| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing pathfinder for several years on and off. Two of my biggest issues (and in fact many of my co-players as well) have been.
1. Power level of the players.
2. Complexity of rules.
Without going into a bunch of details that have been outlined in countless other threads the basic theme of Pathfinder is make the characters very powerful and hard to defeat. For some this is great, for others it makes the game lose a lot of the element of danger and fear and even respect of the players. My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters. Like I said, some like this others miss the fear players used to have in older games. Btw, this is just from the Core Rules, we haven't tried adding Mythic powers. I can't imagine why you would need them. My players already feel like gods on earth. And yes, I know you can find ways to challenge them (Please spare me the posts explaining how you do it as I already have my own ways that work), but the game system is arguably designed with player power baked in and at the forefront. And it only continues to grow and grow and grow with each new release.
D&D Next seems to be trying to find more of a balance by lowering the power level of the players from the start. This I really like and look forward to seeing how it develops. But everything I have read I like so far, like lower Armor Classes for the characters.
As for complexity, lets face it we have a zillion feats, spells, class powers, archetypes, monsters, monster templates, conditions, prestige classes, race abilities...heck we even have story feats. I am all for options but after several years I have only used Core, Bestiary 1, 2, some adventure path stuff and some background stuff. That's it and we still haven't scratched the surface. Creating an encounter for a higher level group takes time. It takes time to build out detailed NPCs. It takes time to build out unique monsters.
I don't know that D&D next is going to be able to fix this, however I have read that they are taking a more modular approach to the rules, maybe this will allow simplification I don't know. Honestly for this one, I don't know if there is an answer other than moving to a simpler system which in fact I am currently exploring.
I have enjoyed playing Pathfinder and likely will continue to do so, but I am looking for a game that brings back the danger element and if it can give me the ability to throw together encounters quickly with cool monsters and NPC's then awesome. D&D Next may turn out to be that system, so far I like the direction they are going in.
As a side note, I am also currently reading Castles and Crusades and it is very interesting merge of old school and new school. This will likely see some play time as well and see how it goes. I think my players will be stunned at the lack of mega weapons and powers but when the fear kicks in after seeing their friend go down from a simple goblin, it just might create a more vivid and memorable gaming experience.
I guess I could summarize Pathfinder as the Wal-Mart of RPG's for players. Its got anything and everything and its all cheap. I think me and my group want something smaller and more expensive. When the players get a new power or magic item it will be a big deal to them. I think it will mean more to them. We shall see, I will begin play testing in a couple weeks and will gladly share my findings.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you are experiencing the power creep that all published games go through over the years. I should say successful, published games. Unless it is a non-profit company, the name of the game is supplements, supplements, supplements! And with each one, they try to appeal to the munchkin out there that's looking for that all-powerful tweak that will put their character over the top.
I for one, loved most of the editions of D&D (Except 4 Ed., which seemed to be a straight money grab, IMO), but they all would eventually wander down the same power-gaming path. The worst being 2nd Ed. (I'm looking at you "brown books").
So, I think no matter how pure a game starts off being, creep will always show up eventually. If that company wants to continue to sell products, that is. I think that Paizo just cut out the middle man and beefed it up from the get go!
I treat all RPGs like a salad bar, take what you like, leave the rest.
-Strange Doc
If you begin playtest in a few weeks you will be under a more thorough NDA that would preclude your ability to post your findings here...
I believe we are going to try out C&C first.
You could always try the new Hackmaster if you want to see players struggling to make it to second level... There, you get a really big sense of achievement for every baby-step you make on your journey to becoming a hero.
Never heard of Hackmaster, will look into it. This is hard to explain but what I really want is a game that is easier to learn and play as a player and run as a GM, and a bit more deadly...I guess I will know it when I see it. I don't know if it exists, but <sigh> I can hope.
I think that Paizo just cut out the middle man and beefed it up from the get go!
I treat all RPGs like a salad bar, take what you like, leave the rest.
-Strange Doc
I think Paizo put too much power into the game initially, there is no point in buying many of the supplements as the players quickly ascend to weapons of mass destruction in the core! If the system starts off with a lower power level, then there is some room for the supplements. Unfortunately I think your munchkin comment is correct and Pathfinder is the happy home of the power gamer.
Yea!!!! Inflammatory title! That should guarantee that this stays a civil thread.
*goes to get popcorn so he can wait for the new edition war to start*
Inflammatory title? I don't think so, I am expressing my groups experience with Pathfinder and what I see D&D next doing to possibly address these issues. However, I don't know if they will completely address them. Again, I don't know if some of the issues "CAN EVER" be addressed completely by any game system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally hate the old school concept of having to ramp up difficulty just to sate some sort of old dm vs players mentality, thus I prefer players having a modicum of power and durability. That doesn't mean you can't challenge your players in some way though, but I don't see why losing always has to mean the death of a player character. There are often many more interesting injuries to inflict imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of getting off-topic here, I blame clerics.
the idea of a cleric class as a dedicated healer should take a back seat and everyone should be able to do some self healing, and with first aid, heal each other.
if viable healing were less "Divine" and we completely eschewed the "Arcane and Divine" Divide and made magic separated by discipline, we could have a variety of classes.
i'd also recommend removing spells of 7th level and higher, dropping full casters, and rewriting the existing full casters as rebalanced partial casters.
And I agree that PF could stand to see a "Thin Edition," a happy medium between the Beginner Box and the whole-hog game with its multitude of options. Sort of the "D&D Expert Rules" to the Beginner Box's "D&D Basic Rules". Say, about eight classes (each with the 'core type' and two of the better-balanced archetypes) tracked up to level 10 or so, the spells accessible at that level (0-5th), and a selection of traits... no rules changes (I'm tired of hitch-hiking down the New Edition Interstate), just an all-in-one book with a tighter focus, omission of some of the more esoteric rules, and a smaller mass.
This is what I would like to see as well. Something with some meat, but not a full on all you can eat buffet.
I personally hate the old school concept of having to ramp up difficulty just to sate some sort of old dm vs players mentality
The game should be a cooperative experience and most certainly should not be "dm vs players". But I think if things are a bit tougher and powers/magic items/buffs are more rare in the game it might improve the experience for the players. Defeat doesn't have to mean death, but when players experience defeat it can make victory so much more enjoyable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think the easier way of making PC's cautious and give them harder fights is to simply throw more or higher CR opponents at them, and ensure they don't get a 15 minute work day. I think you can do that with Pathfinder as is.
if one does a PF 2.0. i recommend dropping racial attribute and skill bonuses, and making the races more about "flavor perks".
minor fluff that isn't all about attributes
trolls with fast healing = con mod are fine
as are dwarves with darkvision
or humans with a bonus feat/background
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of getting off-topic here, I blame clerics.
I think there is more to it than this. Every game system has a certain "Feel" to it. Its psychological and it impacts everyone at the game table to one degree or another. Years ago when we played AD&D and Star Frontiers, there weren't as many options and everything that happened seem to really matter. Every new power was a big deal. Every new magic item. Every new skill and technology gain was a chance for the players to celebrate. And when they lost something it was almost traumatic for them, they really felt it because there was so much perceived "VALUE" in it. So much they invested in gaining it in the first place.
In pathfinder (and 3.5) its like a smorgasbord of power. I lose this item, so what...I have so much power in reserve I don't even use that its no big deal. It doesn't have the feel of value. The players seem to have the mindset of mortal gods and the expectation that they will always win. I don't want to kill off any players, but creating a sense of fear, respect and value is very difficult in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't find the danger level any different in PF than when I played 1st Edition AD&D back in the early 80s.
The key thing to applied then as they do now. Characters with too high of stats will be very powerful and not threatened. To much treasure leads to the monty haul style of power gaming. If you manage those two well the game function just fine with healthy sense of danger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think power level of the players is a problem. The only difference lowering player power does is that they'll find orcs challenging until level 5 instead of until level 3 (this example is random and thus probably innacurate). Big whoop. I get the feeling that the lack of danger comes from too much familiarity with the system. You know it through and through, and without a completely new system you wont have that feeling anymore, despite the breadth and complexity of the system.
But I do love the complexity. It's cool to be able to build a character that feels unique from a gameplay perspective (which is NOT the case in d&d next. Then again, that might just be because it's incomplete for the moment.). D&D next has some interesting ideas for combat, but it seems to be stripping away everything else. I feel like it forces each class into a specific notion of what the class should be, with very little deviation around that.
Still, I can understand a desire for simplicity, which is why the first game I'm going to try to DM is dungeon world. It's very simple combat-wise, and most of the rules relate more to actually developing a story and characters. Wont make up for bad storytelling, but at least the game wants to be more than a combat simulator. Magic items are RARE here though.
Edit: Something brought up after I posted (the whole "every power is important" thing) is notable. But again, people always want rewards. How do you think they should be rewarded? Because if they arent, they simply wont want to play. I get the feeling pathfinder is giving several smaller baubles instead of a few bigger ones.
Note: The NDA actually specifies you're allowed to discuss the game, as long as you dont distribute any of the playtest materials.
Note Due: I'm not fond of combat in PnP. Videogames do it better. If I play PnP, it's the rest that interests me. The people, the meetings, the world. Considering the difficulty to prepare a high level encounter, a DM can find that frustrating. I'm sorry.
Note TRES: I dont get the wal-mart comparison, but I see it more like a buffet. Not a cheap one, but not expensive either. Simpler games are like regular restaurant: when you order something, you get exactly that. But if it aint on the menu, you're out of luck.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally do not understand there is no danger in the game. I try not to play with the recommended part of four because I do not think four characters can survive.
In our last session of Serpent Skull - three 12th level characters died within seconds of each other and the other three fled the encounter.
In both my Serpent Skull and Carrion Crown groups there are only one original character still surviving. Some players have had three characters or more.
The whole idea that Pathfinder characters are unbeatable gods that cannot be stopped just does not make any sense at all to me.
I am not sure how your games go but I am thinking the problem is magic items more than the character power.
Once again, though, I've veered away from the topic. Darn it.
I think you are bulls eye on topic!
The whole idea that Pathfinder characters are unbeatable gods that cannot be stopped just does not make any sense at all to me.
I think there's a lot of optimizing going on in some groups. If that isnt the player style, the games become a lot harder. Then again, the adventure paths may be better made than what the amateur DM can do.
I don't find the danger level any different in PF than when I played 1st Edition AD&D back in the early 80s.
I don't want to argue with you but I respectfully disagree. If you take the four base classes and play through old AD&D module and take the same four base classes and play through a PF adventure path there is a difference in difficulty. Is that good? bad? I guess it depends. I would like to see perhaps a middle ground if possible.
Which is a direct result of the complexity and flexibility you love. It seems there's no way to give the players ways to make their characters mechanically different in meaningful ways without letting them have vastly different power levels.I think there's a lot of optimizing going on in some groups. If that isnt the player style, the games become a lot harder. Then again, the adventure paths may be better made than what the amateur DM can do.
The whole idea that Pathfinder characters are unbeatable gods that cannot be stopped just does not make any sense at all to me.
I understand that the flexibility is open to abuse. But I don't see anyone but jerks using it that way on purpose. If you monopolize attention by making characters that suck the fun out of the game for everyone else, it's the player's problem, not the system's. No game can account for jerks (unfortunately). I've been playing a magus for the last month (spellstrike is ripe for abuse) but I've been using it minimally, and concentrating on defending the others (it's an all-caster campaing). Abusing the game is a choice, not an accident.
Note TRES: I dont get the wal-mart comparison, but I see it more like a buffet. Not a cheap one, but not expensive either. Simpler games are like regular restaurant: when you order something, you get exactly that. But if it aint on the menu, you're out of luck.
I wish I could discuss all the points you made in your post as we could have a enjoyable discussion, however its not possible. I would like to say that I agree with your buffet comment (my take is that Wal-Mart is a shoppers buffet) and that is a problem. When you go to a buffet, none of the food is really that special. But when you go to a nice restaurant and you order one thing your expectation is that it should be great! This is a psychological issue with pathfinder. Its a buffet and nothing feels special.
In both my Serpent Skull and Carrion Crown groups there are only one original character still surviving. Some players have had three characters or more.
There are a lot of posts on this forum that outline how easy the adventure paths are. Again, not saying this is bad, or good. My group walked through Serpents Skull #1 like a hot knife through warm butter...using RAW and minimal house rules. But again, its more about how the game offers so many buffs to the players early on. They take on this mentality of "Oh, I must be really special in this make believe world". Players only have the real world to compare their RPG experience to, and pathfinder players instantly see the comparison as "HOLY MOLY, I have some awesome powers. I must be a GOD!". Its psychological.
Note TRES: I dont get the wal-mart comparison, but I see it more like a buffet. Not a cheap one, but not expensive either. Simpler games are like regular restaurant: when you order something, you get exactly that. But if it aint on the menu, you're out of luck.I wish I could discuss all the points you made in your post as we could have a enjoyable discussion, however its not possible. I would like to say that I agree with your buffet comment (my take is that Wal-Mart is a shoppers buffet) and that is a problem. When you go to a buffet, none of the food is really that special. But when you go to a nice restaurant and you order one thing your expectation is that it should be great! This is a psychological issue with pathfinder. Its a buffet and nothing feels special.
Well, if you're interested in having a discussion, PM me so we can skype. I have been rather more aggressive in my statements than I am normally, and if I offended you, I'm sorry. I'm the type that would probably enjoy a class-less system best. You pick and choose what you want. To me, it's not the individual elements that are special, it's the combination. When the choices are made for me I dont feel quite as invested in my characters. Although I will admit that's secondary to good role playing. It seems we both have very different expectations from our characters (me personalisation, you clarity of purpose). I wonder how hard it would be for us to play together.
Edit: also, I will admit I play these games to feel more powerful/important/consequential than in the real world. If it was the same, I wouldnt feel any desire to play. I already have a real life. I dont want to be as powerless as i am there. Then again, you're talking about combat power. As I said before, you (and your players) know the game too well. Shem's group doesnt. Your hot butter is their brick wall. You need a new system to break your teeth on more than anything else.
Well, if you're interested in having a discussion, PM me so we can skype. I have been rather more aggressive in my statements than I am normally, and if I offended you, I'm sorry. I'm the type that would probably enjoy a class-less system best. You pick and choose what you want. To me, it's not the individual elements that are special, it's the combination. When the choices are made for me I dont feel quite as invested in my characters. Although I will admit that's secondary to good role playing. It seems we both have very different expectations from our characters (me personalisation, you clarity of purpose). I wonder how hard it would be for us to play together.
No worries! :-) I have played GURPS and had great games with no classes. But I do like pathfinder and classes also. I would really like to see a more tiered approach. Work your way up slower and more methodically in the power curve regardless of using classes or non-classes. And, I would hope we could play together in a game and have a great time!!
Well, if you're interested in having a discussion, PM me so we can skype. I have been rather more aggressive in my statements than I am normally, and if I offended you, I'm sorry. I'm the type that would probably enjoy a class-less system best. You pick and choose what you want. To me, it's not the individual elements that are special, it's the combination. When the choices are made for me I dont feel quite as invested in my characters. Although I will admit that's secondary to good role playing. It seems we both have very different expectations from our characters (me personalisation, you clarity of purpose). I wonder how hard it would be for us to play together.No worries! :-) I have played GURPS and had great games with no classes. But I do like pathfinder and classes also. I would really like to see a more tiered approach. Work your way up slower and more methodically in the power curve regardless of using classes or non-classes. And, I would hope we could play together in a game and have a great time!!
Well, if you're interested, look me up on app.roll20.net sometimes. I'm William D. From what I've heard though d&d 4e does the whole progression thing very well. I havent played, but it does use a tiered system (Heroic-prestige-epic) that apparently makes DM-ing a lot easier (although, less specialisation. More than D&D next, but less than pathfinder). From the "reviews" I've read is that 4e gives you the impression of being heroic without making you overpowered. You can always do cool stuff, but it's a lot harder to utterly dominate. I've been wanting to play for a while, but no luck...
I disagree on the power level. A lot of Pathfinder is just tools that need to be used properly by the GM. They outline ways you can make weaker PCs and more challenging encounters. It's just up to the GM to make it challenging.
Pathfinder is a box of tools (and fiction literature) that can be used in a myriad of ways. While there is certainly some fiddly bits, I think that game works great as long as the GM puts some effort into using these tools.
Next and 4e are less of tool kits and more like a board game (I'm speaking in hyperbole here). It's less flexible, and I see that as a problem. Id' rather PF stay on its own course and not follow in WotC's footsteps. There is room in the world for both approaches.
Well, if you're interested, look me up on app.roll20.net sometimes.
Will do! Not sure that I want to play 4e as I don't like the feel of that game, but I have never played it only read the rules and it didn't click with me. But I am open to trying any game at least once :-)
There is room in the world for both approaches.
I agree completely. However it would be great if pathfinder did a version similar to basic D&D with a much more moderate power level. Basic Pathfinder(More than the Beginners Box) and Advanced Pathfinder? One can only dream :-)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone thinks modular D&DN is going to solve the "powergamer" issue and simplify things. Back when me and my brother got the red box we immediately improvised our way to powergaming. On the other hand I've run PLENTY of life-threatening games of PF.
This game has been modular since Gygax and Arneson said "Hey, y'know what'd be great..."
The whole idea has always been, at the core, taking somebody else's rules and making them what YOU want. Original D&D was born when some wargamers said "I don't like re-enactments...but some of the rules are ok." Back then there wasn't even a setting; our forefathers wanted us making it up as we went along.
Then the bills came and TSR said: "Hmm... this has been fun, but how do we get paid?" Since then there's been revisions, editions, spin-offs and such. Each new one espouses to clean up what came before; each has been replaced.
In AD&D, IF you survived to 11th level anything... you were a power-mad tyrant. Now in PF if you survive to about 7th, you can pull off the same thing. That you get the power faster has never been a problem, but players having that kind of power at ALL is an issue. So there have been stats for gods, demons, the Tarrasque, and ALL manner of murder-bots who'd like nothing more than to shred some paper.
IMO PF is no more power-mad than AD&D circa 1983, or 2e about 87, or 3.0/3.5 about 2005. Its also JUST as modular, in that if you don't like a rule, skip/modify/tinker with it.
But what PF DOES do, for me, is it rewards consistency and strives for balance. It might not balance out at the right level for some, but for me it provides a stable platform from which I can tinker to my heart's content without having to re-write the whole thing.
D&DN can go modular, start small, and eventually end up in the same place as all the other editions. It may even do the same thing I feel PF has done for me. But I've already PAID for PF. More importantly, Paizo has never run a con I loved one year like a fun event and the very next year like a sales meeting; Paizo has never flat-out ignored my opinions given both in an open forum and a private letter.
Paizo started the way D&D did, as a bunch of guys who thought they had a better way. They need to make money, sure and they are. But there's a way to market and sell a product while still serving your customer's needs, and then there's DRAGONS who sit on their hoards and crave only more. Remind me, WHAT kind of monster guards the entry to WOTC's corporate office?
... I'm sorry to rant. D&D got me started in RPing and for that I'll always be grateful. But when I finally wanted to move out of the basement and be treated like a grown up, Paizo was there and so was their game. Just as I'll always Make Mine Marvel, so too will I strive to support Pathfinder and it's many 3PP partners.
I understand that the flexibility is open to abuse. But I don't see anyone but jerks using it that way on purpose. If you monopolize attention by making characters that suck the fun out of the game for everyone else, it's the player's problem, not the system's. No game can account for jerks (unfortunately). I've been playing a magus for the last month (spellstrike is ripe for abuse) but I've been using it minimally, and concentrating on defending the others (it's an all-caster campaing). Abusing the game is a choice, not an accident.Which is a direct result of the complexity and flexibility you love. It seems there's no way to give the players ways to make their characters mechanically different in meaningful ways without letting them have vastly different power levels.I think there's a lot of optimizing going on in some groups. If that isnt the player style, the games become a lot harder. Then again, the adventure paths may be better made than what the amateur DM can do.
The whole idea that Pathfinder characters are unbeatable gods that cannot be stopped just does not make any sense at all to me.
Well, we're not talking here about a player building a character that sucks the fun out of the game, but some groups finding it too easy and some finding it very hard.
If your whole group tends to optimize builds and tactics, you're going to find the same encounters a lot easier than another group that's more casual - or less skilled.
Edit:1st (& early 2nd) edition avoided this by limiting the flexibility. Other than random stats, there wasn't much difference between one fighter and another mechanically.
I'd tend to say that's the GM's job to adapt for the group he's playing. And in relation to your edit, I dislike having to have mechanically equivalent characters if they're the same class. That doesnt resolve the difference between the experienced player (who will still blow everything away) and the less experienced one. The guy who knows more will still have an easier time.
Still, I have a fondness for d&d 2e. I played through the Baldur's gate series, and planescape torment and quite enjoyed it. The main thing I noticed was the flavor of a lot of the items. You didnt get a belt of giant strength (+6), but a belt of the FIRE GIANT (25 strength). More entertaining than just generic stuff. I'll admit to being frustrated that magical items are so generic. I think I'll want to do a magic item-less (almost) campaign one day. I'll still allow item crafting, but it would always be more significant. You want a belt of dexterity? Okay, then you've got to kill a wind elemental and bind it's soul to the belt to get it's power. I want players to really EARN their items, rather than treat them as baubles.
Edit: also: no more "+1" items. You should be able to get items equivalent to a plus one, but finding a "+1" sword does so much to break suspension of disbelief...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when I finally wanted to move out of the basement and be treated like a grown up, Paizo was there and so was their game. Just as I'll always Make Mine Marvel, so too will I strive to support Pathfinder and it's many 3PP partners.
One of the things that I love about paizo is their active interaction with their customers and fan base. If you are happy with their direction then great. I'm not 100% happy and have found issues in our ongoing games and I hope paizo listens and finds a way to meet my groups needs. If not then so be it. I can only communicate and see if anyone listens.
One thing I dislike about D&D (3.x especially) isn't so much the power level, but how quickly it scales up with level.
It's the rapid growth, the zero to hero to demigod in a few months of play that bothers me. My concept, my vision for a character probably doesn't fit at all those power levels and the pace is just too frantic.
I really do tend to prefer a game that picks a power level and then allows slow growth from there.
I agree, you don't want to start out feeling like williamoak stated as being a normal day to day person since we all play these games for a degree of "escapism". We can start out with some basic powers and then really work to grow them. Earn them. Make it feel like each new power/item was really worked for to get. Make them feel special and unique for each player. Currently it doesn't feel like this so much, the mentality is more like it's deserved and part and parcel of the game system. Its a shopping experience for the players instead of a role playing experience. I am still trying to work out how to properly put it into words. If pathfinder was a slower progression of power for my group it would be a more enjoyable experience.
It's the rapid growth, the zero to hero to demigod in a few months of play that bothers me. My concept, my vision for a character probably doesn't fit at all those power levels and the pace is just too frantic....
Slowing it down with slow experience track doesn't really solve it either. I like getting stuff and improving my character. Just in smaller bits. A proposal I saw awhile back for splitting levels in 3 parts and handing them out separately might work.
I enjoy fast power growth, mainly because I cant play often. If I had to wait a year to gain a couple of levels (as it was in 2e, from what others have told me) I could feel like there's no growth. Then again, with good RP, slow growth can work. The thing that's needed is to de-emphasize combat. Maybe a concurrent "social exp" track, that would include all non combat items? (More complexity is not necessarily good tough)
The splitting level in 3 parts though I dont see as fundamentally different from just slowing down growth. You're still going to have to give something at each level, and some classes already count themselves lucky to get one thing per level. So either the leveling is pointless (cause it gives nothing) or it's very similar to what we already have.
Note: Maybe an option to make growth so gradual would be to make everyone start at 10 in all stats, with only the racial modifier. However, you would allow a +1 to a stat at each level. It would allow a distinct feeling of passing from zero to hero. Though it would take some scaling. (note: this is similar to how dragon age and 4e works, although you do have a high base power level). If you could include a +2 at the levels you would normally, at the end you wuold have better stats.
I enjoy fast power growth, mainly because I cant play often. If I had to wait a year to gain a couple of levels (as it was in 2e, from what others have told me) I could feel like there's no growth. Then again, with good RP, slow growth can work. The thing that's needed is to de-emphasize combat. Maybe a concurrent "social exp" track, that would include all non combat items? (More complexity is not necessarily good tough)
I agree that you might think its disappointing to play in that type of game since you don't get to play as often, but try it with a good GM and story and see how it works before you discount it. Every tier will become more valuable to you. As for de-emphasizing combat, I disagree, since we all at heart want to slay the monsters and take their treasure. But if each battle is a serious life threatening battle, then that alone will de-emphasize it to a certain degree (so your point is valid!). More options will be discussed by the group such as stealth and negotiations. Again, I don't know what the answer is I just know that pathfinder is a power gamers dream and we are getting burned out on it. We want more and I don't know how to get there.
I agree that you might think its disappointing to play in that type of game since you don't get to play as often, but try it with a good GM and story and see how it works before you discount it. Every tier will become more valuable to you. As for de-emphasizing combat, I disagree, since we all at heart want to slay the monsters and take their treasure. But if each battle is a serious life threatening battle, then that alone will de-emphasize it to a certain degree (so your point is valid!). More options will be discussed by the group such as stealth and negotiations. Again, I don't know what the answer is I just know that pathfinder is a power gamers dream and we are getting burned out on it. We want more and I don't know how to get there.
To get more, I would recomend Dungeon world. It's an excellent balance between RP and combat, and they seem to be in the same mindset as you of "we still want to slay the monster". It's a barebones system though.
As for the combat, my 2 GMs have been fairly combat oriented. Not very challenging, unfortunately. I guess killing monsters isnt very thrilling for me anymore. In Baldur's Gate 2, I killed almost every color of dragon. I killed demigods. You could become a god. And I did feel that tension. I did feel that fear (though probably less than you, since I could reload).
I'm at the point where I'd much rather trick a king, or build a cool demiplane fortress, or explore the vast wilderness. Videogames already fulfill my monster killing fix, and the thing that brought me to PnP in the first place was that it could be SO much more. In a recent game, you knwo what we did? We SUBDUED a group of bandits. Not kill, subdue. You dont get that choice in videogames. I want that more than gold and trinkets.
But I can understand the appeal. If I had found this as a teen, it would have been my obsession. A proper story can make up for a lot. But I've only been able to play through roll20, and I guess it's harder for GMs to transmit their performance that way. I'm hoping to do some RL games soon, so I'll see how it goes. Curse my social isolation from PnP nerds. I'm surrounded by nerds, but none of them are PnP nerds.
If you begin playtest in a few weeks you will be under a more thorough NDA that would preclude your ability to post your findings here...I believe we are going to try out C&C first.
Based on your comments above, I think you would really enjoy C&C. I love the system, myself. Check out Kobold Quarterly #22 for some Journeys to the West (Midgard) monsters I converted to C&C.