Science!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
|
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
You don't need more than the core rulebook and the bestiary to play the game. It's even advertised as such.
I have yet to see true power creep in Pathfinder. Providing options to make concepts viable when they originally basically had to suck is not power creep ; it's providing versatility and encouraging originality in character builds.
All mechanical information about PF is put up on the PFSRD free of charge.
Only fluff and adventures are behind a pay-wall in PF.
My gaming group runs entirely using PFSRD, none of us even own the core rule books.
So no investment necessary, all you need is a phone/tablet/laptop capable of webbrowsing and you have everything.
And if people don't like power creep, you find a GM who runs a very basic core-only game.
PF is modular, it can be as simple or complex as you want. You don't have to use every new book.
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
You don't need more than the core rulebook and the bestiary to play the game. It's even advertised as such.
I have yet to see true power creep in Pathfinder. Providing options to make concepts viable when they originally basically had to suck is not power creep ; it's providing versatility and encouraging originality in character builds.
You are right that you don't NEED more than the core rulebook. But you are being disingenuous by pretending people won't see a library as vast as 3.5e to use one example and shy away from learning the system.
Sure more options do indeed allow more versatility and originality. But that is moot. My point was that they allow more optimization for power builds.
I also don't feel Pathfinder has hit the breaking point yet. But they will at some point.
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
You don't need more than the core rulebook and the bestiary to play the game. It's even advertised as such.
I have yet to see true power creep in Pathfinder. Providing options to make concepts viable when they originally basically had to suck is not power creep ; it's providing versatility and encouraging originality in character builds.You are right that you don't NEED more than the core rulebook. But you are being disingenuous by pretending people won't see a library as vast as 3.5e to use one example and shy away from learning the system.
Sure more options do indeed allow more versatility and originality. But that is moot. My point was that they allow more optimization for power builds.
I also don't feel Pathfinder has hit the breaking point yet. But they will at some point.
One could argue that a player who looks at a bunch of books and goes "why bother?" isn't worth having anyway.
Some of us are totally fine with PF having as many books as 3.5 did. I didn't switch because 3.5 had too much stuff, I switched because I think PF's base mechanics are better than 3.5.
I'd be ecstatic to have as many options as 3.5 had.
The mechanical construction of encounters is as fun to me as DMing itself, and that fun comes from having a giant toolbox.
When I find a nasty combo of templates and creatures to terrorize my players with it's like a "EUREKA!" moment.
|
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
You don't need more than the core rulebook and the bestiary to play the game. It's even advertised as such.
I have yet to see true power creep in Pathfinder. Providing options to make concepts viable when they originally basically had to suck is not power creep ; it's providing versatility and encouraging originality in character builds.You are right that you don't NEED more than the core rulebook. But you are being disingenuous by pretending people won't see a library as vast as 3.5e to use one example and shy away from learning the system.
Sure more options do indeed allow more versatility and originality. But that is moot. My point was that they allow more optimization for power builds.
I also don't feel Pathfinder has hit the breaking point yet. But they will at some point.
Hardly. Some of the most powerful spells and abilities come straight from the corebook. The "must haves" when it comes to feats almost entirely come from core.
According to the wiki there are over 40 published 3.5 books not counting third party. Paizo is at 8. At the rate the release books we MAY catch up to the point of 3.5 in about 32 more years. When that day comes I will personally drive to your home and hand you a piece of homemade cheesecake.
You are right that you don't NEED more than the core rulebook. But you are being disingenuous by pretending people won't see a library as vast as 3.5e to use one example and shy away from learning the system.
You're right about this, at least in my experience. It's been true since at least 2E: I've had friends, smart friends who I was certain (from knowing them) would like playing take one look at the sheer number of books and say they'll pass. Even though I assured them you didn't need to have, much less know, all of that to play and the basic system was very easy to learn.
I've asked them to just give it a try saying I'd help them make their first character and guide them through things, only to have them still say no thanks. They wouldn't even give it a try.
Only in recent times did it occur to me that the decision they were making was a form of rational ignorance - one I've done with other things (such as deciding not to read some author's immense book series that seems to go on and on, because suspecting I'd like it meant I'd end up wanting to read them all, and deciding not to invest a scarce resource - my time - in it).
I think a big reason why some of these friends didn't even want to try gaming is they suspected they would enjoy it, and then they'd want to go get all that stuff. . .so they decided to pass and continue to devote themselves to their current hobbies (such as MMOs; an IMO somewhat fun, but, IMO, inferior type of gaming; or MtG deck building & playing, which required an even greater investment of cash over time than RPG gaming). (At the time I played these others with them, which is one reason I thought they also might like real RPGs).
I have yet to try to get a friend to PF, in part 'cause I'm new to it myself, so I don't know what effect having all the rules free online might have.
According to the wiki there are over 40 published 3.5 books not counting third party. Paizo is at 8. At the rate the release books we MAY catch up to the point of 3.5 in about 32 more years. When that day comes I will personally drive to your home and hand you a piece of homemade cheesecake.
You don't need 40 books to hit the breaking point. And you honestly think Pathfinder will only release one book per year for the next 32 years? Really?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of the "cold or hot" debate.
If one person likes it hot, and another likes it cold, what is the best option?
Make it cold. The person who likes heat can put on a sweater, the person who likes cold cannot reduce their temperature as easily as one can increase it.
-----
Apply this to the books:
If you don't like lots of books, and I do, what's the best option? More books. Why? You can choose to ignore the new books, where as if no books are produced people in my position are screwed.
With more books, we both get what we want. With less books, only one side gets what they want.
Me personally I always like moar good books (moar - but under the shovelwear crap horizon). But that doesn't mean Aranna's point about how intimidating it can be to potential new gamers is wrong. Nor does it mean she's wrong about the inherent power-creep of moar options. But still nor does it mean I think they shouldn't publish new books (for one thing, the economics of gaming companies is "publish or perish"). And one thing that makes me reluctant to play a system is if support is dropped (where support inevitably means moar published materials).*
What it does mean is that life is full of tradeoffs and few goods are unqualified good.
*
Me personally I always like moar good books (moar - but under the shovelwear crap horizon). But that doesn't mean Aranna's point about how intimidating it can be to potential new gamers is wrong. Nor does it mean she's wrong about the inherent power-creep of moar options. But still nor does it mean I think they shouldn't publish new books (for one thing, the economics of gaming companies is "publish or perish"). And one thing that makes me reluctant to play a system is if support is dropped (where support inevitably means moar published materials).*
What it does mean is that life is full of tradeoffs and few goods are unqualified good.
*** spoiler omitted **
But if some new players saw all the books and then you go "Don't worry, most are optional, we only need 3" and they still said "It's too complicated" than the problem is ignorance on the player's part and should not be factored into decisions about product releases.
|
|
According to the wiki there are over 40 published 3.5 books not counting third party. Paizo is at 8. At the rate the release books we MAY catch up to the point of 3.5 in about 32 more years. When that day comes I will personally drive to your home and hand you a piece of homemade cheesecake.You don't need 40 books to hit the breaking point. And you honestly think Pathfinder will only release one book per year for the next 32 years? Really?
No. I expect them to release roughly a book and a half for the next 10 years TOPS before they move on to v2.0.
Just because your play group has soured your experience by all being a group of rule lawyers doesn't mean the rest of the world sucks. Stop spreading the Negative Nancy attitude all over...
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
That is speculation. I have heard players not be happy, even new ones, with the presented options. Players that don't want to build optimized characters don't have to. New books has nothing to do with driving people away. You can create characters of varying power with the core book alone, so you can't blame that on new books.
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
You don't need more than the core rulebook and the bestiary to play the game. It's even advertised as such.
I have yet to see true power creep in Pathfinder. Providing options to make concepts viable when they originally basically had to suck is not power creep ; it's providing versatility and encouraging originality in character builds.You are right that you don't NEED more than the core rulebook. But you are being disingenuous by pretending people won't see a library as vast as 3.5e to use one example and shy away from learning the system.
Sure more options do indeed allow more versatility and originality. But that is moot. My point was that they allow more optimization for power builds.
I also don't feel Pathfinder has hit the breaking point yet. But they will at some point.
You are making more assumptions. Most new people don't even know about all the books, and even so just because the books exist, that does not every group will own them or allow them. You make it sound like people feel obligated to learn or use every book in production. That is far from the truth. Even in 3.5 people did not feel the necessity to learn what was in every book.
edit:My issue with the 3.5 books, was not how many there were, but the fact that they often felt rushed. When a book cost 30.00 it should have more than 3 feats I want to use. In short the quality was often lacking because WoTC was forcing the writers to push books out of the door.
Not to mention that many options presented in new books are MORE roleplay/fluffy than in the core books.
Just look at some of the new racial feats in the ARG.
Born Alone (Orc racial feat that gives small amounts of temp HP when you drop a target. The flavour is that you ate all your litter mates in the womb, like a shark.) is an awesome flavour/RP feat but not the world's best mechanical feat.
The new traits in the ARG are no more powerful than the old ones, they just allow a little modification.
Ultimate Combat made a lot more weapon fighting styles viable, which is more flavour than mechanics. (As in the reason for wanting an odd fighting style is more flavour, despite that the feats are quite mechanically crunchy).
According to the wiki there are over 40 published 3.5 books not counting third party. Paizo is at 8. At the rate the release books we MAY catch up to the point of 3.5 in about 32 more years. When that day comes I will personally drive to your home and hand you a piece of homemade cheesecake.You don't need 40 books to hit the breaking point. And you honestly think Pathfinder will only release one book per year for the next 32 years? Really?
No. I expect them to release roughly a book and a half for the next 10 years TOPS before they move on to v2.0.
Just because your play group has soured your experience by all being a group of rule lawyers doesn't mean the rest of the world sucks. Stop spreading the Negative Nancy attitude all over...
Negative Nancy? Wow that's an expression my father would use.
I am not... am I?
It is not being negative to point out a trend that I have been concerned about since the ARG was announced. Wouldn't it be better to find a different path forward rather than relying on the "expand till the game collapses and then make a new edition and start over" pattern our parents pioneered? Surely there must be some other way to support a game company. Selling adventure paths is one such way for example. It gives us usable content without system bloat. And that I do give Paizo a TON of credit for.
I see no proof of this trend. I am not saying it does not happen with the people you meet, but the people I meet don't have that issue.
|
|
According to the wiki there are over 40 published 3.5 books not counting third party. Paizo is at 8. At the rate the release books we MAY catch up to the point of 3.5 in about 32 more years. When that day comes I will personally drive to your home and hand you a piece of homemade cheesecake.You don't need 40 books to hit the breaking point. And you honestly think Pathfinder will only release one book per year for the next 32 years? Really?
No. I expect them to release roughly a book and a half for the next 10 years TOPS before they move on to v2.0.
Just because your play group has soured your experience by all being a group of rule lawyers doesn't mean the rest of the world sucks. Stop spreading the Negative Nancy attitude all over...
Negative Nancy? Wow that's an expression my father would use.
I am not... am I?
It is not being negative to point out a trend that I have been concerned about since the ARG was announced. Wouldn't it be better to find a different path forward rather than relying on the "expand till the game collapses and then make a new edition and start over" pattern our parents pioneered? Surely there must be some other way to support a game company. Selling adventure paths is one such way for example. It gives us usable content without system bloat. And that I do give Paizo a TON of credit for.
So your concern is that Paizo, probably the most involved company in its gaming community, listened to the MANY requests and questions floating around in regards to custom races and making monster characters and then put out a book? You are right. Shame on Paizo for putting out a book that the COMMUNITY wanted. And when I say COMMUNITY I mean the thousands of us that make the majority not the few hundred that make the minority you stand in. Ultimately Paizo is a company that wants to make money. Yes they are gamers. Yes they were upset with the direction of 3.5 as well. They are a respected group of individuals by everyone here on the boards and the reason for that is the work and attention they put into each product they release. But the truth remains that they HAVE to release books or they will go out of business. Lucky for us they do this slowly, methodically and AFTER an open community play test. Are things going to get missed? Yes, thats part of being human. Are people going to twist words and manipulate systems? Yes, because those people are "powergamers". The developers have done a great job of crushing those twisted phrases. Go look up RAGELANCEPOUNCE and see how they squashed that build. Making a combat efficient character or a pimp social character is not "powergaming"...its playing the game how you want. If your GM can't handle a bizarre race then thats on your GM...not the player.
The last thing I would want is more APs.
I don't use them.
I've been a DM for 17 years. I grew out of using published stuff a long time ago and I create my own settings, adventures, etc.
Hence, more books with mechanical crunch is more options for me to include in my own setting.
The ARG allowed me to turn my elves into a race evolved from spiders.
It allowed me to make dwarves and gnomes more mechanically related so as to make them racial cousins.
I prefer mechanics over fluff as I have all the fluff I could ever need in my own brain.
I want mechanics to act as the skeletons I paint that fluff over.
The last thing I would want is more APs.
I don't use them.
I've been a DM for 17 years. I grew out of using published stuff a long time ago and I create my own settings, adventures, etc.
Hence, more books with mechanical crunch is more options for me to include in my own setting.
For a different perspective, and I am saying that BOTH of us are RIGHT for what we want from Pathfinder.
I want only APs. I have been DMing since about 1990, 1st edition, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5 and now PF. In that time, I can think of 3 times my guys did not use Core only. Once in 3.5(?) one took the Cleric of Pelor prestige class. Twice in PF, one did the Bear Shaman Druid (APG) and one did Battle Oracle (APG). In the 22 or so years, *everyone* else uses just Core, and I told them the splat books and others were available to be used.
I also royally stink at writing my own adventures or coming up with my own setting, and add to that a 50 hour a week job, and some volunteer work, so APs are what I want! Although I am retired now, so I may give adventure writing another try.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
Actually more crunch DOES hurt the game in the long run.
I will explain why. First the bigger and more bloated the system gets the less attractive it gets to new players. They simply don't want to invest in a small library of books when jumping into a new game. Next problem is power creep. Even a character creation system that has a tightly controlled balance gets more powerful with each book release. Simply put, the more options available to the player make it easier and easier to optimize. Couple that with the more powerful choices that appear in each newer book and you now have full on power creep. Why would power creep hurt a game? Because it drives away players who don't want to build optimized builds just to keep up. They stop buying books and then eventually they start looking into other games. So in conclusion adding more and more crunch keeps shrinking your player base and driving away new players. Eventually you end up with a very small but very loyal base... and most companies don't want the first part of that.
I agreed with everything you stated up to the bolded part.
This I disagree with completely (and of course all the following conclusions you draw from there).
Having to play "optimized builds" (in the "munchkin powergamer"'s sense I gather) is only necessary in a competitive environment where players are only looking for the greatest DPR orgasm.
In groups of normal players (as in normal human beings), this will never be an issue.
After all, any one player's idea of optimizing his fun will usually be very different (and thus compatible with) that of his neighbour at the playing table.
Yeah The Black Raven, I have a mixed table. One role player/optimizer, one pure optimizer, one pure role player, one newbie, and one casual gamer. I am more role player so in this mix I try to limit power gaming as best I can... this could change if the newbie ends up going more into the optimizer route. Then I will have to alter my style to better accommodate a heavier optimizer presence. But it leaves me sensitive to mixed style problems such as this. Obviously this wouldn't apply in a group that is purely optimizer or role player.
|
|
This reminds me of the "cold or hot" debate.
If one person likes it hot, and another likes it cold, what is the best option?
Make it cold. The person who likes heat can put on a sweater, the person who likes cold cannot reduce their temperature as easily as one can increase it.
-----Apply this to the books:
If you don't like lots of books, and I do, what's the best option? More books. Why? You can choose to ignore the new books, where as if no books are produced people in my position are screwed.
With more books, we both get what we want. With less books, only one side gets what they want.
I always refer that to the Handgun and Condom debate.
It's always better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
|
|
but theres a problem with that, if you choose not to allow all the books, the players feel let down, the newer books have more classes, more feats, more ability to crunch and master the system, saying "no" will get you labled as a "too controling" DM etc. but really what other alternative is there?
I also wonder, we have a magic item creation system, a race creation system, why dont we also have a feat, class, prestige and achtype creation system? why cant we boil the whole thing down to class points, etc, and turn PF into a point based system?
But the game actually promotes the use of DMs saying no to material that they don't want in their campaigns. The types of players who throw around that label have fallen into a bad habit of assuming that all books outside of the core are their for them to freely use and that's simply just not the case. You are free to use anything outside of core only with your DMs permission.
A DM should never have fear of being labeled something negative just because they say no. No player has the right to ever say that about a DM, if the DM is doing something that is obviously controlling is one thing but outside of that is just wrong.
What I'm more interested in is how to control those pesky Roleplayers.
We're easy, just tell us the Duke's having a garden party and inviting all the local nobles and wealthy merchants; the next five sessions will write themselves!
Ah But what wonderful enabling it would be!
Fun fun and more hijinks leading to fun. Sounds like my kind of game.
The core problem here, and I've discussed this with several other people, isn't the powergamers. The problem is that DnD/Pathfinder et all premiere combat as the main form of conflict.
This means that characters not optimized for combat are at a disadvantage because they can't utilize the system to its full potential. After all, they're not optimized for what the system itself focuses on.
To make this worse the multitude of fiddly bits in d20 derivatives all serve to increase the system mastery required to make a well functioning character.
This is not to say that these systems are BAD, after all I play several of them myself, just that they have some problems that I don't really see how they can be rectified without changing the system itself.
Let's give you an example. There is a swedish rpg system called Drakar och Demoner. Unlike DnD, DoD does not emphasize combat. DoD does not have character levels and character creation is a quite simple process. There are no feats though there are "special qualities" which are slightly similar. One of the main things that sets DoD and DnD apart is the attitude to the character classes.
A bard in DoD is a non-magical musician. What's his primary skill? Playing instruments. He even gets similar instrument skills to utilize. Weapon proficiency? Sure... But his main forte is playing instruments.
This wouldn't work in DnD because DnD is basically BUILT around combat.
(not saying that DoD is a better system than DnD, only that it premieres different things)
i had a crazy idea, let players be over powered.
if you make a dungeon and they walk through it like a forest glade, all the better.
let them get the action out of the way so they can role play.
now they have to solve problems swords, spells, and abilities wont solve but wit and skill. make them work to put those spells to use.
let them be gods among mortals.
as a dm since 1994, ive never had most of the issues that most rpgers have had on these forums. its not a brag or boast, its simply that i play a different game then most do. (at least what i think.)
ganryu brings up an excellent point, with combat almost out of the way players can now expand doing amazing things rather then grimy dungeon crawl things.
there was a time in 2004 was a player for dnd. and in this group we had 2 powergamers in a party of 4, my other friend was in a p*ssing contest with the other two and found frustration.
i had picked up a support class, and basically allowed the party to do what it needed to do now that i knew combat was in good hands.
i found my niche, the other player bowed out.
we found a more experienced player and used this as a chance to try out a class he never even thought of attempting.
in the end it all worked out for most of us.
kits in 3.0 were much better, <snipped>You meant 2.0, which brings us to:
but theres a problem with that, if you choose not to allow all the books, the players feel let down, the newer books have more classes, more feats, more ability to crunch and master the system, saying "no" will get you labled as a "too controling" DM etc. but really what other alternative is there?
That can be true, but, again, while I am a fan of 2.0 also, I think you're romanticizing it and forgetting just how broken some of the late-era 2.0 materiel was ("allow all the books") as well as how breakable at least one of the 2.0 Psionics books was ("we didn't allow psionics" violates the "allow all the books" thesis).
Power creep in 2.0 was at least as bad as 3.x, and arguably worse than PF (so far at least). For one thing, little or no control was exercised on transformation spells - for either friend or foe. (These seem, on the surface, less broken in the pre-3.x era, but only because power terms were less clearly defined), for another the "Player's Options" books virtually re-invented each class - and character abilities as a whole - in ways that were often a) OP and b) confusing when it came to interoperability with the base rules, and thus tended to be broken/powergamed.
I mean, sure, if you separate out one aspect of 2.0 and compare it to a selected aspect of 3.x (kits vs. feats), you can create a comparison that seems to favor 2.0. But, really, 1) there ended up being tons of kits in 2.0, 2) it wasn't always clear what some of them did, 3) some of them were broken compared to others, 3) a better comparison between 2.0 and PF is Kits vs. Archetypes; in PF, Archetypes fill the role that kits filled in 2.0.
I agree Archetypes are almost like a return to kits, but with fewer restrictions. Kits had lots of restrictions if I remember correctly.
This may have already been suggested in one of other hundreds of posts but I personally simply limit certain books.
As my group and I have gone along, whenever something becomes too powerful like the 3.0 Foresaker pretige class, or the vow of peace, vow of poverty monk, we vote on banning it after the campaign is done. And as I am the DM most of the time and can veto any votes, well...
When someone does make a power character though, there is nothing stopping the DM from amping up enemies. A Hill Giant's challenge rating doesn't change if you give him full plate mail and a +5 large tower shield with a huge +5 vorpal sword that he is monkey gripping in his hand. If the players intentionally go out of their way to make a DM's life difficult by using improved invisibity all the time, then I will do the same to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you were going to run a game and wanted to give players a set of directions and/or restrictions that would stop any character created from “greatly” unbalancing the game, at any time during his/her progression… what would those directions/restrictions be? Or, (If your not up to that challenge)… what is one direction/restriction you feel should be on that list?
Three points
1) On your q: one direction within PF? Take down the fantasy one whole notch. 15 point buy, take away the least narratively interesting but most powerful spells (particularly those that render some skills superfluous)--glitterdust, teleports, mass puking, fly, etc. Do not allow people to craft their own magic items and don't have a flourishing economy in a magic item trade--if there even is such an economy.
2) Hack on incentives--not xp--that incentivize the playstyle you're looking for. Hero points are an attempt at this--though only middling in efficacy.
3) The problems are too fundamental to the system--maximizing tactical and strategic advantages and use of resources is what the system rewards and turns on. I'd switch to a system that incentivizes the playstyle you're looking for (say Burnng Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, Houses of the Blooded etc.) where the mechanics directly reward and incentivize storytelling. In particular, look for a system that offers rewards for failure and has less voatile & luck-based mechanics for resolving social conflicts.