| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing that I dont understand is this: I've been playing and running RPG's for almost 30 years now and when I'm introducing newer players to a game I NEVER unleash the full chargen rules on them. EVER. I dont care how simple the game proclaims to be. The goal is to get them to the PLAY point. To learn the game in PLAY. In play is pretty much where you can teach the core concepts about the game because, I find, that you have a much better context for most everything in play.
If your players are a little more experienced and it takes them 2 hours to make a character is it due to them not understanding how a character is made? Or is it them pouring over the options? Because if it's them pouring over the options then that's going to be par for the course for ANYTHING with a metric buttload of options. And criticizing the game for having so many options available usually means that you should be either limiting options at the outset yourself as GM or perhaps playing a game with fewer options.
Citing the game for player indecision (which is not a BAD thing)is also not really fair either. If a player decides that they want to start making one type of PC and then midway through it decides that they might be better off with another type thats not the game's fault. If a player even takes more time than usual (what is usual anyway?) even deciding where his/her stats are going to go is that the game's fault too? There's alot that goes into character generation but it doesnt have to be this obessive thing where it takes 2 hours to build a PC. If you know exactly what you want and are not trying to build the perfect PC a reasonable person can do it in less.
and as a GM I do leave leeway for my players especially at the beginning of a campaign to make changes to their PC's later on in the game. That's part of open communication between the GM and the players.
I recently had to build a character (a Paladin) for my first game in YEARS. I havent played a paladin in YEARS. Not since 2nd Edition actually. But I had a rough idea of what I wanted and it was a 1st level character and it took me around 30 min to build him. I'm not saying that makes me special but I didnt agonize over every option (and I have all of the books and HERO LAB). I just built the character. If I was going to agonize over every option that goes to a certain mindset then yes it would have taken me longer. But again goes back to the point of the amount of options and whether "I" as a person and player feel compelled to have to use them or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game walks a fine line between two core aspects of play:
A) This is a roleplaying game you can use to play characters through a variety of interesting scenarios.
B) This is a stat-building game you can use to build special combinations of rules that allow you to do interesting things.
Now, these are not opposite points on the continuum, most of us are well acquainted with that fact. However, the two aspects do received a disproportionate coverage in the mechanics (and in player interest) that creates the illusion of opposition in these styles of play.
For my taste, Pathfinder has too much support for style B, and not enough for style A. And like any stat/deckbuilding game, it begins to collapse under it's own complexity when it becomes too large. Correction: a large game appeals to an increasingly selective number of people who already have familiarity -- or the type of person who digs insanely complex things.
That's fine with me, actually. I think they should be able to keep adding crunch to the system as long as it sells. The trouble is, I find it all somewhat hard to use. I'd like to see the core "streamlined" a bit, which is mostly changes in presentation and a very accessible core rulebook that absorbs some of the new options.
Basically, I need the version of the game that I can hand to a new player and not intimidate the heck out of them. The Beginner's Box is great for this, but there should be a Core Rulebook that lets someone become a full-Pathfinder player easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly agree.
I think the crunch isn't a problem, per se, but rather the overlapping elements of it.
Just as a recent example, there are three different honey(ed)(-)tongue(ed) traits, and three different demon(-)slayer traits. What? Why?
I agree with the idea of streamlining it in places... but I'm not entirely sure that the large game automatically only interests limited-groups of people. Perhaps it does... but I think that's because of the way it's introduced.
(Core book is way too big, though, I'll give you that.)
Just as a recent example, there are three different honey(ed)(-)tongue(ed) traits, and three different demon(-)slayer traits. What? Why?
I've chalked that up to how the Seasons work. The vast majority of Traits show up in PFS material, not the PRD books; because Paizo designs Seasons to largely be self-contained, or at least self-referencing, they re-use names on the assumption that people probably won't go back and reference older material.
This isn't dissimilar to how MTG handles its Standard Format, which rotates every 2 Blocks. Every Set and Block will have some reprints in it. The difference THERE, however, is that card names are unique, and thus if anything is changed due to a reprint, all earlier versions are retroactively errata'd.
The way Pathfinder handles Traits is a bit more like how the Pokemon TCG handles its cards - you can have 12 radically different "Pikachu" cards in Pokemon, and you can have 3 different Honey(ed)(-)Tongue(d) traits.
I don't think Pathfinder the basic games needs an overhaul; I do think, however, that PFS needs a major overhaul and condensation of rules. PFS seems to be the 900lb gorilla in the room, really.
Is faster character creation really something that's needed?
I mean, low level characters can be made in 10 minutes or less with PF as it is?
It kinda depends.
You can whip up a generic lv1 character in fifteen minutes to a half hour (even fewer if you pick a character from the NPC Codex).
If you're going all-in, though, with Archetypes, Traits, Alt Racial Traits, Favored Classes Abilities, etc., it can take a fair amount of time and research.
If you keep your sources to just the CRB, APG, ARG, UM, UC, and ACG, you'll probably be looking at like a 45 minutes to an hour.
If you let players use ANYTHING (up to and including Mythic Tiers) and go by the D20PFSRD, you'd better devout the better part of a Session just to Character Creation.
Character creation in Pathfinder is as complicated as as many options you wish to use.
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.
We'll see.
The closest thing 1E had to a splat book was UA. TSR did, however, produce plenty of modules. Some of WotC's recent comments hint they might be going in a similar direction.
The other thing that I dont understand is this: I've been playing and running RPG's for almost 30 years now and when I'm introducing newer players to a game I NEVER unleash the full chargen rules on them. EVER. I dont care how simple the game proclaims to be. The goal is to get them to the PLAY point. To learn the game in PLAY. In play is pretty much where you can teach the core concepts about the game because, I find, that you have a much better context for most everything in play.
If your players are a little more experienced and it takes them 2 hours to make a character is it due to them not understanding how a character is made? Or is it them pouring over the options? Because if it's them pouring over the options then that's going to be par for the course for ANYTHING with a metric buttload of options. And criticizing the game for having so many options available usually means that you should be either limiting options at the outset yourself as GM or perhaps playing a game with fewer options.
Yes, we're playing RotRL and the DM is allowing books in at the rate of one per Character level. (about half are campaign books, sure)
Now, at about 13/14 we have many choices. But we have learned as we go and we don't allow anyone to dump their PC and bring in a new one or suicide their PC.
I think a DM would be insane to say "OK, everything is allowed. Paizo, 3PP, 35, everything. Now- Go!".
Allowing too much stuff also means you beat the AP encounters too easily. This means less fun.
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.We'll see.
The closest thing 1E had to a splat book was UA. TSR did, however, produce plenty of modules. Some of WotC's recent comments hint they might be going in a similar direction.
Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks
DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing that I dont understand is this: I've been playing and running RPG's for almost 30 years now and when I'm introducing newer players to a game I NEVER unleash the full chargen rules on them. EVER. I dont care how simple the game proclaims to be. The goal is to get them to the PLAY point. To learn the game in PLAY. In play is pretty much where you can teach the core concepts about the game because, I find, that you have a much better context for most everything in play.
If your players are a little more experienced and it takes them 2 hours to make a character is it due to them not understanding how a character is made? Or is it them pouring over the options? Because if it's them pouring over the options then that's going to be par for the course for ANYTHING with a metric buttload of options. And criticizing the game for having so many options available usually means that you should be either limiting options at the outset yourself as GM or perhaps playing a game with fewer options.
Citing the game for player indecision (which is not a BAD thing)is also not really fair either. If a player decides that they want to start making one type of PC and then midway through it decides that they might be better off with another type thats not the game's fault. If a player even takes more time than usual (what is usual anyway?) even deciding where his/her stats are going to go is that the game's fault too? There's alot that goes into character generation but it doesnt have to be this obessive thing where it takes 2 hours to build a PC. If you know exactly what you want and are not trying to build the perfect PC a reasonable person can do it in less.
and as a GM I do leave leeway for my players especially at the beginning of a campaign to make changes to their PC's later on in the game. That's part of open communication between the GM and the players.
I recently had to build a character (a Paladin) for my first game in YEARS. I havent played a paladin in YEARS. Not since 2nd Edition actually....
I'll give you my situation and you can extrapolate from that what you will.
Joined a group through Meetup.com. The group was running a Pathfinder game looking for a player. The GM made it clear all were new to Pathfinder but with some previous RPG experience. When we finished the one-shot, I offered to run a full length campaign. Everyone was on board so we started rolling up new characters.
One person is playing a monk, he already had one mostly built just from tinkering with the rules. He finished quickly.
One person is playing a paladin. She had played one previously so mostly knew what she wanted. She finished second.
Of the three remaining players, one is a bard, one a wizard, and one a fighter. The woman playing the bard had never done so before so she wanted to familiarize herself with the class. By the time we broke two hours later she had just finished selecting her feats.
The guy playing the wizard had never done so before so he wanted to familiarize himself with the class. He got through picking a familiar, spells, and a school. He still needs to choose feats.
The guy playing the fighter... well you get the idea.
And by the way, it's Core only so they don't need to worry about traits. I offered advice when I thought it was needed, but I don’t tell people how to build their characters.
Not everyone reads at the same speed. Some people are just more intelligent than others and pick things up faster. Add to that the number of options and you can end up with people taking real time to make characters. I certainly wasn't going to tell them that Pathfinder is not the game they should be playing. And who knows, once the first three 5e books are out we might give it a try.
And by the way, it's Core only so they don't need to worry about traits.
Could expand on what this meant as far as books being used by the players?
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.Is faster character creation really something that's needed?
I mean, low level characters can be made in 10 minutes or less with PF as it is?
It kinda depends.
You can whip up a generic lv1 character in fifteen minutes to a half hour (even fewer if you pick a character from the NPC Codex).
If you're going all-in, though, with Archetypes, Traits, Alt Racial Traits, Favored Classes Abilities, etc., it can take a fair amount of time and research.
If you keep your sources to just the CRB, APG, ARG, UM, UC, and ACG, you'll probably be looking at like a 45 minutes to an hour.
If you let players use ANYTHING (up to and including Mythic Tiers) and go by the D20PFSRD, you'd better devout the better part of a Session just to Character Creation.
Character creation in Pathfinder is as complicated as as many options you wish to use.
I know I'm fully expecting a dump truck load over time.
And by the way, it's Core only so they don't need to worry about traits.Could expand on what this meant as far as books being used by the players?
Core only = Core Rule Book only
Whats a "popcorn post?"
Whats a "popcorn post?"
The ones where someone makes a goofy alias then talks about breaking out the popcorn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whats a "popcorn post?"
Posts that say things like "Getting some popcorn" or otherwise indicating that they are gathering around to watch the ensuing fight.
On the tangent of character building complexity, I was under the impression that people built characters or played the game by 'tiers'. They start with Beginner Box campaigns, then Core Rulebook campaigns, then add in the APG and Ultimate Magic/Combat, then start adding in the other hardcovers, and then add in all the splatbooks and stuff. (exceptions being material more relevant to the Adventure Path you're running.)
I went through those steps and character building wasn't difficult beyond the first character for the most part. My girlfriend still has troubles making a character but she's kind of a tard when it comes to a lot of games in general.
Personally my only beef is spell selection, mostly because its difficult to build a theme by skimming because you don't get too much subtype and energy descriptor information in the tables. You just have to 'know' the basic ones and go from there.
I would like to note that I'm probably biased as to how complicated having decisions contain a lot of different choices can be because I play a lot of casual Magic: the Gathering and EDH so I face this any time I build a deck. I do the same thing with Pathfinder that I do with Magic; I pick a theme, go for what I know and skim around for finishing touches. Also like Magic, since I'm starting at level 1, I don't need a lot of those details right away and will probably build around metagame information as it effects me. (Man there are a lot of touch attacks in this campaign, I better invest in some deflection AC)
|
I think I've heard this before. I know Paizo will listen, but I don't think much will change.
Minor point, where did you come up with twenty new core classes? Assuming you mean the ACG, there are only ten.
There are only ten in the FIRST VOLUME of the Advanced Class Guide AP. There will be sixty by the time the AP is completed.
:P
If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?Or, for that matter, Palladium/Robotech.
Or BESM. BESM d20 was substantially faster, but absurdly more broken.
Or GURPS.
Or, heck, even 2nd Edition. Dear lord, 2nd Edition.
4E took arguably more time, as well, because everything in that game was Powers, which means you had tons of choices (albeit many were functionally-identical) you had to make for every class.
Chivalry & Sorcery.
There. I win.
Weeks.
|
|
I got you all beat.
FATAL.
Just TRY doing that crap without using the DOS chargen program.
Here's why I got using the chargen program, all random selection:
---------------------------F.A.T.A.L. Character------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2000-2003 Fatal Games. All Rights Reserved.
------------------------General Character Information------------------------------
Character Name: Hjalmvardr Hafgrimr Gender: M Race: Bugbear
Player Name: Occupation: Age Category: Infant
Homeland: Level: Religion:
Height: 34 Weight: 140 Siblings: 2 Social Class: Peasant
Age: 2 Max Age: 125 Eyes: Brown Skin Color: Fur
Marital Status: Single Birth Rank: 1st
Birth Status: Legitimate Hair Color: Light Brown Hair Type: Thick, kinky, oily
Hair Length: 2 Vision: Far-sightedness, 5 feet
Facial Feature: Protruding lower lip
Perceived as altruistic, showing greater concern for others
Birthplace: Town Birthday:8/9/5098
Most Attactive Feature: Hair Most Repulsive Feature: Buttocks
Appearance:
Notes:
----------------------------Character Abilities-------------------------------------
Sub-ability Score Mods
___________________________________________________________________________ _________
PHYSIQUE: 22 -56
Physical Fitness: 13 -64 Sprint: 10
Strength: 24 -56 Damage: -56% C&J: 11 Bench: 22 DL: 39
Bodily Attractiveness: 1 -99
Health: 53 -29 Int/Vom: +29% All: 3 Ill. Imm.: 40%
CHARISMA: 10 -74
Facial: 17 -64 Description: Deformed
Vocal: 7 -74 Description: Weak
Kinetic: 9 -74 Description: Lumbering
Rhetoric: 10 -74 Avg. Speech: 5
DEXTERITY: 8 -74
Hand-Eye Coordination: 12 -74 Finger Prec: 6 inches
Agility: 7 -74 CA Bonus: -15 Brawl: 1/3 Stand: 8
Reaction Speed: 9 -74 Deep Sleep Recov: 7
Enunciation: 6 -99 Max Speech: 40 Casting: Unable to chant properly
INTELLIGENCE: 10 -74
Language: 9 -74 #: 0 Vocab: NA
Math: 11 -74 Highest Math: Addition
Analytical: 11 -74
Spatial: 11 -74 Unfamiliar Object Assembly: 2
WISDOM: 29 -50
Drive: 49 -29 Hours Resting: 20
Intuition: 48 -34
Common Sense: 10 -74 Likely to: Attempt to lie to their god
Reflection: 10 -74 Earliest memory at: 1 month ago
Life Points: 10 Unconscious: 2 CA: 1
Piety Points: 6 Magic Points:
Breadth: 17 BMI: 85.3806 BMI Status: Overweight
-------------------------------------Disposition--------------------------- ---------
Ethicality: 96 Morality: 9
You are: Ethical Immoral w/Neutral tendencies
-------------------------------------Temperament--------------------------- ---------
Sanguine: 34 Choleric: 38 Melancholic: 100 Phlegmatic: 81
Primary Temperament: Melancholic Secondary Temperament: Phlegmatic
-------------------------------------Starting Funds---------------------------------
Silver Pieces: 2
------------------------------------Mental Illnesses--------------------------------
None
--------------------------------------Allergies---------------------------- ---------
Allergy 1: milk
Allergy 2: eggs
Allergy 3: asthma
------------------------------------Rare Features-----------------------------------
Handedness: Right-handed
Foot Size: 4
Head Cicumference: 17.563
-----------------------------------Sexual Features----------------------------------
Manhood Length: 2.83333 Manhood Circumference: 2.07117
Anal Circumference Potential: 5 Nipple Length: 0.5
Areola Diameter: 1 Areola Hue: Dark
Tongue Size: 1 Sexuality: Heterosexual
Debauchery: 95
Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks
DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.
I tend to ignore the setting specific ones (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, OA) unless I'm playing in those settings, though I had forgotten about the Survival Guides. As for 2E basically being "a splat book for 1st ed"...not exactly sure what you're trying to imply with that, but I don't consider a new edition a splat book for the prior edition.
As for what happens with 5E -- they've implied they're going to go slower than 3E or 4E, but who knows?
|
|
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.We'll see.
The closest thing 1E had to a splat book was UA. TSR did, however, produce plenty of modules. Some of WotC's recent comments hint they might be going in a similar direction.
Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks
DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.
Ignoring the campaign specific ones, there's only eight supplementary books for 1st Edition. Of those, two were monster books, which often aren't counted as "splat books". So...six splat books. Or about one every two years.
The company has been purchased at least twice since then. You cannot seriously suggest that the publication History of TSR from the 70s is a more likely model for Hasbro to follow than the schedule kept in any edition since then that has been much higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are only ten in the FIRST VOLUME of the Advanced Class Guide AP. There will be sixty by the time the AP is completed.
Paizo will not stop until there is a unique class for EVERY character in Bleach.
Those of you who haven't read/watched Bleach are wondering what I'm talking about, and those of you who HAVE, are CRYING.
I tend to ignore the setting specific ones (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, OA) unless I'm playing in those settings, though I had forgotten about the Survival Guides. As for 2E basically being "a splat book for 1st ed"...not exactly sure what you're trying to imply with that, but I don't consider a new edition a splat book for the prior edition.Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks
DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.
2nd Edition was in no way a "edition" like the change between AD&D and 3rd or 3rd & 4th. We who played 1st and 2nd edition just called the whole thing "AD&D" and 1st ed characters could happily play in 2nd Ed games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was just correcing DrDeth. At his age, some of the details from beyond yesterday are understandably a bit fuzzy.
:P
Hey, kid, I've forgotten more about the History of D&D than you ever knew. And GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
;-)
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.We'll see.
The closest thing 1E had to a splat book was UA. TSR did, however, produce plenty of modules. Some of WotC's recent comments hint they might be going in a similar direction.
Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks
DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.
They were not splat books in the traditional sense of a d20 type one. Only UA had power creep as such in it for players, most of the rest were DM type books or books that added a skill system to the game. They did not reeally bloat the game as such or cause massive balance problems at least until UA which is similar to a modern splat book. Technically they were all splat books of course but they were a different kind of splat.
2nd Edition was in no way a "edition" like the change between AD&D and 3rd or 3rd & 4th. We who played 1st and 2nd edition just called the whole thing "AD&D" and 1st ed characters could happily play in 2nd Ed games.I tend to ignore the setting specific ones (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, OA) unless I'm playing in those settings, though I had forgotten about the Survival Guides. As for 2E basically being "a splat book for 1st ed"...not exactly sure what you're trying to imply with that, but I don't consider a new edition a splat book for the prior edition.Umm, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks
DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.
We quit D&D when they released 2E. It felt like an edition change to us.
2nd Edition was in no way a "edition" like the change between AD&D and 3rd or 3rd & 4th.
I recall. I was, as it happens, playing D&D at the time.
We who played 1st and 2nd edition just called the whole thing "AD&D"
Well, you did at any rate. ;-)
Seriously, in every other industry, 'edition' means 'published revision.' Using the word properly, pathfinder is already on its sixth edition. And, arguably, pathfinder is itself the third edition of "D&D 3.0".
Yeah...that is confusing. They really should have gone with "version" or somesuch when they did 2E in '89. But they didn't, and it stuck.