Want slow growth? Don't hand out xp, level the characters when you want. Bam...slow growth. There's also 3 speeds to the xp chart. If you're talking about the powers handed out at every level, take out odd level feats.
There's ways to do it. The game keeps it simple enough to pull it off seamlessly. If power isn't your thing, just power down.
Even the CORE rules can be mod'd. Think of PF like the Matrix: it's a system based on rules. Some of these rules can be bent; others can be broken.
Does this mean that you can dodge bullets?
No. When you're ready... you won't have to.
Want slow growth? Don't hand out xp, level the characters when you want. Bam...slow growth.
Actually, I was thinking that would be a good pratice. Only give levels once the players have done something cool/significant/ plot-important. Has anybody ever tried this? I would very much like to work this way, but I dont know if people would wine. One of my DMs is vaguely like that, and it feels almost identical to the one who gives XP.
It's quite common, particularly when running the APs (since they provide pretty clear guidelines as to what levels the PCs should be at various points).
If you care about WBL, dont forget to adjust the loot you're giving out to match your levelling rate.
I'm not interested in a character born more of dice than decisions. It's not my character. It's the dice's character. If PF went full skill based I'd play boring characters. I'm not someone who can casually put together an interesting character concept without framework or inspiration.
I can understand this sentiment. You've expressed why I like pathfinder better than I ever could.
You also expressed an issue I've had with class-less systems (in videogames at least) in that none of the "lego pieces" felt unique.
Edit: what thejeff said about ideas not working is unfortunately also true. To many PrCs and Archetypes sound cool, but dont do what they say (I did a thread about that recently). But I'd rather have the option than be stuck with no choices.
Want slow growth? Don't hand out xp, level the characters when you want. Bam...slow growth.Actually, I was thinking that would be a good pratice. Only give levels once the players have done something cool/significant/ plot-important. Has anybody ever tried this? I would very much like to work this way, but I dont know if people would wine. One of my DMs is vaguely like that, and it feels almost identical to the one who gives XP.
I don't currently hand out xp to my players, but I do more or less follow the slow side of the XP chart... just in my own GM's notes. My brother, ages ago in AD&D did this though. He basically announced a goal, once we set ourselves to a task:
Matt (my brother, the GM): Ok, so, you've picked up 3 rumors in the tavern. What do you do?
Me: we're going to help out the villager that's having the problem with the rabid wolves.
Matt: ok, then your GOAL then is to rid the village of the wolves but also resolve what caused the creatures to attack so it doesn't flare up again.
And thus, after announcing our goal we'd basically be adventuring until we resolved it. Once a set amount of these smaller quests got resolved we'd also resolve some major plot point in the process and generally after about 3-5 quests we'd level.
None of us ever complained because we didn't know any better and we trusted the GM. I can say the same is true for my current players; they don't seem to have a problem w/my not handing out xp.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried out C&C a few years ago, it is now my system of choice. Character creation is fast and easy. Also, the system allows for more free form combat and roleplaying interaction. However, the best part is that it's a snap to convert pretty much any material to C&C (Pathfinder, OD&D, 2E, 3E) without fear of upsetting "game balance." This way you can continue to run Adventure Paths and even throw in some old school modules as sidequests.
I think you'll like it. It's a lot easier to start with a more basic game and add the level of complexity your group desires.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people mention C&C I can only think of Command and Conquer. Anybody up for a game of Red Alert 2?
But seriously, I think I'll check C&C out.
|
3.x is like legos. You have a bunch of different blocks that go together in different ways. And some of them are versatile and some do specific things well and some are so specific they just aren't very useful. You can build and experiment and find out new things and it's fun.
And some of them look really cool, but actually suck. And some of them suck, but you have to take them to get the cool ones later on. A lot of them only work well if you stack them with specific other ones. Etc.
There's a good chance you won't be able to effectively do the things that inspired you to make the character until you've played through at least a few levels. And depending on the concept, you may get out of the range of levels where it's effective almost as quickly.
I'll grant you it's a lot more fun designing and building characters in a 3.x style system, but I've had at least as much fun playing them in simpler systems.
I'd say this is the case with any game's designs for the most part; you have to work your way up to a more interesting and cool abilities.
For example, with the 4E Warlock, they had a power that let you send someone through Hell, and I was like "Damn, that's really cool. I want to send someone through Hell!" And then I checked out what level that power is...29.
Sometimes you need to level up, and take the bad options (COMBAT EXPERTISE!!!) before you can do what you want. While I'd like a trimming of some of those lacking options, it doesn't make PF any less of a modular game, which is what I love about it. It's a system that makes me feel like I can make anything (and I basically can if I throw in 3.X stuff), which isn't something it feels like the new editions of DND are going for.
I've read about DNDN, and it still doesn't feel like it's fixing the biggest issue I have with the current system, which is the martial/magic divide. I'll admit 4E did, but it did it in such a ham fisted way as to make a less enjoyable game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here the core of my problem with 3rd edition D&D (and so, in turn, Pathfinder--they tried to fix it, but were literally just not able to do enough):
The game was designed with "Timmy Cards," deliberately bad options designed to look impressive to average gamers, thus rewarding those with system mastery for finding the secretly best choices.
This is a problem for lots of reasons, but the most significant for me are:
1) Combined with what happened with 4e, it has influenced a generation of gamers into thinking balance is impossible without sameness, when in fact balance was just never a goal of 3rd edition design (deliberate imbalance was), while sameness (not balance) was specifically the design goal of 4e. There has never been a version of D&D designed to be balanced without sameness, and nothing suggests it is not possible except a common misunderstanding of the situation.
2) I am one of those people with system mastery, so I am the one rewarded by the traps and tricks. It makes it extremely difficult for me to move away from the game, because talking about it, playing it, building characters, etc., is actively rewarding me. I know it is bad design to do this to people, and every time I see someone I like utterly fail at building a good character because of all the obfuscation, I want to rail against it and protest how crappy it is to design a game that way. But then, well, I get to feel awesome helping them build a good character by showing them the secret truths, and I'm suddenly drawn back in.
It'd be like if some new law came out wherein everyone not named "Bob" had to pay double taxes, while people named "Bob" pay nothing. Imagine the inner conflict someone named Bob would face. He realizes it is a terrible and arbitrary law that hurts so many people, yet he benefits from it so strongly. I want to just walk away from this sort of game, but I keep getting drawn back because it's just so fun to find the best options and analyze all this stuff.
So, yeah, here I am supporting game design that I know is bad.
The game was designed with "Timmy Cards," deliberately bad options designed to look impressive to average gamers, thus rewarding those with system mastery for finding the secretly best choices.this sort of game, but I keep getting drawn back because it's just so fun to find the best options and analyze all this stuff.
I hear this and I'm like...Wha?! That's sad. It makes it seem like they want the game to be a competition. This is just... GAAAAAHHHH!
I just dont know what to say. It's a cruel and unpleasant (and exclusionary) way to design games. It seems to encourage powergaming.
It's quite common, particularly when running the APs (since they provide pretty clear guidelines as to what levels the PCs should be at various points).
If you care about WBL, dont forget to adjust the loot you're giving out to match your levelling rate.
Though when running APs, unless you're adding massive amounts of content or rewriting everything to be lower level, you're still going to level at roughly the medium rate. Whether you calculate exp or just hand them out.
Yeah, true.
Never heard of Hackmaster, will look into it.
I've never played it, but I have a gaming buddy who - although he hasn't played it in many, many a year - still tells stories about the sessions, and the system's strengths.
Yeah, but it's not just that you get cooler stuff at higher levels, it's that often you can't even make the basic concept work at low levels.
The dervish dancer is a good example. Some things are obviously high level (ex: the dimensional agility feat chain screams high level). Shouldn't be the case for a dexterous fighter. That's what house rules are for I guess. I think I would either allow weapon finesse to also include damage, or do a "greater weapon finesse feat" to replace dervish dance. Then again, I am fond of duelists more than bruisers.
|
|
Yeah, but it's not just that you get cooler stuff at higher levels, it's that often you can't even make the basic concept work at low levels.
Because you need to get to the Prestige class that you actually want to play. Or you have to get the feat that makes your combat style actually functional. (Dervish Dance?) Even with something simple like a switch-hitter Ranger, you're probably better off ignoring the "switch" part and just two-handing until 5th or 6th level.
Are there a lot of games where you CAN make your concept work perfectly at first level? Aside from the most basic of ideas that you can have, just about everything needs you to work into/towards it. That's just how games with advancement works. Considering you can get off Dervish Dance by 3 level, that's really not that bad unless you're in E6. And also there's more than one way to make it work, considering Agile exist as well.
And I don't see why you can't do a switch hitter Ranger work at level 1. You don't need feats to make two handing work, so the only feats you're using are to sink into ranged combat. Yeah, there's some concepts that you can't work with early, like how the Clonemaster Alchemist needs to be 7th level to take off, or how animating the dead can't really work until about 5th level. But a basic concept like switch hitter Ranger isn't a late game build, neither are a lot of other ones.
From what I've seen, DNDN is just as "action figurey" as 4th ed, which isn't the kind of game that I really care for myself.
I hear this and I'm like...Wha?! That's sad. It makes it seem like they want the game to be a competition. This is just... GAAAAAHHHH!
I just dont know what to say. It's a cruel and unpleasant (and exclusionary) way to design games. It seems to encourage powergaming.
It's exactly the same way they design Magic: the Gathering Cards. Casual players like the Timmy cards because they're flashy and cool, while serious players, "Spikes," win with the boring, stupid, and or counter-intuitive cards that are actually effective. As a "Johnny," I'm left out in the cold, as I want to find awesome combos but don't want to win banally.
Anyway, you can definitely find articles and blogs where Monte Cook flat out stated this was how he designed 3rd edition. Toughness (3.0 Toughness, not PF toughness) is the oft cited example of a "Timmy" feat: it looks great at level 1 to have 3 more HP--that's a huge percentage of your overall health--and you feel nice and beefy and awesome with it. But every level after 1 makes Toughness less and less valuable, and since there was no retraining, you were stuck with it. Monte has since expressed regret over that design, but it's clearly evident. And this is what Pathfinder is built on.
Anyway, you can definitely find articles and blogs where Monte Cook flat out stated this was how he designed 3rd edition. Toughness (3.0 Toughness, not PF toughness) is the oft cited example of a "Timmy" feat: it looks great at level 1 to have 3 more HP--that's a huge percentage of your overall health--and you feel nice and beefy and awesome with it. But every level after 1 makes Toughness less and less valuable, and since there was no retraining, you were stuck with it. Monte has since expressed regret over that design, but it's clearly evident. And this is what Pathfinder is built on.
Heating that about him makes my opinion of him as a game designer drop dramatically. I've been vaguely interested in his latest "numenara" game. The setting is fascinating. Same was true for planescape (which a lot of people tend to attribute to him). But as a game designer... I dont know.
Still, I've heard of that for magic the gathering. It's very exemplary of the worst tendencies in "nerd culture": a desire to exclude everyone who hasn't "paid the price".
Still, with a flexible DM and slightly more knowledgeable (and generous with info) players this can be avoided. But this just confirms I will never be a powergamer. I just dont have the patience to reach that level of expertise.
Dot for later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a GM p.o.v. I like that 1st lev characters are more capable than some of the older editions. I get bored watching characters flounder and have to constantly stop and rest because the wizard casts his 1 measly spell for the day. Sure, there have been times that they waltzed through battles but that doesn't bother me, because I know that the many hours I put into developing the campaign has a higher chance of meaning something because of the higher survivability of the PCs. Since I do open dice rolls, the PCs know that I don't hold back on them, and knowing that they have the tools to survive makes it easier to be honest. If they do die, then it's because they made tactical errors and not because their characters are so weak that they're helpless all the time. So I'm perfectly fine with not having to handle low level PCs with kid gloves. I say embrace the fact that they are supposed to be playing fantasy heroes and let the dice decide their ultimate fate.
@deaditeguy: grognards would tell you that not only is killing the party a GM's job but that this fragility is supposed to teach the players tactics like running away, roleplaying, etc.
Frankly, I don't buy that either.
I get really bored with killer GMing. If I really WANT to kill a party, I will. I'm the GM, I have all the tools to do so. Not only does doing so not present me with a challenge but also it makes me feel like garbage to do so.
As for alternate tactics... le sigh. In older editions there were no hard and fast rules for USING said tactics. If you want to bribe that ogre with food to escape, it's entirely up to the GM whether or not you succeed. With such arbitrary systems players are either discouraged from attempting anything other than attacking (which they know) or they go to the other extreme where they try 6 impossible things before breakfast, just to screw around.
I like that 3x and then PF added more skills and systems. It gets a bit clunky and you might have to trim or streamline here and there, but now players know: if they want to get the ogre to ignore them, they can use a Diplomacy roll; if the want to run away they can fight defensively or withdraw.
I'm curious to know, has anybody noticed other "lego build" PnP systems out there? The fully classless games (videogames though) that I've played have generally felt very not special(for example, the recent shadowrun game. Though I think that's the game's issue and not shadowrun's). I dont expect to see something with the complexity of 3x or pathfinder, but I'd be curious to know.
There are a lot of "special builds" that might be timmy traps but that in theory i really enjoy (in theory. I've never played them):
Combat Reflexes+ Bodyguard feat+Benevolent armor
Ninja+Crane Style+Osyluth Guile (combine that with one level of monk and decent wisdom, you can get the ultimate nude AC).
The fact that you can do silly things like that makes me really enjoy Pathfinder. Cant do that in D&D next. In the most recent playtest, they have repacaged feats in an odd way. Basically, you get 70% of the useful archery feats (from PF) with one feat. It's like you added the super action archer kit to your action figure.
|
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").
Truth on all counts. But at least second edition high end always remained threatening no matter what if you retained the AC cap of -10. A bad save against monster abilities at that level was also always disastrous.
|
|
Anyway, you can definitely find articles and blogs where Monte Cook flat out stated this was how he designed 3rd edition. Toughness (3.0 Toughness, not PF toughness) is the oft cited example of a "Timmy" feat: it looks great at level 1 to have 3 more HP--that's a huge percentage of your overall health--and you feel nice and beefy and awesome with it. But every level after 1 makes Toughness less and less valuable, and since there was no retraining, you were stuck with it. Monte has since expressed regret over that design, but it's clearly evident. And this is what Pathfinder is built on.
Heating that about him makes my opinion of him as a game designer drop dramatically. I've been vaguely interested in his latest "numenara" game. The setting is fascinating. Same was true for planescape (which a lot of people tend to attribute to him). But as a game designer... I dont know.
Still, I've heard of that for magic the gathering. It's very exemplary of the worst tendencies in "nerd culture": a desire to exclude everyone who hasn't "paid the price".
Still, with a flexible DM and slightly more knowledgeable (and generous with info) players this can be avoided. But this just confirms I will never be a powergamer. I just dont have the patience to reach that level of expertise.
After playing both mtg and D&D/Pathfinder for quite a long time, well I have to say that it worked.
I have known players (and I am one) who take great pleasure from a system where they can be clever and create unexpected results. Winning a game of magic with an absurd and frankly insane combo, can be great fun and I would argue, that creating a very effective character character is not that different.
I really don't get your argument about nerd culture "excluding" those who "have not paid their dues" after all this is hardly a rare thing.
If you start a sport, you have often have to spend quite a lot of time training to be good. If you want to be successful in a MMO, you are expected to familiarize yourself with your available options.
The same principle applies to mtg and pathfinder. A new player, who just learned the game, will have a totally different focus, and someone who has played for decades. They might appreciate different things (mechanical design, art, flavor text...). It is hardly a surprise that a veteran can vet a card within seconds. After all, something similar can be said about chess.
When it comes to Pathfinder/D&D, it is certainly true, that system mastery can be rewarding and very effective. But that is hardly new, back when there were no knowledge skills, players were pretty much expected to remember the weaknesses of monsters (at least that is what I have been told about that era).
Wizards have tried to solve that particular problem, and the result was, that at least for me character creation wasn't fun any more.
To the OP: Yes the first chapter of SS isn't all that hard (well rushing pretty much the last 3 encounters in a single day made it hard for my group), but I was wondering what your players had available.
Do you roll for ability scores or do you use point buy? How many players do your have?
Reducing the point buy to 10 points, slowing their advancement and reducing their loot could improve the game for your group. Of course making the encounters more challenging is always an option. After all defeating nearly unbeatable odds is quite heroic.
I do not understand this perception about "rules bloat" for 3.5 or Pathfinder.
It is all options. You don't need to use everything. The game is what you made out of it.
Whilst that's true (and I dont use the vast majority of PF rules subsystems), the existence of lots of rules means lots of options to wade through to know what to exclude and what to include.
For me (as a rules-minimalist) it's predominantly about opportunity cost. I dont really care if they make lots of complicated stuff except that every 256 page book of gloriously complicated rules is 256 pages of awesome flavor material they could have written instead.
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 too enjoy the fast growth of PF for the exact same reason. I just don't have the time I used to. Back in 2E we'd play 2 or 3 times a week. No I play once ever two weeks if I'm lucky.
Personally if I want more gritty I just play different game system.
After playing both mtg and D&D/Pathfinder for quite a long time, well I have to say that it worked.
...
I can understand that experience gives someone system mastery, but including options specifically to punish the inexperienced players is a bad way to teach them. D&D has a sufficiently attached fanbase that people will took the time to get through it. If it wasnt for my own obsessive nature, and coming to these forums for advice, I probably would just have been frustrated.
In summary, it's essential to reward experience, but I dont think it's ok to punish inexperience. Stupidity, yes, but not inexperience.
There have been several suggestions in this thread to modify pathfinder as needed and as Steve Geddes pointed out in his post, that's not the optimum situation.
I remember how the old D&D box sets built on each other, the only downside was having to dig through multiple books to find rules (until the Cyclopedia was released). I wish pathfinder could take a similar approach with 2.0. Release a base system with fewer powers/options and allow you to buy updates and add to your character as you see fit. But don't throw so much into the core rule book to start with. Give yourself more room to grow. That's my opinion and I know many others disagree.
IF D&DN is taking a more phased in approach to power and options this will be an exciting time for players as they can literally pick a "PATH" if you will. Slower progression(DnDN), or 0 to 100 in 5 seconds flat(3.5/PF)!
Btw, C&C is a great read so far. Getting very excited to play it!
Is there going to be a pathfinder 2.0? I've heard whispers here and there, but nothing concrete.
Meanwhile, 4th Edition and, soon, D&D Next, are designed to appeal to brand new players, because I think an influx of new players is necessary to keep Hasbro happy with WotC.
I believe all game makers want to bring in new players and retain older players. I think d20 is a great mechanic but if DnDN trims more of the fat it could bring in new players and dare I say some old players.
I think ultimately you to have consider the GM's job first and foremost when designing a game. He is the guy who has to do most of the heavy lifting to keep a game running smoothly each week. How hard are you willing to make his job? If you make his job too hard he isn't going to use a lot of your system (as noted in above posts) or he will use another system entirely.
I have run out of gas when it comes to prepping for pathfinder. Even though I now know the system pretty well, it still takes too much time to properly prep. And I do try to use most of the rules in the Core book. I would be more than happy to play as a player, but as a GM I want something easier to manage. Some GM's obviously enjoy all the crunch in 3.5/PF and as noted some just ignore a lot of it.
If DnDN moves more in the direction of making a GM's job easier while not destroying the "FEEL" of DnD (like they did with 4e for so many players) then for me that is a huge win. I think there will also be other GM's who end up feeling the same as I do.
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.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
This assumes the only reason to have a supplement is to gain more power. There are plenty of other reasons to enjoy a supplement, including fluff, archetypes, career paths, etc. Much of what is in the supplements begins at level 1. You should avoid thinking of them as add-ons to higher levels. With that mindset, you are not going to see a fix to your power problem, even if it exists.
This assumes the only reason to have a supplement is to gain more power. There are plenty of other reasons to enjoy a supplement, including fluff, archetypes, career paths, etc. Much of what is in the supplements begins at level 1. You should avoid thinking of them as add-ons to higher levels. With that mindset, you are not going to see a fix to your power problem, even if it exists.
No offense meant, but I think you are missing my point. The issue for me starts and pretty much ends with the Core book. However, I love the fluff in a lot of the supplements. The Inner Sea World Guide is one of my all time favorite books from any game system.
Something to mention which may put things in better context is I never played 3.x. I played AD&D, Star Frontiers, Traveler(various versions), Twilight 2000, GURPS and Pathfinder. So Pathfinder was my first real introduction to the 3.x style of play. It was an uphill battle to learn and become fluent with the system. It continues to make my job difficult each week I prep for a game as the GM. It is too much of a time suck if you want to prep properly. That is my issue at its core, either throw out a lot of stuff in the system which I don't want to do, or spend a lot of time and properly prep for each session. I guess I just don't have the time anymore, or I would rather spend it doing something else. I still love coming up with encounters, challenges and interesting plot twists for the group, but fleshing out the encounters is what takes so much time.
You may be playing the wrong game. If you don't like 3.x don't play 3.x. PF is not going to become not 3.x. A slimmed down PF would lose customers rather than gaining since it would have to abandon all the 3.5 and PF adventure content.
This goes back to my original hope that DnDN (or PF 2.0), does a new version of 3.x that makes it easier on the GM. But in the end, you may be right. It depends on how DnDN turns out. If it makes a GM's job easier and does well in the market then perhaps PF will throw us overworked GM's a bone :-)
Again, I really like Paizo as a company. Their support and their willingness to engage their customers is beyond words and appreciation. I did not start this thread to bash them in any way, instead it was only to express my issues with the game system at this point in time.
I think D&D Next and Pathfinder are both aiming at different audiences. I think it's awesome that D&D Next is something you like. Everything I have seen indicates it's being pitched as a rules lite system that is trying to bring in AD&D players. I don't think Pathfinder should copy (nor do I think they would) D&D Next and aim for the same demographics...both systems will lose out if they have to scrap over the same customer base.
I think D&D Next and Pathfinder are both aiming at different audiences. I think it's awesome that D&D Next is something you like. Everything I have seen indicates it's being pitched as a rules lite system that is trying to bring in AD&D players. I don't think Pathfinder should copy (nor do I think they would) D&D Next and aim for the same demographics...both systems will lose out if they have to scrap over the same customer base.
You may be right, but something Paizo has to consider is if DnDN starts winning over GM's then players will be sure to follow as you need a GM to run the game and I have found that player's will adapt much quicker to a game system than a GM will. There is a saying I once heard that may apply "Happy wife equals happy life". If you think of the GM as the wife and you make them happy then they will make their players happy.
Paizo's focus on flavour helps here. They put out much more flavour than mechanics, after all and one of the strengths of simple systems is the ease of converting to them.
Paizo adventures can be run in a simple system with ease (I ran Serpents Skull using DCC and it took roughly the same amount of prep time as it would have taken if I'd used pathfinder). I think paizo flavour will be sellable to D&D:Next fans, even if the game is substantially simpler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo adventures can be run in a simple system with ease (I ran Serpents Skull using DCC and it took roughly the same amount of prep time as it would have taken if I'd used pathfinder). I think paizo flavour will be sellable to D&D:Next fans, even if the game is substantially simpler.
I agree. I will continue to buy their adventure paths and campaign material regardless of the system I use. Top notch stuff. In fact, when I roll out C&C the players are going to start out in Sandpoint and enjoy all the flavor and wonder of Golarion.
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.
You *really* do not want Hackmaster then...
|
Is there going to be a pathfinder 2.0? I've heard whispers here and there, but nothing concrete.
Pathfinder is still a thriving and growing game system which is still a year out from a product that will nearly double their core/base class line. Then they'll be expanding into psychic magic in 2015.... Pathfinder is nowhere near a 2.0 release.
|
|
Paizo adventures can be run in a simple system with ease (I ran Serpents Skull using DCC and it took roughly the same amount of prep time as it would have taken if I'd used pathfinder). I think paizo flavour will be sellable to D&D:Next fans, even if the game is substantially simpler.I agree. I will continue to buy their adventure paths and campaign material regardless of the system I use. Top notch stuff. In fact, when I roll out C&C the players are going to start out in Sandpoint and enjoy all the flavor and wonder of Golarion.
One thing you're going to be seeing is Wizards is actualy focusing on releasing adventures and modules that are compatible with older editions. They've got an adventure written by Ed Greenwood coming out that was made to be compatible with Next, 4th, 3.5, and 2nd edition. And as should be pretty apparent, adventures compatible with 3.5 are going to be more or less equally compatible with Pathfinder. This is going to be part of their subtle little push into the market.
Other things they're doing include taking classes where people traditionally love the theme but hate the mechanics, like the monk, and making them extremely accessible. The current Next version of the monk can move, make two unarmed strikes, and then spend a ki point to flurry for a third, right from 1st level. This is going to appeal to some people.
To be honest though, I jst don't see it taking too much away from Pathfinder. I think it's much more likely that, like 4th, Next is going to be a "gateway drug" into tabletop rpg's, one people will eventually move on from when they've whet their appetite and are looking for more substantial fare.
|
Want easy to learn, easy to play, and easy to GM? Want more deadly?
Try Swords & Wizardry.
Want more monsters for your S&W game? You can get Monstrosities or The Tome of Horrors Complete or The Tome of Horrors 4.
Want a ton of adventures that are compatible with S&W? Frog God Games has them.
There's even a gigantic book of tables to help you design your own adventures, campaign, or setting (although this product is system-generic, it is written/compiled by the author of S&W).
One thing you're going to be seeing is Wizards is actualy focusing on releasing adventures and modules that are compatible with older editions. They've got an adventure written by Ed Greenwood coming out that was made to be compatible with Next, 4th, 3.5, and 2nd edition.
Do you mean Murder in Baldur's Gate? Because that's out already, fwiw. It's totally statblock free (with a link to download stats for pretty much any edition of D&D). They make the point that you'll need to tweak encounters to suit the style of your chosen edition (so they dont give numbers of enemies, for example as 4E is based on encountering lots of weaker enemies and 3.5 is more designed around a few, more powerful ones).
It was hard to evaluate, since it's one of those "play this and tell us what happened, then we'll incorporate the collective experience into the ongoing series" things which just dont appeal to me. I thought it was great value though (it came with a 64 page sourcebook and a 32 page adventure enclosed in a landscape four-fold screen with player maps/pictures of Baldur's gate on the outside and a nicely done GM map/key on the inside) and appreciated the return to a focus of more flavor and less mechanics.