories you tell about the games you play to sound like stories that work with the original source, then you need rules that give a play experience where actions have the range of results that you get in the original source.

Of course, it depends how big the changes you need to make are. The larger the changes you make, the less familiar the rules set is going to be, and the less familiarity people will have with them. I've also noticed that when people play a system they're superficially familiar with, they're a lot less likely to remember modifications to suit a particular ampaign; when they play a different system, they make an effort to get the rules right.

Oh, and I think it's you trying to convince people that your way of playing is the only right one. I don't have a 'best and only way' to play, and because of that I play a lot of different games that give different experiences. You're the one who wants everything to be Pathfinder, ignoring alternatives.

[Brian Bachman]

Bluenose wrote:

Oh, and I think it's you trying to convince people that your way of playing is the only right one. I don't have a 'best and only way' to play, and because of that I play a lot of different games that give different experiences. You're the one who wants everything to be Pathfinder, ignoring alternatives.

Funny. I don't remember ever having even described in this thread exactly how I like to play the game, much less advocated for that way as the best or only way to play it. I am merely responding to people making an argument that I strongly disagree with (supported by the developers of the game) that Pathfinder only allows one playstyle. I'm guilty of many things, and usually when called out on them will 'fess up, but have to plead Not Guilty on this charge.