| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MorE! MoRe!
Is this the week's "I want to watch cricket, please make your baseball less baseball and more cricket or else cricket fans will stop watching your baseball games and you'll go bankrupt" thread?
Cricket might as well be baseball by another name
the 2 are so similar, that if you dislike one, you would likely dislike the other
the proper analogy would be
"i want to Watch Ice Hockey. please make your baseball less baseballish and throw in some more IceHockeyish aspects."
essentially, the rest agreed to watch baseball, and one guy wants to watch Ice Hockey because it's more brutal and he is quite bloodthirsty IRL. you don't need to be a murderer to feel bloodlust, most of the time, it can be treated by watching a good violent sport like Wrestling, Mixed Martial Arts, or Ice Hockey.
There is almost no way of avoiding bloat if you want to have revenue. Thankfully, Paizo managed it to an extent since they make most of their money with APs.
true
i like bloat, when the bloat is roughly Equal in power
what i personally hate
is when with few exceptions, Archetypes are intended to be inferior to the base class they are tacked on, as an incentive to discourage Archetypes
if you have a cool race of Shadow Element Nymphs that are balanced with the Core Races, do you have to offer a point buy penalty tax to discourage them?
it's like
"hey, you can play a core race and get a 30 point buy"
"humans get 40 points to spend though"
"play a featured race and get 25"
"play an uncommon race and get 20"
"or homebrew your own 10-15 point race that must be reviewed for approval and only get 15 points to spend"
in such a game, it matters not how balanced the races are, because every intelligent player is going to go for the 40 point human
Talking about System mastery is like talking about how fast your car is or expensive your clothes are.
The people who do it are generally overcompensating for shortcomings elsewhere.
I have zero interest in playing with anyone who is focused on showing off how much they know about a made up game in a made up world. Particularly the kind of people who argue with the people who actually wrote the game about what the intention of rules are.
I have a great deal of interest in playing with anyone who is focused on creating something fun and interesting for everyone who is at the table, and who tries to find ways to make everyone at the table have a good time rather than being there to get some kind of pat on the back for "winning" at "system mastery".
In short, if you think mastering the system is about anything but making the game more enjoyable for everyone at your table, you are part of the problem.
there a Variety of Shortcomings i think one could compensate for
however, i think you mean the anatomical kind, i can point out more appropriate shortcomings that could lead to a desire for compensation
- being bullied in school for being in special education, happened to me all the time
- having a generally poor self esteem and common depression, common symptoms include telling wild stories to boost self esteem, i do it too
- poverty, some people grew up poor, so they compensate their money and power fantasies, by playing minmaxed noble blooded characters of wealth far greater than they possess in reality
- loneliness. often seeking friendship, often depressed, often needing to please, so they inflate their ego by making up stories
- mental disability, sometimes the disability's compensatory advantages elsewhere don't feel sufficient, the guy moans about hearing voices, despite their enhanced intellect, woe is me, they want more. they want it all.
- spoiled, this somewhat applies to me as well. i wasn't quite the squeaky wheel, but my mom did buy me a lot of stuff in my teenage years, to her own expense, as compensation for my childhood of poverty where we had very little for the first 9 years of my life
- sickly, the person has a terminal illness, and they don't like the fact they are cursed with it, by playing a badass minmaxed character, they feel better about their illness
- these aren't the only shortcomings that can lead to a desire for compensation, just some of the common ones in my experience, most of which apply to myself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me, I like that PF's only sources of bloat are feats and a few classes here and there. Seems easier to manage than 3.5's race/class overload.
What's the problem with system bloat? I guess it's the increased risk that a class will come out that's overpowered. But since Pathfinder doesn't put out many new rulebooks, it seems to me the 'bloat' is too slow and slight to really ruin even the most blindly accepting* of games.
*Cause, y'know, nobody's forcing you to use the new books. There's no Pathfinder theme song where you gotta buy 'em all.
Me, I like that PF's only sources of bloat are feats and a few classes here and there. Seems easier to manage than 3.5's race/class overload.
What's the problem with system bloat? I guess it's the increased risk that a class will come out that's overpowered. But since Pathfinder doesn't put out many new rulebooks, it seems to me the 'bloat' is too slow and slight to really ruin even the most blindly accepting* of games.
*Cause, y'know, nobody's forcing you to use the new books. There's no Pathfinder theme song where you gotta buy 'em all.
nobody is forcing you
but the bloat isn't too bad, most of the stuff is inferior to a wizard anyway, even among third party
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They system allows for a wide disparity in power. It does not force it. I have had groups with not so good characters, and groups where everyone was VERY optimized. That is a system boon to me, not a flaw. It allows for every group to play how they want. The problem is when you have a mixed group. It often falls to the GM to try to keep things on the level. He can introduce house rules, but to do without breaking the game in a bad way he needs some level of system mastery. There are other things he can do. The group can also a gentlemen's agreement of sorts. Personally, if I am doing "too much", I will ask do I need to scale it back since I don't care about the spotlight as long as I am pulling my weight, but some people do care about the spotlight.
In other words how to solve the problem, and even the existence of the problem will vary by group. There is no magic solution, and to answer the question power gaming is the willingness to use everything you know. Just because you know it, that does not mean you have to use it.
System Mastery=I know the game well.
Power Gaming=I will make the best character I can mechanically.
You can always have one without the other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's what really gets me. Powergaming ain't gonna go away just because you get rid of the splatbooks, nor is it gonna become less problematic. The only way to stop that is to be the GM and say "no".
Blaming the system for its players is like playing chess for making people nerds.
And that's what really gets me. Powergaming ain't gonna go away just because you get rid of the splatbooks, nor is it gonna become less problematic. The only way to stop that is to be the GM and say "no".
Blaming the system for its players is like playing chess for making people nerds.
Can't you blame both?
Sure. But it's hard to avoid such gaps, because it's hard to avoid the players choose wrong stuff.
why
isthere
wrong
stuff
?
What is wrong is determined by the group as a whole mostly. WE have had this discussion before. Some group I have GM'd for can get away with the "wrong" stuff because their skill as players can make up mechanical choices, and because the entire group stays on the same level power wise. As a GM I would tone things down for them. The problem is when you get a large difference in power between players or when the players and the GM have very different expectations.
I have seen people list ways to solve problems that would work in some GM's games, but not in others simply because of the difference in how they run games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't you blame both?
If it was a stated design goal of the system, yes. However, it appears that the system was intended to be the way it is.
Not really. Baseball has more rules than tennis, but that doesn't make the players more or less competitive. That's the players' deal.
The only foolproof way to prevent effective optimization (since getting rid of that is the only way to use game design to prevent powergaming) is to stop allowing customization. If that's what you want, go ahead. But your game is not going to be successful.
Heck, even AD&D or Grimm will get players who are a+&&+%~s about being "the best". Know how you fix that?
Get new players.
.but there can be MUCH less imbalance than the gigantic imbalance PF currently has.
It is gigantic to you. In other words it boils down to perception, and some of the new things introduced are experiments, and some things just get by editing. For the most part though the game does what it is intended to do, and allows for all of us to play the game differently. You just have to find someone that plays like you want to play. I am pretty flexible so I can sit down with almost any group.
The only foolproof way to prevent effective optimization (since getting rid of that is the only way to use game design to prevent powergaming) is to stop allowing customization. If that's what you want, go ahead. But your game is not going to be successful.
I see the nightmare image of a game where each character class comes along with a predesigned character sheet. You get to choose between one of ten carefully balanced pregen characters.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it wouldn't be successful, but it certainly wouldn't feel like an RPG to me. More like a tactical boardgame (not that there's anything *wrong* with tactical boardgames.)
Actually, I have a sudden urge to dig out my old Advanced HeroQuest set now :)
And that's what really gets me. Powergaming ain't gonna go away just because you get rid of the splatbooks, nor is it gonna become less problematic. The only way to stop that is to be the GM and say "no".
Blaming the system for its players is like playing chess for making people nerds.
powergaming doesn't disappear when you restrict the books
it only disappears when the DM carefully reviews every last character sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the funny thing Steve, I could take that entire post, go back in time and switch it over to the 3.5 forums when that game had reached its zenith in system bloat... Best selling most popular RPG in the world etc didnt make a bit of difference at all when it's sales eventually tanked either, and if you want to point a finger at what made that game go the way of the dodo it's exactly the same things I'm accusing PF of right now. System mastery imbalance, system bloat, and power creep. This is just history repeating itself.
maybe those flaws dont bother you or your group, but that does not mean the flaws dont exist.Similarly, the fact it bothers you doesn't mean it's a flaw. There's thousands of people who disagree with you - the best selling RPG in the world today provides strong incentives to develop system mastery. That doesnt mean rewarding system mastery is the best approach.
What's wrong with it being a difference in style? Why does there have to be a "correct" approach to designing an RPG?
Sure. The only reason I mentioned the bestselling thing was to point out that an awful lot of people are voting with their wallets in support of the view that system mastery is a good thing. It's just not right to discount the fact that a lot of people prefer system mastery in a game. It's to counter your claim that including such is a flaw. I think Pathfinder is targetting a different market from you (and me too, for that matter - if a game's rules go over 100 pages it's too much complexity for my tastes).
Whether the market shifts as you anticipate is a separate matter - it still doesnt mean Pathfinder is 'flawed' it just means it will have moved from popular to less popular.
The bigger question is, if you recognize the symptoms of the disease in PF, and you love PF as a game.... What are YOU doing to try and alter PF's course away from the exact same course 3.5 went?
The only thing I can think of is a rewrite, what do you suggest?
My solution is to play other games. I'm not advocating any position as to 'what Paizo should do with Pathfinder' because I think they are much, much more qualified to make those calls than any of us and that they will be much, much more successful than any of us would.
I'm not actually arguing against your perceptions (I think there is inherent imbalance in the system and that these imbalances are exacerbated by disparate levels of system mastery within the group). I just dont think they matter. I'm arguing against the concept of 'good RPG design' - since such a thing is inherently a subjective concept (based on what traits one thinks 'good' design is).
In my view, we're all better off if there are some games which reward system mastery (like Pathfinder) and others which dont. I want lots of substantially different game systems, not lots of very similar ones trying to emulate the same 'ideal game'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only foolproof way to prevent effective optimization (since getting rid of that is the only way to use game design to prevent powergaming) is to stop allowing customization. If that's what you want, go ahead. But your game is not going to be successful.
I see the nightmare image of a game where each character class comes along with a predesigned character sheet. You get to choose between one of ten carefully balanced pregen characters.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it wouldn't be successful, but it certainly wouldn't feel like an RPG to me. More like a tactical boardgame (not that there's anything *wrong* with tactical boardgames.)
Actually, I have a sudden urge to dig out my old Advanced HeroQuest set now :)
even then, system mastery would work. It will be based around buying/geting the best gear and magic items, just like the heroquest does.
As I said, the only way to remove system mastery enterely, is to remove player choices. And that's not that good idea.
The system could have less traps, yes. It could habe less bloat of quasiuseless feats. But that's part of the ivory tower design. Seeing the rapid growth of paizo, it works. I'd rather have, say, a Corasair feat that doesn't gimp ypur character becaue it only gives you bonus to fight in a ship *the first round of combat*. But the devs seem to like this kind of "gimpyourself because of flavor" feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, we're all better off if there are some games which reward system mastery (like Pathfinder) and others which dont. I want lots of substantially different game systems, not lots of very similar ones trying to emulate the same 'ideal game'.
It's kinda ironic in a way that as someone that prefers a system that puts flavor before balance, such a system is also going to reward something I dislike (system mastery.) It also gives me a weird feeling for arguing to keep things the way they are :)
As has been mentioned above though, the real solution to keep system mastery out of the game (for those of us who wish to) is at the GM (or even player) level and not the game system itself. To eliminate system mastery would leave such a level, balanced, bland game that I just wouldn't be interested in it any longer. I do think the upcoming Strategy Guide will help with people who want help making effective characters, though.
The system could have less traps, yes. It could habe less bloat of quasiuseless feats. But that's part of the ivory tower design. Seeing the rapid growth of paizo, it works. I'd rather have, say, a Corasair feat that doesn't gimp ypur character becaue it only gives you bonus to fight in a ship *the first round of combat*. But the devs seem to like this kind of "gimpyourself because of flavor" feats.
I'm a fan of the concept of explicitly labelling a class of 'flavor feats/options'. I, for one, prefer paying a mechanical price for taking some flavor options. If they were all called out as such, at least people who cared about 'trap options' would be somewhat protected (not that such classification wouldnt result in endless arguments as to what belonged where, but over-the-top-internet-fury isnt going away any time soon, let's be frank).
I'm a fan of the concept of explicitly labelling a class of 'flavor feats/options'. I, for one, prefer paying a mechanical price for taking some flavor options. If they were all called out as such, at least people who cared about 'trap options' would be somewhat protected (not that such classification wouldnt result in endless arguments as to what belonged where, but over-the-top-internet-fury isnt going away any time soon, let's be frank).
The biggest danger I can see with that is it would lead to some people refusing to play with anyone with a "flavor feat", and that it would give official support to people that felt they were "the wrong choice". I could envisage it being more apparent in PFS, too.
And that's what really gets me. Powergaming ain't gonna go away just because you get rid of the splatbooks, nor is it gonna become less problematic. The only way to stop that is to be the GM and say "no".
Blaming the system for its players is like playing chess for making people nerds.
powergaming doesn't disappear when you restrict the books
it only disappears when the DM carefully reviews every last character sheet.
Is there a reason you keep responding to my posts just so you can slightly rephrase what I said? ;P
I mean, to clarify, it's not the rephrasing that bugs me--heck, I'm just basically rephrasing what other people said. "Nothing new under the sun" and all that. I'm just confused because you're responding to me as if you're saying something that disagrees with what I said.
You may well be right (I have something of a blind spot when it comes to playing with people I havent known for decades....ie most people's situation :p).
However, I dont see that as necessarily bad - I still think the existence of system mastery is only a problem when the group are operating from different assumptions. Giving them tools to identify that before the game starts doesnt seem like a bad thing. I'd count it as a plus if half the group said "I'm not going to play with you flavor-feat guys" and the other half said "Let's all take one level of aristocrat and at least one flavor feat" - two smaller groups playing the same way is better than one group with two disparate sets of players, in my view.
The system could have less traps, yes. It could habe less bloat of quasiuseless feats. But that's part of the ivory tower design. Seeing the rapid growth of paizo, it works. I'd rather have, say, a Corasair feat that doesn't gimp ypur character becaue it only gives you bonus to fight in a ship *the first round of combat*. But the devs seem to like this kind of "gimpyourself because of flavor" feats.
I may have a feat that no one knows about because I never use as it's so useless and situational, but if anyone were to ever look at the back of my character sheet, they'd see the most flavorful feat name ever! :P
The system could have less traps, yes. It could habe less bloat of quasiuseless feats. But that's part of the ivory tower design. Seeing the rapid growth of paizo, it works. I'd rather have, say, a Corasair feat that doesn't gimp ypur character becaue it only gives you bonus to fight in a ship *the first round of combat*. But the devs seem to like this kind of "gimpyourself because of flavor" feats.I'm a fan of the concept of explicitly labelling a class of 'flavor feats/options'. I, for one, prefer paying a mechanical price for taking some flavor options. If they were all called out as such, at least people who cared about 'trap options' would be somewhat protected (not that such classification wouldnt result in endless arguments as to what belonged where, but over-the-top-internet-fury isnt going away any time soon, let's be frank).
I'd rather have feats that are both flavorful and useful. I'd like to havd a feat called "Corsair" that gives you +1 to hit while fighting in a ship, non-cumulative with weapon gocus for example. Thus, I could select it and have +1 with my sabre, dagger, pistol or whip while on board, instead of +1 with swords always. WF would be better, but depenfing on the campaign, the oger feat might be interesting. However, a +1 to hit in the first attack of a combat simply isn't worth it. I can perfectly flavor and rolrplay a taldor corsair without such hortible feat, thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd count it as a plus if half the group said "I'm not going to play with you flavor-feat guys" and the other half said "Let's all take one level of aristocrat and at least one flavor feat" - two smaller groups playing the same way is better than one group with two disparate sets of players, in my view.
I'm going to guess you meant to say "two smaller groups playing the same game different ways" - if so then yeah, I agree :) Sometimes I wonder if PFS's inclusiveness does more damage than labelling individual tables for different playstyles (RP-Heavy, Combat-Heavy, System Mastery, A Bit of Everything, and so on) so people know what they're getting into and can't complain if it isn't to their personal taste.
A part of it's the players. A part of it's also that the system encourages it: there are rewards for digging into the rules. That was built into the basis of 3.0 and continues with PF (see interviews of early designers, ref.)
I don't see the latter changing so much without a philosophy change behind the design, so to speak. Depends on if it's a thing, market-wise.
Re: Matt
That's why I invented the Gamer Style Spectrum, or GSS. It's a modified version of the Kinsey scale. Just for games, instead!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolemaster <--------------- Moderate ---------------> Nobilis
------(0)---------------------------(3)-------------------------(6)--
We'll call something like Rolemaster a 0, and Nobilis a 6. The absolute middle then, would be a 3. But, most gamers would find themselves slanted slightly one direction or the other.
I posit it needs a catchier name, though. My hope though, is that something like this might eventually replace the old rollplayer versus roleplayer debates.
It might take a miracle, but still. ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me, I like that PF's only sources of bloat are feats and a few classes here and there. Seems easier to manage than 3.5's race/class overload.
What's the problem with system bloat? I guess it's the increased risk that a class will come out that's overpowered. But since Pathfinder doesn't put out many new rulebooks, it seems to me the 'bloat' is too slow and slight to really ruin even the most blindly accepting* of games.
*Cause, y'know, nobody's forcing you to use the new books. There's no Pathfinder theme song where you gotta buy 'em all.
One big problem is inexperienced, or even moderately experienced players feeling overwhelmed by the increasing number of choices. It's a bigger and bigger barrier for new players coming into the game. Honestly, I feel overwhelmed just by feat choices in the core book and APG. A major reason (and the fact I can't really afford them) for not buying Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat.
I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Strategy Guide, though.
(Yes, I know the pdfs are a lot cheaper, but I just can't browse pdfs properly.)
That's why I invented the Gamer Style Spectrum, or GSS. It's a modified version of the Kinsey scale. Just for games, instead!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolemaster <--------------- Moderate ---------------> Nobilis
------(0)---------------------------(3)-------------------------(6)--
I like that. I'd probably want to add another half-dozen scales for things like degree of system mastery expected, in-character vs out-of-character, free form vs by-the-book... you could almost make it resemble the old Universal Personality Profiles from Traveller!
(Wow, now I want to write a web application to generate "RPGamer Profile" signature files for everyone!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me, I like that PF's only sources of bloat are feats and a few classes here and there. Seems easier to manage than 3.5's race/class overload.
What's the problem with system bloat? I guess it's the increased risk that a class will come out that's overpowered. But since Pathfinder doesn't put out many new rulebooks, it seems to me the 'bloat' is too slow and slight to really ruin even the most blindly accepting* of games.
*Cause, y'know, nobody's forcing you to use the new books. There's no Pathfinder theme song where you gotta buy 'em all.
One big problem is inexperienced, or even moderately experienced players feeling overwhelmed by the increasing number of choices. It's a bigger and bigger barrier for new players coming into the game. Honestly, I feel overwhelmed just by feat choices in the core book and APG. A major reason (and the fact I can't really afford them) for not buying Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat.
I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Strategy Guide, though.
(Yes, I know the pdfs are a lot cheaper, but I just can't browse pdfs properly.)
Which is why nobody with sense offers all the options to a new player. :P
|
Which is why nobody with sense offers all the options to a new player. :PMe, I like that PF's only sources of bloat are feats and a few classes here and there. Seems easier to manage than 3.5's race/class overload.
What's the problem with system bloat? I guess it's the increased risk that a class will come out that's overpowered. But since Pathfinder doesn't put out many new rulebooks, it seems to me the 'bloat' is too slow and slight to really ruin even the most blindly accepting* of games.
*Cause, y'know, nobody's forcing you to use the new books. There's no Pathfinder theme song where you gotta buy 'em all.
One big problem is inexperienced, or even moderately experienced players feeling overwhelmed by the increasing number of choices. It's a bigger and bigger barrier for new players coming into the game. Honestly, I feel overwhelmed just by feat choices in the core book and APG. A major reason (and the fact I can't really afford them) for not buying Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat.
I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Strategy Guide, though.
(Yes, I know the pdfs are a lot cheaper, but I just can't browse pdfs properly.)
Exactly!
When you go to an all you can eat buffet you don't have to eat everything.
Exactly!
When you go to an all you can eat buffet you don't have to eat everything.
To the extent that this analogy holds, it still doesn't speak well of Pathfinder. You don't have to eat everything at the buffet, but if you try a bunch of food that looks like it would be good and flavorful but it just ends up being bad, you won't want to eat there again. The problem is that there's too many options that look effective but really aren't. A neophyte doesn't have the system mastery to pick the good options from among the traps.
Put another way, I don't think the problem is that Pathfinder has too many options so mach as it is that Pathfinder has too many bad options. The game would be much more accessible if a new player didn't have the danger of accidentally building an ineffective character because they chose the options that looked good on the face of it.
|
Or when you go to a buffet, you may not realize what mixes well on your plate and what doesn't, even if each individual item can be good.
I love both Sushi and Pho. But if you don't know what you are doing and try to eat either, your experience will be less than if you go with someone who teaches you how to mix the sauces to create something better than what was put on your plate.
|
|
Exactly!
When you go to an all you can eat buffet you don't have to eat everything.
To the extent that this analogy holds, it still doesn't speak well of Pathfinder. You don't have to eat everything at the buffet, but if you try a bunch of food that looks like it would be good and flavorful but it just ends up being bad, you won't want to eat there again. The problem is that there's too many options that look effective but really aren't. A neophyte doesn't have the system mastery to pick the good options from among the traps.
Put another way, I don't think the problem is that Pathfinder has too many options so mach as it is that Pathfinder has too many bad options. The game would be much more accessible if a new player didn't have the danger of accidentally building an ineffective character because they chose the options that looked good on the face of it.
Do you stop going to a buffet just because they have a few things you don't like?
I don't like everything in Pathfinder but I still play the game because it has stuff I do like.
Do you stop going to a buffet just because they have a few things you don't like?
I don't like everything in Pathfinder but I still play the game because it has stuff I do like.
If someone went to a buffet for the first and had a really bad experience with the quality of the food, I wouldn't blame them for not going back, even the buffet had some amazing food that you just have to be an experienced customer to find.
|
|
Here is a method that works for me whenever I bring in someone new.
I start off by allowing only three races: Human, elf, and dwarf.
Next, I only allow three class: Fighter, rogue, and wizard.
Next, I only allow a handful of feats that accompany each of those classes.
I then let the person read over and choose what they want. with regards to the wizard, I let them choose whatever spells they want. They don't always choose the best in the beginning so, as the DM, I adjust the encounters to fit, as we play and the person becomes more accustomed to it, I gradually bring in more options.
You will eventually become so familiar with the game that you can choose parts you want to leave out if you fear bloat. The options don't jump out of the book and force you to use them.
|
|
Which is why nobody with sense offers all the options to a new player. :PI do!
Wait...
I always start new players at 1st level and tell them to tell me what they envision doing.
I prefer when they start with non-casters, or at least with spontaneous casters, but I try not push anything one way or another.
|
|
If someone went to a buffet for the first and had a really bad experience with the quality of the food, I wouldn't blame them for not going back, even the buffet had some amazing food that you just have to be an experienced customer to find.Do you stop going to a buffet just because they have a few things you don't like?
I don't like everything in Pathfinder but I still play the game because it has stuff I do like.
Quality doesn't necessarily equal taste. I don't care how well you prepare or the quality of salmon, I don't like it.
If I am allowed to pick and choose what I want to eat then I will rummage until I find what I do like.
If I give you a rolling pin and rather than using it to roll out dough you kill someone, is that the fault of the rolling pin designer or the user?If it was a stated design goal of the system, yes. However, it appears that the system was intended to be the way it is.
Can't you blame both?
Obviously the user, but the marketing guy just realized there was a larger market out there...
If someone went to a buffet for the first and had a really bad experience with the quality of the food, I wouldn't blame them for not going back, even the buffet had some amazing food that you just have to be an experienced customer to find.Quality doesn't necessarily equal taste. I don't care how well you prepare or the quality of salmon, I don't like it.
If I am allowed to pick and choose what I want to eat then I will rummage until I find what I do like.
I'll be honest: the only relevance I see in your post to the post of mine you quoted is that we're both abusing the same analogy. Besides that, it doesn't seem to be a response to me at all.
|
|
I'll be honest: the only relevance I see in your post to the post of mine you quoted is that we're both abusing the same analogy. Besides that, it doesn't seem to be a response to me at all.If someone went to a buffet for the first and had a really bad experience with the quality of the food, I wouldn't blame them for not going back, even the buffet had some amazing food that you just have to be an experienced customer to find.Quality doesn't necessarily equal taste. I don't care how well you prepare or the quality of salmon, I don't like it.
If I am allowed to pick and choose what I want to eat then I will rummage until I find what I do like.
All I say at this point is it sucks to be that person. Not everyone gets to have the good first impression and if you get turned off and won't go back then good luck finding something else.
Well, if there is atleast plain old drinkable water you could atleast enjoy the company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly!
When you go to an all you can eat buffet you don't have to eat everything.
To the extent that this analogy holds, it still doesn't speak well of Pathfinder. You don't have to eat everything at the buffet, but if you try a bunch of food that looks like it would be good and flavorful but it just ends up being bad, you won't want to eat there again. The problem is that there's too many options that look effective but really aren't. A neophyte doesn't have the system mastery to pick the good options from among the traps.
Put another way, I don't think the problem is that Pathfinder has too many options so mach as it is that Pathfinder has too many bad options. The game would be much more accessible if a new player didn't have the danger of accidentally building an ineffective character because they chose the options that looked good on the face of it.
Maybe I just can't think today... but what are these bad options you are talking about? I am not familiar with a lot of the newer feats, maybe them? As far as I know all the options are good for some build, somewhere. Heck skill focus itself has numerous uses as well like boosting stealth or diplomacy for builds that make good use of those talents. The biggest trap I have seen isn't that there are bad feats, it is that people try to spread themselves too thin with feats and end up fairly mediocre.
Maybe I just can't think today... but what are these bad options you are talking about?
This isn't an exhaustive list:
Vow of poverty, the monk class in general, prone shooter, most rogue talents, the rogue class in general, guns in general, a good chunk of eastern weapons, crossbows, slings, vow of poverty, thrown weapons, weapon finesse, sea legs, the spellslinger archetype, the arcane bomber archetype, the siege mage archetype, vow of poverty, elephant stomp, the raging climber rage power, the raging swimmer rage power, the raging leaper rage power, the bestial climber rage power, the bestial swimmer rage power, the wild rager archetype, vow of poverty, more prestige classes than I care to name, vital strike, kobolds, sea legs, fireball, magic missile, and the white-haired witch archetype. Did I mention vow of poverty?
Now, I'm not claiming that it's impossible for someone with system mastery to take some of these options and optimize to build an effective character. That's obviously not true. However, it's not something that a new player is going to know how to do, so it's not relevant.