No, I haven't. Really.
I believe I recently surprised a fellow poster by revealing this fact, so I thought I'd start a friendly thread about it. If you're posting here, you probably play PF; but I know I can't be the only one. So, do you play PF?
I rolled up a 1st level PC with Freehold DM once, but never got to play before moving away. Since then, I've met and known gamers who play PF. But either they weren't GMing it or they lived too far away. As for myself, I've never been lucky enough to have a surplus of gaming time so I always GM my one game of choice. But I'm back in NYC, so I'm hoping to meet up with Freehold and Celestial Healer some weekend, and actually try PF!
DISCLAIMER: Yeah, this thread is probably gonna be a PF love-in. But I don't want no edition warring! No subtle jabs about PF, 3.x, 4e or nobody's momma. Not even a HINT of it!
Offenders will be prosecuted under the full extent of the law.
I miss going to cons...hate being a broke student! I hear PFS is well organized and fun; has this been your experience?
(I've actually never played any organized/living game.)
@AoB, DMing absolutely counts. Do you run homebrew or published adventures?
I played one PFS game, in person. Other than that, I haven't had a chance to play it in person. I am however, in about 10 PBPs.
I am thinking of DMing Rise of the Runelords for my sister et al, but we need to get a game time going.
Well, ok, ok, I admit it... I never played Pathfinder! Happy?
I've got the core rulebook, the advanced player guide, the advanced race guide, ultimate combat, the GM screen, and all 3 bestiaries.
But I've never played Pathfinder either.
Maybe when my son gets old enough to read.
|
I tried to introduce a couple of gamers to Pathfinder who only ever played some house-rule-heavy mash-up of 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D. They were brothers and one of them fought me from the start, saying the rules were stupid and would be so much better if blahbity blah blah whatever, but I finally got him to finish his character so we could play.
I decided to tack on a quick fight with three simple, ordinary rats at the beginning of the adventure as a tutorial and the problem player makes what would have been his first Pathfinder roll ever, but his d20 rolled off the table and onto the shag carpet. He then picked up his die and smugly declared, "Natural 20!" It seems every game I've ever played in or ran had the same simple rule that the roll doesn't count if it goes on the floor and I reminded the players of this before we started, so I asked the guy to reroll the die on the table. Dude completely flipped his poop and swept his dice off the table after accusing me of calling him a cheater. Then he complained about the rules of the game some more before calling me an a**h*** and saying he wasn't going to play by my BS rules.
As far as I know, that guy has still never played Pathfinder and, for that, I am thankful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started out playing 3.5e, and reccomend it over Pathfinder myself.
Despite this personal preference, I am currently the DM of a Kingmaker campaign.
I have yet to play or run PRPG outside of the Beta playtest. My group that will eventually transition to Pathfinder has been mired (joyously) in adventure paths for years now. We're halfway through RotRL, and I plan to run the AP's in order. Now that we won't have to slog through the high level stuff like Age of Worms and Savage Tide had, we might start PFRPG in about 4-5 years.
We converted the 3.x campaign I was running in 2008 or so to Pathfinder shortly after the final core rulebook was released, and I've been playing it ever since (and personally, I think I'd rather eat my own toenails than go back to 3.x at this point).
I consider "playing Pathfinder" to include both playing a character and GMing it, but I've done both; currently I am a player in two live campaigns and one PBP.
We converted the 3.x campaign I was running in 2008 or so to Pathfinder shortly after the final core rulebook was released, and I've been playing it ever since (and personally, I think I'd rather eat my own toenails than go back to 3.x at this point).
I consider "playing Pathfinder" to include both playing a character and GMing it, but I've done both; currently I am a player in two live campaigns and one PBP.
Personally, I tried to switch up to Pathfinder around Beta and past the release of the CRB, but I strongly prefer 3.5e. Kudos to those who enjoy Pathfinder, but I consider it a side-grade at best(for everything they "fixed," something else broke), and simply prefer to go with the edition I know the best, and have the most material for.
I just regret that I'm the only one who feels this way amongst my gaming groups. Everybody I game with has either moved completely on to Pathfinder, with no 3.5 materials allowed, or they've moved on to different games and genres entirely. My huge 3.5e collection just gathers dust now. So much for backwards compatibility.
I've actually never played any organized/living game.Me either... I end up feeling like the groups of players that wind up in my FLGS wanting to play are the exact types of players that I can't stand to play with.
Yep, I've heard so many horror stories about organized play that the few times I've gone to a con, I stuck with independent DMs. Never had a FLGS.
Homebrew I do every week, and have done for about a full year straight now... though that was one campaign that imploded because of players doing weird things and the consequences piling up until they couldn't figure out what to do, and another campaign that is really only just starting despite us playing it every week for the last 4 months.
Can you elaborate...?
I just regret that I'm the only one who feels this way amongst my gaming groups. Everybody I game with has either moved completely on to Pathfinder, with no 3.5 materials allowed, or they've moved on to different games and genres entirely. My huge 3.5e collection just gathers dust now. So much for backwards compatibility.
I know how you feel. I never got to use 90% of my sizable 3.x collection. :( I hope that if I ever do play PF, my DM will be willing to put a little time into conversions (or trust me to convert) if I wanted to finally use something that wasn't carried over into PF.
I tried to introduce a couple of gamers to Pathfinder who only ever played some house-rule-heavy mash-up of 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D. They were brothers and one of them fought me from the start, saying the rules were stupid and would be so much better if blahbity blah blah whatever...
I think the appropriate response to this behavior is "Are you willing and able to run this game? No? Then I suggest you relax and just roll with this." But hindsight is 20/20, right? ;)
Despite this personal preference, I am currently the DM of a Kingmaker campaign.
No slack for the DM, eh?
I started playing Pathfinder in 1976.
...?
I've never played it; I'm an AD&D 1E guy. I do like Paizo and these boards, though. And porting stuff (spells. items, monsters) to my system is easy enough. Adventures are a little harder, but still workable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, do you play PF?
Nope. We stick with 3.5 (which we prefer).
|
|
I think the appropriate response to this behavior is "Are you willing and able to run this game? No? Then I suggest you relax and just roll with this." But hindsight is 20/20, right? ;)
I think that would have set him off earlier than the die-rolling thing. Dude seemed completely threatened by the presence of anything new or different. I got the impression he usually ran their game and made heavy use of uber-powerful DMPCs, probably as a means of compensating for the fact he was a single, overweight, unemployed man in his mid-30s, still living with his parents and sharing a room with his brother. His brother was far more gracious and even apologized while I packed up my books to go home.
I've never played it; I'm an AD&D 1E guy. I do like Paizo and these boards, though. And porting stuff (spells. items, monsters) to my system is easy enough. Adventures are a little harder, but still workable.
Another edition I've never played -- I didn't start playing until the 2e AD&D era.
We just called it by a different name then, but it was Pathfinder, in spirit in every way. ;)
I'm still confused. Are you saying that the Paizo team unknowingly cribbed Golarion from your group...?
I think the appropriate response to this behavior is "Are you willing and able to run this game? No? Then I suggest you relax and just roll with this." But hindsight is 20/20, right? ;)I think that would have set him off earlier than the die-rolling thing.
I'm not seeing a downside. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We just called it by a different name then, but it was Pathfinder, in spirit in every way. ;)I'm still confused. Are you saying that the Paizo team unknowingly cribbed Golarion from your group...?
Funny, I've played oodles of Pathfinder and yet only one out of several campaigns is set in Golarion. (And my personal preference is in fact not to play in Golarion.)
I suspect you wanted to ask, "What, you never played Pathfinder Society Adventure Paths before?", instead of "What, never played Pathfinder before?",
because the difference is significant.
Oh gods yes. I thought he was asking if we played PFRPG. It's the difference between asking "do you play D&D" and "do you play in the Forgotten Realms?" only even more specific.
The only adventure paths I've played have been in PBP, where all but one was aborted early on by the GM punking out. And the one that's kept going is one where the GM converted it to his homebrew setting, so it doesn't take place in Golarion.
I suspect you wanted to ask, "What, you never played Pathfinder Society Adventure Paths before?", instead of "What, never played Pathfinder before?",
because the difference is significant.
No, I think he just doesn't get your "spirit of Pathfinder" comment. Frankly I don't follow either.
Gotcha.
It's admittedly a bit confusing when the purpose of the thread was "who here does not actually use the Pathfinder ruleset?".
To clarify, I'm just asking whether folks have/do play PFRPG.
Funny, I've played oodles of Pathfinder and yet only one out of several campaigns is set in Golarion. (And my personal preference is in fact not to play in Golarion.)
We just called it by a different name then, but it was Pathfinder, in spirit in every way. ;)I'm still confused. Are you saying that the Paizo team unknowingly cribbed Golarion from your group...?
I don't have much preference for one setting or another as a player, but as a DM I definitely favor my home brew. :)
The rules found in the Core Rule Book, called Pathfinder, to me, are closer in spirit and experience of play to the game I have been playing since I was 12 years old, than the current version of a game called Dungeons and Dragons, as marketed by the game and toy company, Hasbro.
Oh so you're basically saying "PF feels like the D&D I grew up with." Fair enough. I myself don't think any edition "feels" more like D&D than the others, but PF is one of them in all but name. And only lawyers care about names, so game on dude.
I don't have much preference for one setting or another as a player, but as a DM I definitely favor my home brew. :)Funny, I've played oodles of Pathfinder and yet only one out of several campaigns is set in Golarion. (And my personal preference is in fact not to play in Golarion.)
We just called it by a different name then, but it was Pathfinder, in spirit in every way. ;)I'm still confused. Are you saying that the Paizo team unknowingly cribbed Golarion from your group...?
Same. I've never actually played in Golarion. A couple of games in FR, a couple in Greyhawk, one in Dragonlance, and from then on a bunch in my or one of my players' homebrews.
Could I have a copy of that conversion?
I prefer not to play Pathfinder, but it's my groups game of choice. I would rather play Rolemaster Classic, GURPS or WHFRP 2nd Ed but my group prefers D&D and Pathfinder is their favourite.
I usually GM Pathfinder, yet play it on rare occasion.
I've been playing RPG games since 1981, the full list of what games I have played or GMed would be quite long.
Started playing D&D 3.5 in 2006 when a friend talked me into sitting down and playing with him. Was a player for about a year before me and my then-girlfriend-now-wife started switching off DMing. Been playing Pathfinder since August 2009, when I lucked out and found a copy of the CRB at Half Price Books. Guess somebody got it and wasn't impressed. I've been our primary GM for coming up on 3 years.
No, I haven't. Really.
I believe I recently surprised a fellow poster by revealing this fact, so I thought I'd start a friendly thread about it. If you're posting here, you probably play PF; but I know I can't be the only one. So, do you play PF?
I rolled up a 1st level PC with Freehold DM once, but never got to play before moving away. Since then, I've met and known gamers who play PF. But either they weren't GMing it or they lived too far away. As for myself, I've never been lucky enough to have a surplus of gaming time so I always GM my one game of choice. But I'm back in NYC, so I'm hoping to meet up with Freehold and Celestial Healer some weekend, and actually try PF!
DISCLAIMER: Yeah, this thread is probably gonna be a PF love-in. But I don't want no edition warring! No subtle jabs about PF, 3.x, 4e or nobody's momma. Not even a HINT of it!
Offenders will be prosecuted under the full extent of the law.
To be fair, it is not that good.
Plenty of other really good systems out there, with far less crunch and a shorter time to learn the rules.
Far less crunch is not really a good selling point. I hate rules light systems.
I love a well defined ruleset with rules for pretty much every occurence, or that can beceasily adapted.
Pathinder is that.
Less crunch is not sustainable for long term games... There are two problems with games with less crunch... Not enough reward and the game becomes a grind or too much reward and it becomes a farce.
Low crunch games are great but don't expect to have a one or two year campaign with them. The lack of consistency where it comes to a GM having to improvise when players start doing things outside the rules will sink a campaign.
Lol, *shakes head*.
Was AD&D not sustainable long term? It is still played.
All Flesh Must Be Eaten. Also with a simple ruleset, and it still sells and you can find games. It even has quite a lot of expansions and add-ons, but what is this? The rules remain simple and easy to grasp? Damn, what heroes those game designers were.
My current rules light games, going pretty long term across multiple worlds and settings. "but don't expect to have a one or two year campaign with them." I am past year two and closing on finishing year three, thanks. Wrong again.
Rewards, they aren't about crunch and rewards aren't dependent on highly complex builds. If the core mechanics are simple, but you want to throw in a lot of magic items (say running an Aladdin setting game with Flesh), gen up a large magic item list, that have plenty of flavour and magical effects, but keep the mechanics simple and comprehensible. You don't need a heavy crunch system to reward or grant cool stuff to players. Rewarding them in non-mechanical ways (land, titles, acclaim, npc interest) doesn't require crunch in any way shape or form.
"The lack of consistency where it comes to a GM having to improvise when players start doing things outside the rules will sink a campaign."
Also incorrect, but I can see where you are coming from with this assumption. However, the trick is to get a system or make one that is robust and allows a lot, but it is the type of system that doesn't require feats to do cool things. You want to avoid feat taxes but reward ingenuity. Make skills useful for many different actions (simplify the skill list if you will). If something keeps coming up, make a ruling and stick by it and add it to the main rules. There, you have now navigated this problem you claimed sinks a campaign. Game on.
Far less crunch is not really a good selling point. I hate rules light systems.
I love a well defined ruleset with rules for pretty much every occurence, or that can beceasily adapted.
Pathinder is that.
Try conceiving of this. You can simplify the rules, chop many of the numbers away, stick with opposed dice for resolutions, make combat faster and less clunky and remove the restrictions on what you can do by throwing out the entire feat system. Feats allow builds, but pose immense limitations on what you can declare to do (that old feat tax). Rather than dozens of manoeuvre feats, you could have a stat and/or specific die resolve any manoeuvre check you feel like making.
The magic system could also be slimmed down into powers/elements and strength (strength scaling with power and experience) with rp and your choices determining how you use those powers you have. Now you have got rid of all those little fussy spells and so much book-keeping with a few choices.
There are better, smoother, less crunchy ways. Especially if you want games with low downtime, less hassles and less things to keep track of during play. If you want to bash monsters and raid tombs, you can keep the numbers simple, small and brilliantly quick to use with the right mechanics (opposed dice rolls with low mods resolves things quick).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've never played, only been a DM...
When I want that, I play Dungeon World. I don't need to mangle an already robust game to do so.
You see mangling, I see developing and streamlining.
Let me put it like so. Are the giant modifiers to hit, damage or skill checks necessary? Those big sums we spend time adding up, are they a requirement?
You can clean house and simplify complex games in a variety of ways, but removing the weighty troublesome mods is one of the best parts of simpler game development. Different dice can be used for attacks that vary in power without the addition trains assembled on to the end. The most shocking thing in dealing with this is to encounter systems where attack and damage are the same roll! No longer do you have to worry about hitting brilliantly for minimum damage. Attack and damage in one roll, now those speed up combat considerably, and if you want a duelling/swashbuckling game, there are better ways that dnds slow rounds, with many dice, rolling to hit, rolling to damage, adding everything up and finally finding out what happened.
Of course I am preaching to a different choir here, but I would like to encourage you to check out games like All Flesh and anything which is less clunky and slow.
All the dms I know personally, including myself, have been annoyed at the chunky arithmetic of high level pf play. Chunks of time get lost.
Course, we are a group of dms that have a lot of experience with rpg systems on the side of dnd with cleaner quicker mechanics.
You guys are talking about crunch, how many have played games like Champions or Rolemaster. Though I played the latter for only a few weeks, I played Champions for about 10 years. All or most of the friends in my group have played Champions so when it comes to math issues in Pathfinder we just don't see it. There are other games like GURPS and BESM, but I remember Champions vs Pathfinder the easiest.