| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint to anyone afraid that because there are a lot of books people won't buy: GURPS.But GURPS is specifically and obviously split up in to sourcebooks for different types of campaigns. You're not going to use more than a few in a given game.
If that was true they would have collapsed like TSR from splitting the customer base. Any argument that there is rules bloat and Paizo should stop making rules books is just founded in a selfish desire to invalidate what other people find fun.
Basically for everyone who argues their are two many books, there are people who argue that their are not enough (or at least not enough GM options, or not enough PC options)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically for everyone who argues their are two many books, there are people who argue that their are not enough (or at least not enough GM options, or not enough PC options)
It's also surprisingly difficult to not extrapolate ones own experiences onto the market as a whole. I can't understand the attraction of a game as complicated as pathfinder - yet here it is as one of the best selling RPGs of all time. :)
Watch how often people say "I'm sure that paizo could..." or "it's certainly true that..." or "everyone i know thinks that..." before giving their opinion about what they think will work. Even if you regularly game with a hundred gamers, your sample size is both negligible and nonrepresentative. Nobody should be confident of analysis based on anecdotal observation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing Paizo to TSR and suggesting that paizo faces a similar fate is just not reasonable for multiple reasons.
1.Lisa Stevens is a very smart business saavy woman who knows what she is doing. The woman who ran TSR did not know the first thing about what she was doing.
2.Paizos upper management actually play and understand the game they produce.
3. Paizo actually listens to their customers and they do respond to their customers gaming needs and desires.
4.Paizo's hardcover rulebook's exist to support their adventure path's unlike TSR/WoTC who put out hardcover rulebooks and then support them with a various mishmash of random adventure's, setting's and accessories, some of which are good some not so much.
Finally while I will be the first to admit that it is obvious that Paizo is running out of topics to make hardcover rulebooks out of. And I imagine that means that future books will feature more experimental subjects, and more endless crunch. I do however think eventually they will for financial reasons eventually try to consolidate the information into perhaps a corebook 2 that will feature the best of the newer material in a fixed up way so that they can discontinue the older books. I do not think they will change the core mechanic's anytime soon. We cannot forget however that the core of their product line is the AP's and the world of Golarion has barely been touched of the great reservoir of adventures to be had they have not even touched entire continents. Paizo will continue to thrive for some time to come.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have personally reached the "no more rulebooks" stage with Pathfinder. Unchained will probably be my last. I have enough rules to last a long time. I will still continue buying the APs that look interesting but I do wonder if, between 5e and people feeling like they have enough Pathfinder rules, a downturn is inevitable.
Aw, I hope that is not true. I think you'll really like Occult Adventures. I've been working on it with the freelancers and the design staff and I'm really excited by what I'm seeing.
I have personally reached the "no more rulebooks" stage with Pathfinder. Unchained will probably be my last. I have enough rules to last a long time. I will still continue buying the APs that look interesting but I do wonder if, between 5e and people feeling like they have enough Pathfinder rules, a downturn is inevitable.Aw, I hope that is not true. I think you'll really like Occult Adventures. I've been working on it with the freelancers and the design staff and I'm really excited by what I'm seeing.
Similar deal for me. I was not a massive consumer of PF due to lack of FLGS but Ultimate Campaign was my last PF purchase. More or less reached saturation point, not using the splats I do have that much (APG,UM,UC) and enough adventures to play for a long time.
Shattered Star, Reign of Winter, and the Numeria AP did not appeal that much. Slowly creeping through Reign of Winter but eh.Mythic Adventures did not appeal, learnt my lesson with 3.0 Epic Level Handbook in that regard.
Advanced Classes Guide, leaning towards less is more atm just to combat the combos and power creep. Started and used several APs, just have not finished them as we tend to stop playing around level 10.
Mythic Adventures did not appeal, learnt my lesson with 3.0 Epic Level Handbook in that regard.
Just to be clear: you know those two things look, act, and okay nothing alike, yes?
I would hesitate to call two occurrences of an event a 'trend'.
Just to be clear: you know those two things look, act, and okay nothing alike, yes?Mythic Adventures did not appeal, learnt my lesson with 3.0 Epic Level Handbook in that regard.
I have seen the horror stories online about PCs having 600 odd hit points. I know it layers over level 11-20 but it seems to scream power creep to me.
Right now I am a big believer in less is more. Core rulebook only maybe a few classes from other books and optional rules and select feats.
Put it this why I got burned out on PF in 2012 and played BECMI again and enjoyed it, hence why mythic doesn't appeal to me at all. If you have never played Basic D&D there is only 7 classes, no feats, 13 odd spells for spell casters per spell level, and the numbers are a lot smaller. Also played AD&D again st and 2nd ed and yeah it is kinda goofy and the core mechanics kind of suck but it is easier to run.
Can tell me with a straight face Mythic is not just full of bigger numbers and power creep/bloat
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I'm really not worried about Pathfinder and Paizo. I just looked it up and Lisa Stevens has been working in the industry longer than I have been alive. I'm going to bet that she knows what she's doing.
You know, I'm really not worried about Pathfinder and Paizo. I just looked it up and Lisa Stevens has been working in the industry longer than I have been alive. I'm going to bet that she knows what she's doing.
TO the OP I think TSR was printing around 65 2E books in 1995. That is 5 books per month.
WoTC was restrained by comparison.I did see a thread on another forum claiming Paizo was making more product than TSR. A key difference is Paizo I assume can sell that product, TSR could not and they are not making any of it as a loss.
Technically I only bought TSR product for 4 years, Paizo product for 10-12 years,WoTC 17 years with a 3 year gap.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen the horror stories online about PCs having 600 odd hit points. I know it layers over level 11-20 but it seems to scream power creep to me.
Right now I am a big believer in less is more. Core rulebook only maybe a few classes from other books and optional rules and select feats.
Put it this why I got burned out on PF in 2012 and played BECMI again and enjoyed it, hence why mythic doesn't appeal to me at all. If you have never played Basic D&D there is only 7 classes, no feats, 13 odd spells for spell casters per spell level, and the numbers are a lot smaller.
Can tell me with a straight face Mythic is not just full of bigger numbers and power creep/bloat
Dude, that's the entire point of it. Couple with abilities (like being able to throw a man 100 feet straight up) is what this system is trying to do. It's about playing mythical, god like characters. It's not power creep if it is an intentional and optional rule set. It's just power.
And it's not a system for everyone. This isn't meant to be a continuation of the rules. It's an optional rule set for people that want to play Hercules and Gilgamesh.
Also, thought this isn't important, mythic rules can be layered on to a character as early as level 1.
I have seen the horror stories online about PCs having 600 odd hit points. I know it layers over level 11-20 but it seems to scream power creep to me.
Right now I am a big believer in less is more. Core rulebook only maybe a few classes from other books and optional rules and select feats.
Put it this why I got burned out on PF in 2012 and played BECMI again and enjoyed it, hence why mythic doesn't appeal to me at all. If you have never played Basic D&D there is only 7 classes, no feats, 13 odd spells for spell casters per spell level, and the numbers are a lot smaller.
Can tell me with a straight face Mythic is not just full of bigger numbers and power creep/bloat
Dude, that's the entire point of it. Couple with abilities (like being able to throw a man 100 feet straight up) is what this system is trying to do. It's about playing mythical, god like characters. It's not power creep if it is an intentional and optional rule set. It's just power.
And it's not a system for everyone. This isn't meant to be a continuation of the rules. It's an optional rule set for people that want to play Hercules and Gilgamesh.
Also, thought this isn't important, mythic rules can be layered on to a character as early as level 1.
And thats why I did not buy it. That is just obscene to me. I want to go the other way strip out 3.x magic mart, play a d20 system that is more than a clone of AD&D/BECMI but is not borked like 3.x mechanically. Kinda having fun with 5E but there is a bit in there I do not like.
I had a guts full of complexity and power ups and powerz and its not getting any better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And thats why I did not buy it. That is just obscene to me. I want to go the other way strip out 3.x magic mart, play a d20 system that is more than a clone of AD&D/BECMI but is not borked like 3.x mechanically. Kinda having fun with 5E but there is a bit in there I do not like.
I had a guts full of complexity and power ups and powerz and its not getting any better.
And that's completely fair. As I said, it's not for everyone, but it's there for those that want it. And I want it. I like campaigns where I can hulk leap and casters can easily destroy armies with their spells.
I think the important thing for Paizo here is that not every rule needs to be part of the core experience and they certainly realize this. Between Mythic, Occult Adventures, and even as far back as the Game Mastery Guide, there has been a lot of works on optional rules* that expand on gameplay in unique ways.
If they continue forward like this, I think they will start dodging rules bloat complaints (somewhat) and find success in that. This is how I think they will deal with "rules bloat".
*Optional as intentionally laid out that way. Technically, everything is optional.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have personally reached the "no more rulebooks" stage with Pathfinder. Unchained will probably be my last. I have enough rules to last a long time. I will still continue buying the APs that look interesting but I do wonder if, between 5e and people feeling like they have enough Pathfinder rules, a downturn is inevitable.Aw, I hope that is not true. I think you'll really like Occult Adventures. I've been working on it with the freelancers and the design staff and I'm really excited by what I'm seeing.
The great thing about Paizo, and RPG publishers in general, is that even if I personally am not interested in what an upcoming release has to offer (which, admittedly, is the case with Occult Adventures), I'm happy that players who DO want that material have access to it. Same goes for psionics and a whole myriad of other things that have been developed. It's neat to know that these products will likely find screen time at our gaming table due to players who seek out new options that pique their interests.
This really is a new golden age of gaming--there is such a great variety of products out there catering to a very wide range of interests, and that is awesome to me as someone who grew up in an era where it was hard to find other gamers, and the selection of products was narrow as a result of market forces and social stigma. GAMERS UNITE, BABY!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thats why I did not buy it.
This is fair enough. To each their own on that regard.
That is just obscene to me.
This is just silly, or, at the very least, hyperbole.
If it is, truly, obscene, I would recommend either changing your definition of the word, or working on loosening your religious views toward gaming in general.
I want to go the other way strip out 3.x magic mart, play a d20 system that is more than a clone of AD&D/BECMI but is not borked like 3.x mechanically. Kinda having fun with 5E but there is a bit in there I do not like.
This can be done fairly well with mythic, actually, if you, as GM, purposefully select the options made available.
I had a guts full of complexity and power ups and powerz and its not getting any better.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean (specifically) by, "I had a guts full of", but I think I get the gist of the idea, and that's fine.
My entire point was that Epic and Mythic are two very, very different beasts, and if you shied away from Epic because of its flaws (of which there were many), you may like Mythic, which goes about things in a very different manner.
If you do not like Mythic, that's entirely fair: but the comparison to Epic is flawed, at best. It is almost akin to comparing 3rd Edition Scying (requiring skills, checks, and weird elements) to PF Scrying, or 3E healing spells to the 4E healing system, or 3rd Edition Psionics to 3.5 or PF Psionics. Topically similar, sure, and with a few elements that remind, but really a different beast altogether, and substantially more balanced, comparatively (for better or worse).
You should not reject Mythic because of any experience you may have had with Epic.
EDIT: to clarify a point, change a '.' to a ',', and clarify another point.
And thats why I did not buy it.This is fair enough. To each their own on that regard.
That is just obscene to me.This is just silly, or, at the very least, hyperbole.
If it is, truly, obscene, I would recommend either changing your definition of the word, or working on loosening your religious views toward gaming in general.
I want to go the other way strip out 3.x magic mart, play a d20 system that is more than a clone of AD&D/BECMI but is not borked like 3.x mechanically. Kinda having fun with 5E but there is a bit in there I do not like.This can be done fairly well with mythic, actually, if you, as GM, purposefully select the options made available.
I had a guts full of complexity and power ups and powerz and its not getting any better.I'm not entirely sure what you mean (specifically) by, "I had a guts full of", but I think I get the gist of the idea, and that's fine.
My entire point was that Epic and Mythic are two very, very different beasts, and if you shied away from Epic because of its flaws (of which there were many), you may like Mythic, which goes about things in a very different manner.
If you do not like Mythic, that's entirely fair: but the comparison to Epic is flawed, at best. It is almost akin to comparing 3rd Edition Scying (requiring skills, checks, and weird elements) to PF Scrying, or 3E healing spells to the 4E healing system, or 3rd Edition Psionics to 3.5 or PF Psionics. Topically similar, sure, and with a few elements that remind, but really a different beast altogether, and substantially more balanced, comparatively (for better or worse).
You should not reject Mythic because of any experience you may have had with Epic.
EDIT: to clarify a point, change a '.' to a ',', and clarify another point.
I barely want to play PF at levels 10+ at least as a DM. I do not want to add mythic to that mix. Still playing of sorts just not as much as I used to and no longer GMing or buying much of anything and actually thinking of going back to houseruled 3.5.
After dropping probably 10k+ on 3.5 I am not really interested in getting on that merry go round again is another part of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not much paizo can do about that. Someone who has heavily invested in another system so doesn't want to buy pathfinder isn't really their target market.
They'd be concerned with people for whom pathfinder IS their main game cutting back on rules purchases (ie technotrooper's position).
Having said that, the product line is broad enough to cater to must-have-everything collectors through to pick-and-choose-the-odd-item casual buyers. I think there's enough fans excited by occult adventures to offset those who may cease purchases when it comes out, which is what really matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very happy with having both games around, myself. Pathfinder and D&D 5E scratch two different itches for me.
I must admit I wish WotC had gone off and done something else.
I don't see the point of two D&Ds.
Richard
There are now around 30 D&D's if you count clones and Pathfinder which is really just a clone of 3.5.
There are 4 or 5 major D&D playstyles as well.
Basic (OD&D, BECMI and derivitives)
Advanced (AD&D, one could even split 1st and 2nd ed apart)
d20 (3.0,3.5, PF, probably 5E)
4E
Not sure where 5E would go on that list probably as a d20 variant. A key difference with OSR D&D is that there are a lot of clones floating out there now and combined they outproduce Paizo in content its just there is no leader in the clone market as they are more or less dived over 3 of the OSR playstlyes (OD&D, Basic, 1st ed)as 2E clones are rare by comparison.
Goodman Games and Troll Lord games are about the closest thing to a Paizo for OSR gaming.Smaller % of the gaming market of course.
Getting Pathfinder players to try OSR games is not that hard though as they usually admit that it feels like D&D and a lot of the spells are more or less identical to PF anyway. If you rejected 4E for whatever reason there are other D&Ds as such in print in addition to PF.
I haver a 5E game on Tuesday to play with the PFS guys, DMing a 5E game on Thursday and playing something on Sunday as well (AD&D one off maybe IDK). Should be having a Reign of Winter game coming up next week or the one after it. I want to run a Greyhawk game as well (1st or 5E) and/or a BECMI or clone of BECMI running one of the old companion level adventures for higher level play as BECMI is IMHO the best D&D for high level games.
Red mantis Assassins and parts of Golarion are added to my current game as well as several Golarion deities are being used along with the red mantis and fire arms from PF as well in a 5E game. Only 1 D&D would be boring.
|
There are now around 30 D&D's if you count clones and Pathfinder which is really just a clone of 3.5.
There are 4 or 5 major D&D playstyles as well.
...
Fair point.
I see OSR and Pathfinder as being different, and I never really thought of 4E as D&D, but I can't quite understand how 5E is going to offer anything new. There'll be differences in the details, of course, and it'll *start* simpler though doubtlessly it will follow the same power-creep course that 3rd and Pathfinder have taken.
I probably should make the point in another thread, but where I can understand "retro D&D" and "mainstream D&D" as quite different gaming concepts, I can't see how another "mainstream D&D" is going to bring anything new. All I can see is WotC and Paizo competing for the same gamers.
Richard
4th Edition has a lot of more modern game concepts abopted from skirmish level tactical war games and generally a closer eye on balance than d20 did. As a result it brought something new to the table and found a new audience after losing a substantial portion of its old audience. Then WotC promptly failed to learn any lesson from this and abandoned that new audience when making it's pseudo retro 5th edition.
That all being said looking at D&D as exclusively "mainstream" or "retro" either says a lot of what you view D&D and by extension RPGs to be or it says a lot about how little you actually dig into the ruleset.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad WoTC and Paizo are both making DnD, and from what I have seen of 5E, they are not trying to compete for the same market. I think that is good for the game, because I don't think one company can cater to the rule's heavy 3E fanbase and the rules lite 1E/2E/5E market, without producing something that caters to neither.
There are now around 30 D&D's if you count clones and Pathfinder which is really just a clone of 3.5.
There are 4 or 5 major D&D playstyles as well.
...
Fair point.
I see OSR and Pathfinder as being different, and I never really thought of 4E as D&D, but I can't quite understand how 5E is going to offer anything new. There'll be differences in the details, of course, and it'll *start* simpler though doubtlessly it will follow the same power-creep course that 3rd and Pathfinder have taken.
I probably should make the point in another thread, but where I can understand "retro D&D" and "mainstream D&D" as quite different gaming concepts, I can't see how another "mainstream D&D" is going to bring anything new. All I can see is WotC and Paizo competing for the same gamers.
Richard
5E has the D&D name/recognition that PF still lacks in mainstream culture. As I said there is a lot in 5E I do not like but it it easier to run than 3.x type games. 5E PHB looks gorgeous as well and not in a cartoony type way the PFRPG core book is. I own both and it is interesting to compare them side by side.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see OSR and Pathfinder as being different, and I never really thought of 4E as D&D, but I can't quite understand how 5E is going to offer anything new. There'll be differences in the details, of course, and it'll *start* simpler though doubtlessly it will follow the same power-creep course that 3rd and Pathfinder have taken.I probably should make the point in another thread, but where I can understand "retro D&D" and "mainstream D&D" as quite different gaming concepts, I can't see how another "mainstream D&D" is going to bring anything new. All I can see is WotC and Paizo competing for the same gamers.
In my opinion, 5E is much more in your "retro" category than your "mainstream".
I think WotC are targeting people who like OSRIC games, not people who like 3.5 or Pathfinder. There's a broad sense in which they are competing with paizo for customers, but its a long way from a direct substitute - much like apples and oranges "compete" for fruit buying customers.
|
|
Don't you guys think that 5e only looks retro now because it's just come out, in much the same way that Pathfinder did when it first came out ("all you need is one book")?
I must admit I haven't looked at it - just gleaned a bit about what was going on. But how does 5E now compare with Paizo core?
Richard
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a very subjective thing, obviously. Nonetheless, pathfinder never felt "retro" to me (I don't really like those terms by the way, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding what you mean by them). Nonetheless, I don't think 5E is "retro" because its new or relatively small.
To me what distinguishes "old school" games is the focus on speed/simple gameplay with a view of the DM as subjective user of the rules.
In contrast, more "complex" games strive for simulationism (or at least consistency) with a view of the DM as more an adjudicator of an objectively fixed set of rules (as much as possible, anyhow).
Pathfinder felt to me, on release, to be a reasonably consistent and complete set of rules for adjudicating different scenarios which might come up. 5E feels to me like a set of guidelines to help me quickly make something up on the spot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you guys think that 5e only looks retro now because it's just come out, in much the same way that Pathfinder did when it first came out ("all you need is one book")?
I must admit I haven't looked at it - just gleaned a bit about what was going on. But how does 5E now compare with Paizo core?
Richard
The reduction in complexity is mostly in the basic rules, not the character creation options. Things like combat resolution, casting concentration, dispel magic, grapple, etc... All of that is much simpler in my opinion.
Adding more character creation options, like classes and feats and the like, wouldn't really affect, for instance, how many different types of concentration checks there are in either 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder or 5th. There are 11 in Pathfinder and 1 in 5th.
Books like Unearthed Arcana in 3.0 or Ultimate Combat in Pathfinder have offered new rules for basic stuff like combat in the past but they are almost always optional.
A lot of these arguments make sense if you've been buying since the beginning of PF and have had the 10+ years to digest the rules as they've been released. But every year that passes there are more and more gamers who haven't had that luxury. I don't want PF to become one of those "cliquish" games that only the long-term and/or wealthy are playing.
GURPS is a horrible example. With the release of 4th ed. (back in 2004), Steve Jackson stopped doing the wave of both licensed and generic splatbooks.
I don't see how you could continue buying AP's without buying the rulebooks. Looking at the Mummy's Mask AP and the books it expects you to have, out of the hardbacks you need a fairly up to date collection. Add in the softcovers and it's overwhelming. PF has more softcovers OOP than most games (successful or otherwise) will ever release.
The cost of entry makes it very hard on the new gamer and every release makes it harder. As I said earlier, I can't get anyone to play PF; they'd rather play 13th Age. I could write an entire encyclopedia of why I think PF is better than 13th Age and it won't matter because they see PF as too big an investment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how you could continue buying AP's without buying the rulebooks. Looking at the Mummy's Mask AP and the books it expects you to have, out of the hardbacks you need a fairly up to date collection. Add in the softcovers and it's overwhelming. PF has more softcovers OOP than most games (successful or otherwise) will ever release.
The PRD, d20pfsrd.com, Archives of Nethys, and PathfinderWiki. I barely take a book off a shelf anymore, let alone open a PDF.
EDIT: Oh, and HeroLab. Cheaper to buy a package of data sets than buy the books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you guys think that 5e only looks retro now because it's just come out, in much the same way that Pathfinder did when it first came out ("all you need is one book")?
I must admit I haven't looked at it - just gleaned a bit about what was going on. But how does 5E now compare with Paizo core?
Richard
You can do mopre with it in terms of viable charatcer due to 40 subclasses and the super feats. Each 5E PC gets to start with more feats in effect than a PF character as you pick up several for free like the dual wielding 3.5 ones. The races are well done, the classes are a mixed bag.
The combat rules are easier than PF. Depending on party make up you can end up playing a sort of 4E lite type game with quicker combats. Cantrips are better than 3.x type games but you get less daily spells.
Combat flows quicker than 4E but is roughly the same speed as 3.x maybe a little quicker.
PCs get KOed a lot but it is harder to die. Combat is less swingy than 3.x but monsters and spells hit hard. Level 1 cleric spells dealing 4d6 damage at range, 3d10 up close, fireballs dealing 8d6 damage at level 5.Monster hit points are bloated however and PCs overall deal less damage except maybe spell caster.
Art overall is better than the PFRPG core book IMHO. Art is subjective of course YMMV. Halfings look awful though.
You can choose race/class and a feat at level 4 for customization options.Feats are more powerful but you get less of them but you no longer need a feat to try specific things in combat as a general rule. If you want to be a good archer you just take the sharpshooter feat which is kind of like precise shot, and power shot rolled into 1 feat.
You have a bit more variety in what weapons are actually good.
Healing is a bit silly though. In combat healing is semi rare as clerics do not get that many spells and out of combat you can heal up over night and use short rests (1 hour) to recharge various classs abilities.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cost of entry makes it very hard on the new gamer and every release makes it harder.
PF needs to battle the assumption that everything is needed in order to play the game. Only the CRB is needed (and the Bestiary if you're the GM).
Everything else is optional.
The only reason to spend money on the optional stuff is if you want to use the optional stuff for PFS. For a home game, there are plenty of free rule aggregators (as Joana pointed out).
The complication factor is another story. However, when introducing new players, the GM should probably limit the game to CRB-only.
-Skeld
A lot of these arguments make sense if you've been buying since the beginning of PF and have had the 10+ years to digest the rules as they've been released. But every year that passes there are more and more gamers who haven't had that luxury. I don't want PF to become one of those "cliquish" games that only the long-term and/or wealthy are playing.
GURPS is a horrible example. With the release of 4th ed. (back in 2004), Steve Jackson stopped doing the wave of both licensed and generic splatbooks.
I don't see how you could continue buying AP's without buying the rulebooks. Looking at the Mummy's Mask AP and the books it expects you to have, out of the hardbacks you need a fairly up to date collection. Add in the softcovers and it's overwhelming. PF has more softcovers OOP than most games (successful or otherwise) will ever release.
The cost of entry makes it very hard on the new gamer and every release makes it harder. As I said earlier, I can't get anyone to play PF; they'd rather play 13th Age. I could write an entire encyclopedia of why I think PF is better than 13th Age and it won't matter because they see PF as too big an investment.
The Pathfinder SRD essentially renders this entire argument moot. As do the growing customer numbers. If something comes up in an adventure path that isn't in the books you own then look it up on PRD and if you can't just use the reprinted stats that are in the book right in front of you. Most of the time everything relevant is already reprinted.
The starter box was probably the most important thing to eliminate "clichueishness". Even though I'm sure some people would have voted for it not to be made because OH NO RULESBLOAT TOO MANY BOOKS!!!
|
Don't you guys think that 5e only looks retro now because it's just come out, in much the same way that Pathfinder did when it first came out ("all you need is one book")?
I must admit I haven't looked at it - just gleaned a bit about what was going on. But how does 5E now compare with Paizo core?
Richard
Well, seeing as the OD&D boxed original had three books in the original "core", and AD&D 1e, 2e, 3x, 4e, and now 5e all have three books as "core", I'd say Pathfinder only having one book is "retro" only for games that aren't based on D&D.
Holmes basic was a compilation and correction of OD&D, and B/X + BECMI are a different animal.
Pathfinder never looked "retro", considering the edition it kept alive is a purely 21st Century game.
OH NO RULESBLOAT TOO MANY BOOKS!!!
Making caricatures of people with whom you disagree is a great way to resolve problems and foster understanding...
...said no one, ever.
Anyway, I rather liked the Beginner Box, and wish the Core Rule Book resembled it.
I don't see how you could continue buying AP's without buying the rulebooks. Looking at the Mummy's Mask AP and the books it expects you to have, out of the hardbacks you need a fairly up to date collection. Add in the softcovers and it's overwhelming. PF has more softcovers OOP than most games (successful or otherwise) will ever release.
As others have pointed out, the rules from the hardbacks are part of the SRD. Which admittedly doesn't help if your intention is to run a core-only game. Since my affinity for core-only stems from a desire for (relative) simplicity, the renders the AP line less useful to me as time goes on. Such is life.
Making caricatures of people with whom you disagree is a great way to resolve problems and foster understanding...
...said no one, ever.
Anyway, I rather liked the Beginner Box, and wish the Core Rule Book resembled it.
It's mostly a reaction to people who claim that somehow enjoying rules makes your enjoyment of the game somehow less "real". These people also tend to be the same people who complain the most vocally about too many books being published.
It also doesn't make sense that they're essentially saying "Paizo please stop making money and fire members of your staff responsible for the material I don't like". Either that or they don't release that removing all the rules releases would result in Paizo losing money and several people losing their jobs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's mostly a reaction to people who claim that somehow enjoying rules makes your enjoyment of the game somehow less "real". These people also tend to be the same people who complain the most vocally about too many books being published.
It also doesn't make sense that they're essentially saying "Paizo please stop making money and fire members of your staff responsible for the material I don't like". Either that or they don't release that removing all the rules releases would result in Paizo losing money and several people losing their jobs.
I don't think that if you like lots of rules your enjoyment isn't "real". Nonetheless, I'd like paizo to make less rule books. FWIW, the second paragraph also doesn't represent my position. I want them to make other things instead, so if my wants were representative of the broader market paizo wouldn't lose any money nor have to fire people. They'd just be working on different things.
Also, telling paizo what I like has got nothing to do with anyone else's fun. I'm just telling paizo what I like. They have a difficult judgement call as to how to meet a whole bunch of conflicting desires - but no matter what they do, someone is missing out - their current rate of rules output means I haven't yet got a Razmiran sourcebook, for example :(.
That's just opportunity cost and shouldn't be taken personally.
Given the difference in skillset the Campaign Setting line and the Rules line demand from their writers having a large change in focus from what they have now would pretty doubtlessly either cost people their jobs or result in a lot of lower quality products made by people off their game. After all the last big shift in priorities was the RotR collection and that caused huge amounts of delays and wrecked most of the system.
If Paizo had a specific rules-lite focus from the get go then I obviously wouldn't ask them to start giving me huge reams of rules on basket weaving. As it stands though dropping the rules focus would put a lot of people in an awkward position of their team not being needed anymore.
I reckon Jason does pretty decent work as an adventure writer and coming up with flavour material. I'd really like a Razmiran campaign guide and players companion.
The skill sets may be different, but that doesn't mean the actual paizo employees in question don't have a broad range of skills. Nor that the flavour material books couldn't benefit from more subspecialisation amongst the staff (getting the "rules guys" to take over the stat blocks from those happier creating stories, settings and characters.
|
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I rather liked the Beginner Box, and wish the Core Rule Book resembled it.
I'll be interested to see what you think of the Strategy Guide when it comes out in December.
Had I the opportunity to do it over again, I'd probably call it something like the "Starter Guide" or "Beginner Book" or something.
Elements of it--especially VISUAL elements of it--are very similar to the Beginner Box.
I'll be interested to see what you think of the Strategy Guide when it comes out in December.
Had I the opportunity to do it over again, I'd probably call it something like the "Starter Guide" or "Beginner Book" or something.
Elements of it--especially VISUAL elements of it--are very similar to the Beginner Box.
Sounds very promising.
Anyway, I rather liked the Beginner Box, and wish the Core Rule Book resembled it.I'll be interested to see what you think of the Strategy Guide when it comes out in December.
Had I the opportunity to do it over again, I'd probably call it something like the "Starter Guide" or "Beginner Book" or something.
Elements of it--especially VISUAL elements of it--are very similar to the Beginner Box.
I am super psyched for the Strategy guide. If it helps beginning players feel better in character creations and leveling...it will be one of the biggest boons to the groups I play with!
I resisted Pathfinder for a long time, mainly because of the complexity involved in combat. I have no problem learning complex systems, but Pathfinder goes a little too far along that route for my tastes. I eventually gave in because I was having trouble finding good, reliable players and DMs in the area who ran campaigns (as opposed to one-shots) with any other system.
I own most of the hardcover books, and will probably buy Unchained, but that's probably going to be the last Paizo Pathfinder product I buy for a long time. I'm not interested in the Occult one, because it's about Psionics, which I dislike, rather than really being about the Occult.
One thing I WOULD buy is a card pack that contained every single combat feat available from the various Paizo Pathfinder products, to make it easier to play my Brawler character. I really wish they would put out something like that.
These days I primarily buy third-party Pathfinder-compatible products that focus on new classes. Since I vastly prefer classless systems in general (character customizability is a big thing for me), the next best thing is to add to the number of available classes. I have even broken my "no PDF" rule to pick up some particularly intriguing ones. The ACG only has two classes that interest me (Brawler and Slayer), but I got it specifically because I want to play those two classes.
I don't know which types of products are the most popular for Paizo, but before the ACG it had been a long time since they put out anything that interested me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not interested in the Occult one, because it's about Psionics, which I dislike, rather than really being about the Occult.
What would you call "really being about the Occult"? Because everything I've heard on the book at least is not at all psionics and much more what I'd think of as occult.
See especially <this post> by Brandon Hodge.
adjective
pertaining to the telepathic, psychic, or paranormal
They are synonyms. Psychic = Psionic. Ergo, psionics is indeed coming to Pathfinder.
No intended combativeness here, RD, but it is a good chance for me to illustrate the design approach of this book via the syntax differences you illustrate.
Occult Adventures aims to capture a different mood and zeitgeist of a previous age of occult disciplines than did 3.5-era psionics. To confirm 8th Dwarf's inquiry above, I'm serving on this book both as a freelancer and in a high-level design capacity; we haven't yet settled on whether I'll be credited as "creative consultant" or "spirit guide," but you get the idea. =-)
One easy way for me to represent the difference in "psychic" and "psionic" is through one of my professional historical avenues. I'm a board member of a society called IAPSOP: the International Association for the Preservation of Spiritualist and Occult Periodicals. This is a massive online database--an archive of several million pages of digital pdfs of important and historical esoteric works, from weekly Spiritualist newspapers to rare Theosophical books, from the 18th-century right up to the copyright threshold of about the 1950s. Here's a keyword search of that database for the term "psionic." For those of you who don't feel like clicking, there are no hits in a database of millions of hardcore esoteric pages from for the term "psionic".
And that's because that term wasn't coined until 1952, and gained little to no footage among actual practitioners, but instead gained traction with science fiction writers. And that period of esoteric thought and science fiction influences is something that 1E-3.5 era psionics drew from readily, and by default, DSP.
But that's not our wellspring of inspiration with this book. We're plumbing darker depths of historic mysticisms and doctrines. And, as much as that matters, "psychic" and "occult" are the appropriate and correct descriptive buzzwords, and not terms that we view as synonymous with "psionics", the difference of which in fact serve as fantastic separators between the design intentions of this book, and what's already been explored by legacy products and DSP.
For what's it's worth, and for those reasons, there are significant differences, and they're important and distinct to the nature of this tome.
And cf. <this post> by Eric Mona.
Been a long time since I've done much reading on it, but is the seven principles of mankind related in any way to the Seven Rays of Light or the Seven Rays of God? From memory (and we're going back at least 8 to 10 years or so here, back when I was in my mid teens), each ray represented a higher level of awareness, with each step gained resulting in the soul having a more pure spiritual nature, with the final ray being where they transcend the physical world entirely?I'm still trying to get my head around the rays. They're often mentioned off-handedly and not really described, and each writer seems to have a different list and a different definition. It's difficult for me to imagine that they are not related, but then again the Theosophists are crazy for the number 7, and almost everything is doled out in that quantity.
I'm working my way through Besant and Leadbeater's Theosophical Manuals (100-page summaries of key points to introduce the philosophy) and they haven't really covered the rays yet. The internet is practically useless on the subject, so I'm sticking with primary sources.
What I understand about the concept seems ripe for exploitation in an RPG, but I admit I can't fully get my head around it yet.
Sounds pretty occult to me!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like I may have been misinformed about Occult Adventures. Thanks!
|
I can't see over saturation for a long time yet :)You may be right, but I do see many people (including myself) starting to say they have reached "rules saturation" with PF. For me, the error-ridden ACG didn't help with this feeling that "maybe I'm good when it comes to more rules."
Just clicked over from another thread so pardon the revival :)
I'm in the same boat, rules bloat/saturation. I switched to PF when 4e didn't appeal to me and have enjoyed the game...until recently when we started the mythic AP. wow what a terrible system. Like many have stated, we dropped the mythic part and switched to normal pcs after the last session. Normally paizo products are great stuff but this book and all the rules have turned me off, not to mention the need for herolabs to keep up with everything that's out there to use. I've slowly switched to 5e and play some osc stuff like DCC, still playing PF, non mythic de powered wrath ap this Sunday.
Overall it's a good time for people who enjoy RPGs, we have many great choices to choose from!