3.5 had a Rules Compendium. I found it pretty useful. But it also seemed to have presaged the death knell for the system.The thing is, the best time for a Rules Compendium is at the end of a system's lifetime. Otherwise, it ends up being fairly incomplete. Imagine if Paizo had put out a such a Rules Compendium right after the GMG, covering topics from the CRB, B1, and GMG. Then the APG, UM, and UC come out, and the Rules Compendium isn't really all that relevent anymore.
I don't think that's true at all. How many actually new rule systems were added in APG, UM, and UC?
Feats, spells, classes, gear, etc, are not new rule systems. They are components that use the core rules.
A rules reference would focus on making certain the core mechanics are covered. Combat maneuvers, skills, conditions, etc. Ok, there were two new maneuvers in APG. And adding the vehicle rules would be useful to a compendium.
The essential stuff for a rules compendium are the fundamentals of the game. They won't change much until a new version comes out.
Then again, if Pathfinder "2nd Edition" were just the same ruleset, clarified, with the major expansions (APG, UM, UC) incorporated (maybe not fully but stuff like the new classes and maneuvers) then this would really resemble Shadowrun 2nd Ed. -> Shadowrun 3rd Ed., which was a fine example of what an edition change ought to be.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's true at all. How many actually new rule systems were added in APG, UM, and UC?
GMG - Added chases, haunts, and sanity & madness
APG - Added new combat maneuvers, hero points, and traitsUM - Added words of power
UC - Added vehicles, armor as DR, called shots, piecemeal armor, and wounds & vigor
|
|
What's the real difference between Pathfinder 1.5 and Pathfinder 2 (barely changed edition)? Do you feel that slightly changing the title makes it more worth spending money on?I feel that fractional editions are meaningless and silly.
In the case of 3.5, it was very much a result of the "pseudotech" jargon like "Web 2.0" that pervaded the media at that time of release, but although it was trying to sound like software version numbering it conveys none of the meaning.
Fractional numbers also pervade the myth that "edition" means a fundamental change in the ruleset.
What if it was marketed as "Pathfinder Revised"?
There's little to no difference between the three ways of labeling this. If all they do is clean up the presentations, then it doesn't matter if they market it as Pathfinder Revised, Pathfinder 2E, Pathfinder 1.5, or Pathfinder: Cash Grab Edition.
I don't think that's true at all. How many actually new rule systems were added in APG, UM, and UC?GMG - Added chases, haunts, and sanity & madness
APG - Added new combat maneuvers, hero points, and traits
UM - Added words of power
UC - Added vehicles, armor as DR, called shots, piecemeal armor, and wounds & vigor
It's true, but those are mostly optional subsystems that I wouldn't put into a rules compendium. I would include:
GMG - Added chases, haunts, and sanity & madness
APG - Added new combat maneuvers, hero points
UC - Added vehicles
Traits are part of character creation, I wouldn't include them in a rules compendium. Words of Power is self contained, either you are using it, or you aren't. All of the optional subsystems from Ultimate Combat I would leave out, as they will never be a part of the assumed default.
I see a rules compendium as only what you need to reference during a game. So no character creation or class stuff, no spells (I recognize that those are also useful, but not the goal of this hypothetical book. A spell compendium I would also buy), no traits, no equipment, etc.
|
|
While I agree about leaving out traits and words of power, I WOULD include the rules from UC in a Rules Compendium, if I were in charge of deciding what to put into it. I would want such a book to be a decently comprehensive reference for any group, and leaving out officially sanctioned "optional rules" that many groups may use isn't the way to do that.
Of course, I would also have it be much more compact than some people would make it. For the CRB itself, I think SORD PF is a pretty good indication of what I would put out. So basically that expanded to cover the additional topics in books beyond just the CRB.
I'm really pleased (not that it matters) with the tone of this thread. Good solid conversation going on here, and I thought I'd chime in as one of the "Hell Yeah" crowd on buying a new CRB. Especially if it was sized in a manner that prevented it from falling apart.
My chief complaint is really 12+ play. It's a struggle. Fighting is central to the game, but takes entirely too long to slog through, even with an experienced gaming group. I've been playing with the same group since Pathfinder Beta (Although Kthulhu did leave us for England) and the system is really flawed at higher levels. Unfortunately, I think the issues are inherent to the system and there's really no way to fix them.
I would buy into a revised version of the core game that went up to level 12. Higher level can take Exalted level time investiture to get through, and it's just not what I'm looking for. Too much math, too many floating modifiers for me and the group. For now I'm positioning BRP and RQ for the next games that we play on the grounds of them being a more simple and playable system.
Don't get me wrong, I love pathfinder. I've purchased LOADS of material for the system, and it's the extension of a game I've played since my early childhood. There are occasionally books that snag my eye but the game itself, while incredibly well developed and supported, is getting to be a bit much for us.
Just my 2 cents.
While I agree about leaving out traits and words of power, I WOULD include the rules from UC in a Rules Compendium, if I were in charge of deciding what to put into it. I would want such a book to be a decently comprehensive reference for any group, and leaving out officially sanctioned "optional rules" that many groups may use isn't the way to do that.
Of course, I would also have it be much more compact than some people would make it. For the CRB itself, I think SORD PF is a pretty good indication of what I would put out. So basically that expanded to cover the additional topics in books beyond just the CRB.
I might include the alternate rules. I just don't think they are essential to a rules compendium. It all depends on space. But those are some of the first things I'd cut if I needed to make things fit. But yes, I would love a 64-96 page reference guide that was easy to bring to the table.
3.5 had a Rules Compendium. I found it pretty useful. But it also seemed to have presaged the death knell for the system.The thing is, the best time for a Rules Compendium is at the end of a system's lifetime. Otherwise, it ends up being fairly incomplete. Imagine if Paizo had put out a such a Rules Compendium right after the GMG, covering topics from the CRB, B1, and GMG. Then the APG, UM, and UC come out, and the Rules Compendium isn't really all that relevent anymore.I don't think that's true at all. How many actually new rule systems were added in APG, UM, and UC?
Feats, spells, classes, gear, etc, are not new rule systems. They are components that use the core rules.
A rules reference would focus on making certain the core mechanics are covered. Combat maneuvers, skills, conditions, etc. Ok, there were two new maneuvers in APG. And adding the vehicle rules would be useful to a compendium.
The essential stuff for a rules compendium are the fundamentals of the game. They won't change much until a new version comes out.
Hold on a second. The way you quoted, combining my words with somebody else's, makes it look like I think that the only time a compendium should come out is at the end of life of the system. I didn't say that.
I mentioned the fact that it had happened with 3.5 only as a preface to my later comment that if something like that did come out, it might cause some OTHER people to start speculating about Pathfinder's end-of-life.
If you read my whole post you'd know that I AM FOR a PDF compendium, better organized and fully hyperlinked.
This sort of misquoting gives me nightmares, man. Ever since I discovered my ex girlfriend had posted a mountain of lies about me in a blog, and it had been up for years before I found out.
Deinol, please DO NOT take people's posts out of context.
|
|
Deinol, please DO NOT take people's posts out of context.
The way he quoted it was pretty clear to me. Admittedly, I have the advantage of being the other person quoted, but it's not like he screwed up the quote structure. His quote of your posts simply also included your quote of my post, which was needed for your post to make sense in context.
Deinol, please DO NOT take people's posts out of context.
I apologize. I was responding to Kthulhu's comments, not yours. He just happened to quote you. I should have removed your comment from my reply, but I wasn't thinking about how it would look quoted like that.
If anything, I was supporting your original comments. I don't believe that a rules compendium has to come out at the end of a product's lifespan. I think it needs to come out sufficiently far into the lifespan that errata and clarifications can be worked in.
|
|
That's why I try to trim quotes to just be relevant to my response. Less confusion all around. As an example:
I don't believe that a rules compendium has to come out at the end of a product's lifespan. I think it needs to come out sufficiently far into the lifespan that errata and clarifications can be worked in.
I don't think a compendium HAS to come out at the end of a product's life cycle, but I do think that it serves it's intended purpose best if it does so. I guess maybe if you did a rules compendium and later added subsequent volumes (Rules Compendium II: Stuff we printed after the GMG Edition) it could work. Kinda somewhat defeats the "all-in-one" purpose, though.
If I think back on rules compendiums that have been printed for various roleplaying games that I can think of (the D&D 3.5 and 4e editions come quickest to mind) and think about what happened to the systems shortly after their release (4e was announced very shortly after the publication of the 3.5 compendium and the 4e compendium was connected to the essentials line, which I consider a colossal mistake), then I find myself lacking any interest in a Pathfinder rules compendium, no matter what you end up calling it. (Yes, I realize that there may not be any causality in the aforementioned examples, but I don't claim that my mental processes are completely logical.)
What I would like to see, instead, is an update-able master index that allows me to easily find whatever rule I happen to be looking for--knowing where to find the rule is all I really need and would have the tablet and smartphone functionality others are talking about. While not likely to be as pretty as a rules compilation a no frills searchable index would be cheaper and potentially faster.
This however, is merely my two cents. Such an item could be completely unnecessary with the existence of sites like d20pfsrd.com (although I do tend to need to look things up outside of internet access.)
Deinol, please DO NOT take people's posts out of context.The way he quoted it was pretty clear to me. Admittedly, I have the advantage of being the other person quoted, but it's not like he screwed up the quote structure. His quote of your posts simply also included your quote of my post, which was needed for your post to make sense in context.
Except that I didn't agree with your statement. The combined quote not only makes it look like I did, it also makes it look to the casual observer that your quote is attributable to me.
As you said, you have the advantage of knowing the difference because your own quote was involved.
Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll drop it.
Except that I didn't agree with your statement. The combined quote not only makes it look like I did, it also makes it look to the casual observer that your quote is attributable to me.
I will admit I don't like the way the boards nest quotes. I would prefer if they showed:
Stuff
Stuff in response
Instead of the current system which shows:
Stuff
Stuff in response
by default. The indenting to indicate responses is hard enough to notice with only two quotes. It becomes a right mess when several people are involved.
I usually do trim up quotes, but sometimes I'm in a hurry and leave it the way the board defaults it.
Anyway, I'm glad you understand that it was an honest oversight, and not me trying to twist words.
|
Then again, if Pathfinder "2nd Edition" were just the same ruleset, clarified, with the major expansions (APG, UM, UC) incorporated (maybe not fully but stuff like the new classes and maneuvers) then this would really resemble Shadowrun 2nd Ed. -> Shadowrun 3rd Ed., which was a fine example of what an edition change ought to be.
Well...that was kind of what happened with 3e into 3.5.
Personally I view it this way. 3e happened and it needed work, so 3.5 came out and it was much better, but had room for improvement. So Pathfinder expanded on the core of 3.5, cleaning it up while trying to stay compatible.
A pathfinder 1.5 doesn't need to be a re-write that throws out the old. Much like archetypes don't kill the original, it could be a variant rule-set that is as compatible with the existing rule set as Pathfinder was with 3.5.
I agree a streamlined rule book would be great. And I am all about a "high level" handbook for play from 12th-Epic levels.
Actually, the Shadowrun Anniversary Edition is a great example of how to do a good revision. It incorporated all of the errata up to that point. It also indexed all of the additional material from expansion books into sidebars. So it isn't needed if you have the original and an errata PDF, but it has enough value added that you don't feel ripped off for buying it a second time.
Which reminds me, I should pick up a copy. ;)
|
I would absolutely purchase a revised edition that didn't substantially change the rules.
Errata and rules clarification, the addition of a few tables, maybe touching on optional rules like archetypes, subdomains, etc, which see heavy reference in other material would be just fine, too.
Magic item creation doesn't have to change, but it definitely needs to be reworded. That's just one of the obvious examples where 100% compatibility can be maintained, and xx% "struggling with RAW" can be eliminated. Write it how you meant it.
It's not that the rules can't be re-worked, it's just that there's a TON of value in simply re-presenting the existing rules without obsoleting any content, organized play, etc.
Nobody HAS to buy anything as a result of polishing the presentation--you'd have a wholly compatible CRB. Nor does anyone HAVE to buy new supplemental/splat...everything still works, just with less headache.
Better presentation = better understanding = less referencing or consulting/arguing the rules = more time playing = more fun being had.
More fun combined with (and in part due to) more efficient play means I'll need more material. The more I play, the more I pay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually...
It occurs to me now that the rules presented as streamlined for play might very well belong in the "High Level Play" book. And that's a book that I keep asking for.
I can imagine what it would be like, but again, what I am really railing against is text that isn't designed and tested through play. Beginner Box was. That's what raised this issue: why not the rest of the rules too?
So, to the large pile of ideas around this issue, I add the following:
"Elite" organization of the core rules, tested by veteran players
+ tips and tricks for high-level GMing and playing
+ new content for high level
+ a decent sized chapter for post-20th (not a whole book)
+ compiled index of feats from CRB, APG, UM, UC, et al.
When I say elite organization, this means I fully expect treasure generation to be actively corrected. Personally, I feel treasure generation is a farce, a system so complex that nobody even dared to use it and so missing parts went unnoticed for months.
But elite organization includes everything else: the basics of the core rules laid out for reference and procedure. Not quite the SORD, but similar. The SORD is one big table, I'd be looking for something more robust and (most importantly) tested with veteran players the way the Beginner Box was tested with new players.
|
|
Except that I didn't agree with your statement. The combined quote not only makes it look like I did, it also makes it look to the casual observer that your quote is attributable to me.
I first saw your reply to my post WITHIN his post, and it was readily apparent to me who had said what, and that you were not agreeing with me. In fact, I've looked over it again now, and I'm not really seeing how it would be possible to see it any other way.
Anyhow...
As for incorporating the APG, UM, and UC stuff into a revised Core Rulebook (we'll ignore what to call it for now)...I can't see it happening. The existing book is so damn thick that the spine literally commits suicide. So what are you going to cut? You'll have to cut substantial portions from all four books if you want to compress it into one book...and even then it will still probably have spinal issues unless you manage to end up with it substantially smaller than the existing Core Rulebook.
|
|
Actually...
It occurs to me now that the rules presented as streamlined for play might very well belong in the "High Level Play" book. And that's a book that I keep asking for.
I can imagine what it would be like, but again, what I am really railing against is text that isn't designed and tested through play. Beginner Box was. That's what raised this issue: why not the rest of the rules too?
So, to the large pile of ideas around this issue, I add the following:
"Elite" organization of the core rules, tested by veteran players
+ tips and tricks for high-level GMing and playing
+ new content for high level
+ a decent sized chapter for post-20th (not a whole book)
+ compiled index of feats from CRB, APG, UM, UC, et al.When I say elite organization, this means I fully expect treasure generation to be actively corrected. Personally, I feel treasure generation is a farce, a system so complex that nobody even dared to use it and so missing parts went unnoticed for months.
But elite organization includes everything else: the basics of the core rules laid out for reference and procedure. Not quite the SORD, but similar. The SORD is one big table, I'd be looking for something more robust and (most importantly) tested with veteran players the way the Beginner Box was tested with new players.
I am with you, and I hope this is the next book after Ultimate Races.
Then I would follow that with a variations book that offers cleaned up alternatives for the existing classes, more than archetypes.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not very fond of my huge Core book. Yes it is nice everything is in one place, but I wish the book was broken up a bit.
Character Guide (~250 pages)- races, classes, skills, feats, character equipment, descriptions and spells. Everything needed to make a character.
Combat and Magic Guide (~150 pages)- book to explain combat with examples and pics, would cover different weapon qualities, tactical movement, skills in combat, pics and examples of magic in and out of combat, magic items, etc.
I didn't like how the gamemaster stuff was crammed into the corebook.
"Elite" organization of the core rules, tested by veteran players
+ tips and tricks for high-level GMing and playing
+ new content for high level
+ a decent sized chapter for post-20th (not a whole book)
+ compiled index of feats from CRB, APG, UM, UC, et al.
Really like this idea. - I'd definitely buy that book..
And I am one of those who would be interested in a 'Clear(er)-Text Rules' book. The better the quotient of easily understood, and functional information the better.
|
Legends Guide:
"Elite" organization of the core rules, tested by veteran players
+ tips and tricks for high-level GMing and playing
+ new content for high level
+ a decent sized chapter for post-20th (not a whole book)
+ compiled index of feats from CRB, APG, UM, UC, et al.
Yes! It's a great idea. I've never played Pathfinder above 12th level, so have no first hand evidence of the broken-at-level-13-and-up assertions, but if it is true, then the above might have less value...but that's a big if. I do know that even at levels 8-12, combat can be preponderantly slow, to the point that my circle holds good initiative management/speed of play in highest regard.
I haven't opened my core rulebook in years. PFSRD + Herolabs are sufficient. I suspect the same will eventually be true of APG/UM/UC, but not the GameMastery Guide.
Re: the original idea in this thread - I think a slimmed down, less intimidating "rules compendium" type book would make it easier for the new (!) crop of Beginner Boxers to transition to core Pathfinder, and on that alone I applaud the idea.
Revised and Re-organised CRB: +1 (and along lines that Nukruh posted earlier on this thread - +1)
"Intermediate Box" (6th+): +1
"Legends/High Level" (12th+): +1
Pathfinder 1.5/2/CashGrab edition: -1 extremely sad and left-the-building fan and customer. I am heartily sick of edition changes and the complementary re-re-releasing of the entire canon of work that goes with it. Have been playing "the oldest roleplaying game" for 30 years now, and AD&D 2E was scary enough for me. I really liked 3E/3.5, and was floored by the news of upcoming 4e, and the changes that seemed to be proposed. The sheer amount of material (both from Wotc and 3pp) that was about to be nixed (ok, maybe with tweaking it wouldn't be "lost") was staggering. I tried 4e, but found it too... heroic-or-else, and frankly, like Guild Wars on paper. I got as far as essentials, hoping for something to excite beyond the art before I found PF. It was like coming home. I have the CRB, APG, ISWG and Bestiary 1. Looking to get UC and UM, as well as ISM, and others. Not to mention 3PP stuff....
So far, Paizo have done the best by us, the gamers. These messageboards are a case in point. What a fabulous and gigantic resource. The PFRD. Wow! And they dedicated the CRB to the originators. Please don't stumble now. Revise if you must but....
NO PF2e! This game rocks, as is. It has flaws. It has idiosyncracies and eccentricities. No big deal, so does everything IMHO. It also has amazing durability and a veneration for the tropes of a system some of us have loved for decades. Don't split the fan base, or the gamer base.
NO PF2e! This game rocks, as is. It has flaws. It has idiosyncracies and eccentricities. No big deal, so does everything IMHO. It also has amazing durability and a veneration for the tropes of a system some of us have loved for decades. Don't split the fan base, or the gamer base.
What does edition change mean? What if 2e is just "revised and reorganized"?
You can say "a new edition is when a sweeping change occurs in the rules" but in some sense that is already taking place with errata.
I think I may need to call for a crusade to take back the word "edition".
I think I may need to call for a crusade to take back the word "edition".
Tried that upthread -- no dice. I'm pretty sure it's a lost cause.
I agree with the idea that a new edition need not make the prior obsolete... I mean, most of us converted from 3.X over to pathfinder, right? Some growing pains, sure, but a revision and streamlining of the rules would do wonders for the game, and it wouldn't necessitate the buying of a new book even, as I'm sure the SRD would be updated to reflect the refined rules.
I know people hate change - I get that. But we're not talking about a NEW system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think part of the problem here is the Gamer's definition/understanding of the word "edition," as a major reworking of the ruleset. In virtually every other publishing context where I've seen it used, the different editions of a book mean a new cover, new preface, and perhaps a slight reworking of the organization - which is pretty much what EL is proposing here.
I'm thinking specifically of my old university calculus text which was a 3rd edition when I bought it, and is currently at its 7th edition. It looks virtually identical once you get past the cover, preface, and author's notes, with some slight changes to some of the text or examples. And that's after 4 "rewrites."
There's a lot of talk here from people who wouldn't buy a reorganized Core Rulebook, which is fine. I recognize that Paizo has a finite number of resources and needs to decide where to allocate them in order to best serve the community. I think, however, that one of ELs major points was lost early on in this thread, which was this: Players jumping in to the CRB from the Beginner's Box are likely to find it obtuse, disorganized, and confusing.
Someone said in an older thread once that the CRB is designed the way that it is in order to allow old 3.5ers to feel comfortable with the way the content is organized. I think that everyone who used to play 3.5 and it going to move on to PFRPG has done so; it may be time to look, with an eye to the future, at how best to attract new gamers to the fold - and the best way to do that is to increase the usability of the product.
NOW, you can continue arguing about whether that reorganization is the best use of Paizo's resources; I have no opinion on it either way. I probably wouldn't buy it - but I buy what I subscribe to and very little else, so it doesn't really matter to me either.
|
Hey all.
First, I'd like to continue the praise for the Beginner Box. Sean and Jason did a wonderful job, and after 30 years of playing this game, I feel like I can take that box down to the hobby store and hold "new gamer" sessions with the confidence that they will both love and understand the game easily.
Second, here's the product I prompted to have ready for the realease of the core rule book. I received a thank you from the designer for kind of poking him to do this. Its exactly the type of concise reference "job aid" for game masters that helps supplement the core rule book. I printed this on heavyweight paper, inserted into a diamond clear booklet of coversheets, and away I go. Everything is laid out nicely, clear headings, good quick reference material.
SORD for Pathfinder at RPG Now
Third, the online support from PAIZO's srd, as well as the marvelous organizational work at d20pfsrd.com really rounds out my gaming table.
Note: to all GMs: remember its your world now, your game, and your player and personal preferences might take a bit to organize in a way that's right for you.
About the Core Rule Book: I haven't had any issues with the Core Rule Book's usability, except Erik said that placekeeping "ribbons" would make the book too costly (I really wanted those). So instead, little yellow or orange scotch-tape like, removable, and writable "flags" do the trick for my Core Rule Book just fine.
The key is: organize your notes, flag your pages, print out charts used most often or get the SORD Plus for Pathfinder RPG. Even if you don't buy a thing, the GMs "usability" factors are up to him/her. Unlike software or eLearning GUIs, this game should only be limited by your own imagination. Yet, with much imagination comes the need for good organization skills, and some preparation as well to help you realize your imagination at the tabletop game.
Just my 2 cp.
Pax Veritas
@Pax: SORD is a mighty product indeed, but it is not the beginner box user-tested methodology I am requesting. I think that in some ways, the results of my request would look like SORD, and in other ways probably not.
Personally, I think part of the problem here is the Gamer's definition/understanding of the word "edition," as a major reworking of the ruleset. In virtually every other publishing context where I've seen it used, the different editions of a book mean a new cover, new preface, and perhaps a slight reworking of the organization - which is pretty much what EL is proposing here.
I'm thinking specifically of my old university calculus text which was a 3rd edition when I bought it, and is currently at its 7th edition. It looks virtually identical once you get past the cover, preface, and author's notes, with some slight changes to some of the text or examples. And that's after 4 "rewrites."
Maybe we can coin a term like "Publisher Edition" to disambiguate from "Rules Edition"... sort of like "Associative Football". :)
one of ELs major points was lost early on in this thread, which was this: Players jumping in to the CRB from the Beginner's Box are likely to find it obtuse, disorganized, and confusing.
That. I mean, surely, as a 25 year gaming veteran and former 3.5 player, if I'm confused and frustrated by the organization, then people coming in from the BB are bound to be confused. Especially since the BB is so alarmingly well-organized. :)
I mean, surely, as a 25 year gaming veteran and former 3.5 player, if I'm confused and frustrated by the organization, then people coming in from the BB are bound to be confused. Especially since the BB is so alarmingly well-organized. :)
;)
;)
I just post what I want. I don't expect Paizo to listen, necessarily, although I have been surprised at the number of times they end up doing something like what I asked for...
Anyway, even the grognards aren't really claiming that it's good, just that they're accustomed to it. I think familiarity might be concealing the flaws for a great number of people, and perhaps they don't realize just how important fresh blood is to a game in-print. Of course, being grognards, maybe they don't care. :) Being out-of-print seems to earn a lot of grognard cred.
I just post what I want. I don't expect Paizo to listen, necessarily, although I have been surprised at the number of times they end up doing something like what I asked for...
Anyway, even the grognards aren't really claiming that it's good, just that they're accustomed to it. I think familiarity might be concealing the flaws for a great number of people, and perhaps they don't realize just how important fresh blood is to a game in-print. Of course, being grognards, maybe they don't care. :) Being out-of-print seems to earn a lot of grognard cred.
I've seen posters on these boards take the position that dense, obtuse rules are a good thing, because they weed out the "fake" gamers. Sad, but true.
|
|
I've seen posters on these boards take the position that dense, obtuse rules are a good thing, because they weed out the "fake" gamers. Sad, but true.I just post what I want. I don't expect Paizo to listen, necessarily, although I have been surprised at the number of times they end up doing something like what I asked for...
Anyway, even the grognards aren't really claiming that it's good, just that they're accustomed to it. I think familiarity might be concealing the flaws for a great number of people, and perhaps they don't realize just how important fresh blood is to a game in-print. Of course, being grognards, maybe they don't care. :) Being out-of-print seems to earn a lot of grognard cred.
Wow, that is a crap attitude. I guess those people will never know the joy that are rules-lite systems like Savage Worlds and that is sad.
It is also a defeatist attitude. We will not attract new players with attitudes like that.
There is nothing wrong for simplifying the rules for new people. I know a bunch of Grognards that appreciate simplification as well. Simplification does not equate to dumbing-down. See the K.I.S.S. principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) which was coined by one of the guys that created the U-2 spy plane and the SR-71. Albert Einstein was also a fan of simplicity.
I agree with EL that the experienced players are familiar enough with the existing layout that they don't notice its problems. I notice it every time I open the CRB.
I suppose that in the age of the Internet and the "Old Skool Renaissance" being in-print is less important to some gamers, but I like having a well supported game. But I am not sure how much cred that generates, however. There are plenty of games that are out-of-print with good riddance. I think we just have a nostalgic attraction to the games we started on. For me that is Mentzer Basic.
I <3 Savage Worlds. :)
Clear rules benefit everyone. "Real men play with obtuse rules" needs to taken behind the chemical shed...
Some of us don't want our games dumbed down/limited/truncated just because somebody out there can't read 10 pages of text without getting a headache. Or is mathematically challenged. Or you know, both.
I am capable of reading tens (hundreds, even) of pages of text without getting a headache. I am also not "mathematically challenged" (though I'm certainly no math whiz -- never had to go past Calc I).
Yet I value clarity, sensible organization, and yes, streamlining. Thse things are not the equivalent of "dumbing down" -- in fact, they're the opposite, brevity being the soul of wit and all that.
Size and density are not worthwhile goals in themselves.
Yeah, that bit about elitist fans of dense, obtuse rules was about me.
You're giving my memory far more credit than it deserves. I don't remember who wrote the posts I was thinking of -- or even if it was a single person. I think it's a silly position irrespective of who holds it. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us don't want our games dumbed down/limited/truncated just because somebody out there can't read 10 pages of text without getting a headache. Or is mathematically challenged. Or you know, both.
Yeah, that bit about elitist fans of dense, obtuse rules was about me.
Take umbrage if you like, Gorby. The book has problems that have nothing to do with rule complexity, but rather the mashup of two older edition books, uncaught changes, missing tables. Those aren't quaint little features, those are serious obstacles to new players who don't have 3.5 background to fill in the gaps. It's not your fault you don't notice them, you're an expert. That's a good thing. But experts are also the least qualified people to assess how the game is learned. That goes for designers too. And self-appointed usability evangelists like me.
Going back upthread, I'm not talking about using the simple language of the beginner box, so much as I'm asking for the user-testing of the beginner box. I'm a true believer in that stuff. I think it would make for a better book with the same rules that you want to remain unchanged.
They could even test people like you, and end up with a book that addresses your needs, even ones you don't know you have.
|
Some of us don't want our games dumbed down/limited/truncated just because somebody out there can't read 10 pages of text without getting a headache. Or is mathematically challenged. Or you know, both.
Yeah, that bit about elitist fans of dense, obtuse rules was about me.
Take umbrage if you like, Gorby. The book has problems that have nothing to do with rule complexity, but rather the mashup of two older edition books, uncaught changes, missing tables. Those aren't quaint little features, those are serious obstacles to new players who don't have 3.5 background to fill in the gaps.
Going back upthread, I'm not talking about using the simple language of the beginner box, so much as I'm asking for the user-testing of the beginner box. I'm a true believer in that stuff. I think it would make for a better book with the same rules that you want to remain unchanged.
They could even test people like you, and end up with a book that addresses your needs, even ones you don't know you have.
I don't buy your arguments at all. I have people with no 3.5 background who get around the book just fine.
For me, it's just some "we want a simple game, this one is too complicated for us, too many option" argument wrapped up in "we need better presentation for new players" paper.
Aaaand I'm a vehement opponent of Paizo using their resources on anything I don't enjoy (fiction, epixxx rulz, variant rules, fiction). I've barely swallowed the Beginner's Box out of utilitarian arguments, but "let's repackage core rulebook" isn't going to float with me.
Before somebody goes "Gorbacz, but why can't you just ignore stuff you don't like and let others have fun?" I'll shoot my pre-emptive response "I don't care about your fun". Yeah, I am that a jerk.
Your posts always make me smile a little, but this one is aggressive even from you. Bad day?Before somebody goes "Gorbacz, but why can't you just ignore stuff you don't like and let others have fun?" I'll shoot my pre-emptive response "I don't care about your fun". Yeah, I am that a jerk.
At least he's honest. :)
|
|
Some of us don't want our games dumbed down/limited/truncated just because somebody out there can't read 10 pages of text without getting a headache. Or is mathematically challenged. Or you know, both.
Yeah, that bit about elitist fans of dense, obtuse rules was about me.
Take umbrage if you like, Gorby. The book has problems that have nothing to do with rule complexity, but rather the mashup of two older edition books, uncaught changes, missing tables. Those aren't quaint little features, those are serious obstacles to new players who don't have 3.5 background to fill in the gaps. It's not your fault you don't notice them, you're an expert. That's a good thing. But experts are also the least qualified people to assess how the game is learned. That goes for designers too. And self-appointed usability evangelists like me.
Going back upthread, I'm not talking about using the simple language of the beginner box, so much as I'm asking for the user-testing of the beginner box. I'm a true believer in that stuff. I think it would make for a better book with the same rules that you want to remain unchanged.
They could even test people like you, and end up with a book that addresses your needs, even ones you don't know you have.
I think this is the broader point.
The Core Rulebook isn't perfect. It's been out long enough and they have learned enough that an update would be useful at this point.
Few if any want a reinvention of the wheel, but I think most of us wouldn't object to an incremental improvement that was able to mesh with the existing system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy your arguments at all. I have people with no 3.5 background who get around the book just fine.
You have people. People have you. To explain it. That's why they don't need the missing 3.5 pieces, and why you haven't noticed them struggling. Not everyone has a tutor for the game.
OK, maybe I should be a bit clearer.
IF the book IS PF 2.0 with significant rules changes AND a changed presentation, yes, sure, around 2015 maybe?
Else, pass.
And yes, it's a bad day here. Somebody hug me, please.
If it's any consolation, I was excited by your fightin' spirit.
*hugs*
I don't suppose you're close enough geographically for me to legally supply you with booze?
As someone who hasn't taken alook into the Beginner Box, what's actually supposed to be wrong with the CRB and how changing the order the rules are printed help to make the game easier to learn?