|
So I've seen a number of threads speaking to this point, but all focusing on aparticular element of it.
The issue I'd like to get some feedback on is this: How much choice is too much in a roleplying game like Pathfinder?
Each of us has limited amounts of time and money. More options mean more rules. They require time to master, and still more to actually try out. And it costs money. As a PFS GM, my miniscule gaming budget currently goes towards buying scenarios. I already own 500+ pages of rules. Why buy more?
At what point does too much choice become crippling? A few years ago I read a fascinating book called The Paradox of Choice. The author concludes, based on interesting research, that people are unhappy if they have no choices, but after a certain point additional choices not only fail to add enjoyment, they make things less enjoyable.
The idea is that there are two kinds of people: "optimizers", who are compelled to investigate every single option until they find the very "best", and "satisficers" who set a bar and roll with the first or second choice that meets or exceeds that standard.
Paizo obviously is profit-driven, so new books need to be written to generate revenue. But as a gamer, where do you stand?
Do you like reading about and learning rules for 20+ classes and countless archetypes? If so, how many waking hours per week do you spend in "gamer mode?"
How many of you actually have time to try these ideas in play?
I've seen many posters say they're opposed to anything that limits choices. Why not then play GURPS then, for example? No classes. Your character can do anything. Except they can't. You have limited points to spend.
I AM NOT saying one way is right or wrong, let's be clear about that right now. I'd just like to understand people's thoughts.
I get Paizo's stance: they provide so many options so that they can pique the interest of the largest number of people possible. For instance, I'm excited for the new Advanced Class Guide, but only for 2 of the classes. Other people are excited for other concepts. I get that.
If you like choices, why? If you like things more limited, why that?
I think this could be very informative. Thanks!
I like choices, but I like them grouped and organized.
What I mean is, I want choices to make any concept work in a roleplaying game. As there is a near infinite number of concepts or close to that, you can imagine what I want the overall number of choices to be.
That said. I want my choices in a way that helps me make them. In particular I want choices that made once, help dictate my later choices, narrowing down the field as I go. So while I want in infinite potential of choices, I want each choice to progressively reduce the field of choices to something managable.
What does this actually mean? I want base classes, and feat trees. SO lets say there is in a game space, 500 options of which you have to choose 10. In a game like gurps, after you make one choice, you must choose among 499 options. If I've made 2 choices, I now make my third choice among 498 options.
If those choices were represented as say 8 base classes of 50 options each, and 100 feats dividing in 80 of which are in feat trees. Well I make choice one, my class. I now have now eliminated 350 of those choices in the form of class features, and then probably at least half the feats (as they wont work for my class). Now I have around 99 options to make my second choice from. Each choice will make the rest progressively easier, but that first choice dramatically cuts down the field. And obviously my ideal would be there the vast majority of options would be a base class, so the narrowing down would be even more dramatic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "too many" for me. Back in my 3.5 days I read every splat book that came out, and knew what the options were. With Pathfinder, even though it has less books, I don't know it as well because I have less free time. Most of the time I learn about a new ability by coming to the messageboards. I don't understand the "too much" crowd. If I as a GM don't know what something is or does then I just dont allow it, until I know what it does.
As a player, I see no need to look at every possible choice when making a character. If I had the free time I might, but since I don't and competent characters can be made without using every book, Paizo having 1000 books would not bother me because I would just not bother trying to read all of them.
As a Player I love Options. Not really an "optimizer" myself but I love trying out new things and new ideas and seeing what kind of a person I can create with them. But I have to check with my DM to see what he'll allow. (he's generally ok as long as I give him a copy of what I want to use)
As a DM I love choices from a World building standpoint.
For me the game rules and all the added stuff are a toolkit to build a game and setting with. Building that setting means taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there and giving them a tweak.
In World Building mode I have no problem sitting down and looking at a world and deciding
"OK, only these classes are allowed for people coming from this Kingdom."
"This Race are unable to wield Arcane power because of their connection to nature. No Arcane Spellcasters for them"
"This Kingdom hates Gods, No Divine Spellcasters allowed here."
"These guys have an elite order of Warrior mages that are different from everything else out there, lets use this 3rd party class for them instead of the Magus and then call it a Variant Magus class so that people can't multiclass the the two into something silly."
"this order of mages has secret lore about magic no one else knows. So you can only learn these Feats if you Join this group"
Infinite choice without restriction can lead to problems
but having a ton of options and using them carefully to flesh out your world and setting can make for a really good game.
Imagine a campaign featuring an Evil Horde of Orcs devoted to conquest, now add in the rule that members of this Horde can only have levels in the Godling Class from Super Genius Games and give them a background where they killed and ate half the gods of this world as the first step of their conquest.
More Options = More tools
|
|
Thanks for all the well-thought-out responses! It's been helpful to read through them.
I agree that Paizo, and other publishers I imagine, do a good job of giving people directed choices. It's something I greatly appreciate. Like many of you, I come up with a character concept in my mind, and then try to find rules that make it happen. More rules and more options make it more likely that I'll find something I like that's also mechanically sound. That's why I'm excited for some of the new books on the horizon.
Still, having never played a D&D-type game before picking up Pathfinder earlier this year I find myself still very excited about things many others seem to have moved on from. I sometimes feel as though I'm trying to catch up on 15 years of no roleplaying but also learn rapidly developing new rules too. So I guess I'm somewhat conflicted at times.
Derek just take your time, and I would mainly stick to the CRB, APG, UM, and UC. If you are brand new then take your time. You really only need the CRB. Once you learn the rules better it will be a lot less overwhelming.
+1 to the OP and the thread, simply for mentioning The Paradox of Choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never hit that point, myself, mostly because, for any given character, there are only so many choices that really need to be made, and huge chunks of the rules that can be overlooked.
If I'm making a wizard, i can ignore, for example, the cleric spell list, combat feats, most of the weapons charts, etc.
It is also simply not necessary to use every rule in every book. think of them more like a plug-and-play system. You like this one, use it. You don't like this one, don't use it.
Want a word with no humans? Throw 'em out.
No divine casters or gods? Tossed.
Don't like how the game handles weather? Don't use that system.
Think this trait or this feat or this spell or anything else is too powerful? Give it the boot.
I like the availability of choices, but that doesn't mean I have to use them all. After all, every rule Paizo makes is just an idea for how to play, each rule can be used, scraped, or altered to match my in particular vision of my campaign. So I like the options, but could definitely just avoid a good amount of them. Good thread though.
Options and having choices are ALWAYS a good thing in my book. The beauty of choice is that's simply what it is, a choice. You don't HAVE to use it or include it in your game if you don't want to. Options only become crippling when they are no longer options. There certainly can be a tendency for some players to always buy the latest thing and will want to use those options as soon as possible. This can cause resentment in the GM who feels obliged to accommodate. From my view, I never say no. You can never know what new rule will excite your players and that is part of the fun.
A friend of mine read RPG books because that was his book of choice. I like playing the character types. It is unfortunate that we are stuck in this 2 year grind. We are on our way to completing Second Darkness and I am playing a Monk. Or next game is Rune Lords and the group had to pick characters. I could have picked anything, but settled on the Spirit Ranger. If we didn't do the APs, I would get a chance to try other things like the Gunslinger or the Ninja or the Dervish Bard. So I am open to almost anything....given time.
The issue I'd like to get some feedback on is this: How much choice is too much in a roleplying game like Pathfinder?
No amount would be too many.
And it costs money.
As far as Pathfinder is concerned at least, it's all free online, so it costs me $0 (or well, it costs exactly as much as I want to spend to support them). So, more rules is never a cost issue. I dislike running other people's adventures and settings, so I also don't buy that stuff, either.
Oh, and I think PFS (and other global "living" games like that) are anathema, so also not a problem.
The idea is that there are two kinds of people: "optimizers", who are compelled to investigate every single option until they find the very "best", and "satisficers" who set a bar and roll with the first or second choice that meets or exceeds that standard.
Clearly, I'm am optimizer, then.
Do you like reading about and learning rules for 20+ classes and countless archetypes?
YES! Absolutely yes, that's the main draw of a game like this for me.
If so, how many waking hours per week do you spend in "gamer mode?"
Uh, I guess almost all of them? I don't know, I'm practically always thinking about some kind of game. Is that unusual?
How many of you actually have time to try these ideas in play?
I would assume zero people--there's way too many choices to be practical for any one person to try them all. I haven't even played every class in AD&D, never mind in Pathfinder. But that's ok, because I know what I like for the most part and can tell I won't like something without trying it. Having more choices means more junk I never touch, but it also means more chance for something I really love.
I've seen many posters say they're opposed to anything that limits choices. Why not then play GURPS then, for example? No classes. Your character can do anything. Except they can't. You have limited points to spend.
I unquestionably prefer playing games without classes to games that have them. Not GURPS, though, I hate the system. I much prefer Savage Worlds, White Wolf's games, and systems like that.
For instance, I'm excited for the new Advanced Class Guide, but only for 2 of the classes.
I'm only excited by one of them, but that's enough for me to be happy the book will be coming out, and I know several will be useful for NPCs or appeal to the rest of my group, so that's a win.
If you like choices, why?
I guess because I like thinking about games, and having more choices gives me more to think about. I prefer playing other games, but there's not nearly as much to think about, so I keep coming back to games like Pathfinder as well.