Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game?

[Blackwaltzomega]

Yeah, we seem to get bloat threads about as often as we get fighter and rogue threads, in my reckoning.

The funny thing is that as the crunch expands, so too does the opportunities for crunch that makes such classes much more appealing, while sticking to Core Only would mean there will never be a solution to the fighter and rogue threads.

Personally, I never think more options is bad for a game. There are character concepts that were not possible before Occult Adventures, and the ACG made it much simpler to design certain types of characters than was previously possible. Just be firm and decide on what you will and will not use at your table. All I care about is that they take some darn time to edit and properly test their crunch so it all functions properly.

[thejeff]

Kudaku wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

This, basically. The Pathfinder system is a smorgasbord. Rather than forcing yourself to eat from every single dish, just sample the things you want to try out.

Then you can run a superhero Mythic Wrath of the Righteous game, a pulp sci-fi Iron Gods game and a horror survival Carrion Crown game without having to learn three completely different game systems.

Fairly easy with things that are actually new subsystems/power boosts like Mythic. Or even the sci-fi tech stuff from Iron gods, though that's not a power boost.

Harder when it comes to new content that's supposed to fit into the base system. The ever increasing flow of items and spells and feats and, to a lesser extent classes.

I've never actually seen, even on the boards, anyone demanding to be allowed to play Mythic characters. I've seen plenty claiming that only horrible GMs will refuse to allow variant races, gunslingers or basically any other standard published things.

[swoosh]

Quote:

So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.

I'd say both sides get what they want. Since if you don't like bloat you can just not use that book and the people who like having content can use it freely.

[Kryzbyn]

I've never understood why bloat is a problem.
If we're getting flooded with an over abundance of unsupported mechanics, I can see there being a problem.

I do not see this happening, with words of magic being a possible exception.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I've never understood why bloat is a problem.

If we're getting flooded with an over abundance of unsupported mechanics, I can see there being a problem.

I do not see this happening, with words of magic being a possible exception.

Mythic is likely to be another, since it doesn't just fit into an average game. Doesn't seem that way now, since WotR wasn't that long ago, but I doubt we'll see more products for it.

[LazarX]

wraithstrike wrote:

I am still struggling to see why other GM's feel the need to know or allow every book that is made.

I believe that most of that thrust is coming from players demanding it from their GMs... that's of course assuming it is a real problem not just yet another case of messageboard pundits assuming it must be one.

[DinosaursOnIce]

I don't mind bloat. I like having options. I love having more feats+spells+races+classes+items.

It's not terribly hard to say no to something you don't like, just sit down and explain (or have a talk) with said player on why you think it is unbalancing or doesn't fit your world.

[Kthulhu]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

Please just consider that the reason people probably keep bringing it up because it keeps on happening...

Yes, we keep getting warned that bloat is going to kill Pathfinder.

However, it hasn't yet. If it does, I guess you'll be able to say you told us all.

I dunno about kill it, but I think that continually pushing splat out the door does hasten the next edition of a game, whether that be D&D, Pathfinder, or any RPG.

As for companies that have handled it well, I'll throw out Chaosium with Call of Cthulhu as well. True, they just published the seventh edition, but the first six were damn near interchangeable. Even the seventh, the biggest change to the system so far, is pretty easily compatible with everything that had come before.

And Call of Cthulhu really hasn't published many rules supplements in that time. Tons of adventures, some monster collections and other oddities, but given that they've been publishing books for the system for 35 years, very few rules supplements.

Of course, one of the advantages that both systems I've mentioned have is that they are much simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder, and a lot more flexible. That reduces the need for supplements, as does the system trusting in the GM and not feeling the need to codify a rule for everything.

[thejeff]

Kthulhu wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

Please just consider that the reason people probably keep bringing it up because it keeps on happening...

Yes, we keep getting warned that bloat is going to kill Pathfinder.

However, it hasn't yet. If it does, I guess you'll be able to say you told us all.

I dunno about kill it, but I think that continually pushing splat out the door does hasten the next edition of a game, whether that be D&D, Pathfinder, or any RPG.

As for companies that have handled it well, I'll throw out Chaosium with Call of Cthulhu as well. True, they just published the seventh edition, but the first six were damn near interchangeable. Even the seventh, the biggest change to the system so far, is pretty easily compatible with everything that had come before.

And Call of Cthulhu really hasn't published many rules supplements in that time. Tons of adventures, some monster collections and other oddities, but given that they've been publishing books for the system for 35 years, very few rules supplements.

Of course, one of the advantages that both systems I've mentioned have is that they are much simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder, and a lot more flexible. That reduces the need for supplements, as does the system trusting in the GM and not feeling the need to codify a rule for everything.

That's very much an advantage of less crunchy systems. As we used to say about CoC: "This game has rules?"

Another example though would be TSR's handling of AD&D and Basic, back in the day. It was 2nd edition that pretty much invented splat books and rules bloat, before that it was pretty minimal.

[wraithstrike]

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

I brought this up earlier. It seems that players are putting pressure on the GM to allow things, and the GM's are finding it hard to say no if this is a group of close friends. if you are friends with someone it should be easier to talk to them about the type of games you like to run.

Sometimes good friends don't make good gaming partners. If gaming is the only chance you(general statement) get to meet up then it may come to a point where are better off not gaming, or at least not running Pathfinder if a common ground can not be found.

[thejeff]

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

Go look at any thread that talks about limiting player choice - whether for thematic reasons or worries about mechanics.

Everyone knows that a GM who imposes any limits whatsoever is obviously going to railroad the game and is probably just a frustrated novelist.

[Kryzbyn]

OMG?! Player entitlement is real? <faints>

[PathlessBeth]

I think Jason Nelson said it best:

Quote:

Now, when I say finding spots in the rules that can use more oomph, it doesn't mean what's there is bad, but it proposes the idea that it could be better. For good or bad, Pathfinder is a game of MORE. It is not and never will be a rules-light game. If that's your passion, you are barking up the wrong tree with trying to make Pathfinder be that. The game will continue to grow. There will be more spells, more feats, more classes, more monsters, more of everything.

If you don't want to see lots of rules, and more supplements coming out all the time, Pathfinder is probably the wrong system for you.

[Popupjoe]

thejeff wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

Go look at any thread that talks about limiting player choice - whether for thematic reasons or worries about mechanics.

Everyone knows that a GM who imposes any limits whatsoever is obviously going to railroad the game and is probably just a frustrated novelist.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious!

[thejeff]

Popupjoe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

Go look at any thread that talks about limiting player choice - whether for thematic reasons or worries about mechanics.

Everyone knows that a GM who imposes any limits whatsoever is obviously going to railroad the game and is probably just a frustrated novelist.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious!

Well, I don't agree with it and I'm probably exaggerating a little and forum debates often bring out the strongest opinions - on either side, but the arguments come up pretty often and they're pretty predictable.

[thejeff]

137ben wrote:

I think Jason Nelson said it best:

Quote:

Now, when I say finding spots in the rules that can use more oomph, it doesn't mean what's there is bad, but it proposes the idea that it could be better. For good or bad, Pathfinder is a game of MORE. It is not and never will be a rules-light game. If that's your passion, you are barking up the wrong tree with trying to make Pathfinder be that. The game will continue to grow. There will be more spells, more feats, more classes, more monsters, more of everything.

If you don't want to see lots of rules, and more supplements coming out all the time, Pathfinder is probably the wrong system for you.

Which is a shame, because I do like the main system. I enjoy playing it. I hate the build game - even when it sucks me in.

I think that's a big part of the difference: The actual playing the game part of playing the game doesn't need all the splat books and options and new classes and feats and powers. The build game does. If you look at the games that have been mentioned as doing well over the long run without bloat, they were games that didn't focus on the build game part. Even 1st edition AD&D.

[Steve Geddes]

Wiggz wrote:

Pathfinder

Pathfinder Society
Pathfinder Society Core
Pathfinder Unchained
Beginner Box
Mythic Rules
etc.

I know there has been some concern expressed in the past about bloat, but at least past instances of bloat still all used the same ruleset, right?

Having to parse through all the different rules and alternate rules and options and alternate options and versions and alternate versions to determine what's actually legal in your game and what isn't is actually starting to affect our play. I'm looking at the acceleration and I'm starting to wonder what the end-game looks like...

Whilst I share your preference, I suspect (my perfect world would have been CRB+campaign material) I don't really understand how the existence of those subsets of Pathfinder rules would affect your game?

If you're talking about a home game, don't you just decide "Mythic or not" and perhaps now "Core or Unchained"? How do the various flavors of Pathfinder society come into it (or the existence of the beginner box - which is just core anyway, presented in a simpler way)? There is the matter of which books to include (Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Player Guide, Advanced Class Guide, the various player companions,....) but that's been there since day one (do we allow 3.5 material or not?)

In my opinion, while I wish it were otherwise, Pathfinder has always featured bloat. A continually expanding ruleset, with more and more options and ever more niche-y subsystems of the rules (that the DM is supposed to pick-and-choose from) is part of Pathfinder and always has been. I don't think it's ever been portrayed as anything but.

[Devil's Advocate]

illyume wrote:

If anything, Pathfinder Society Core Campaign is fixing the perceived rules bloat.

These guidelines for reducing rules bloat are nothing but unwarranted rules bloat!

[TOZ]

Complaining about splat books in d20 is like saying there is too much food at the buffet.

[Zaister]

thejeff wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

I've never understood why bloat is a problem.

If we're getting flooded with an over abundance of unsupported mechanics, I can see there being a problem.

I do not see this happening, with words of magic being a possible exception.

Mythic is likely to be another, since it doesn't just fit into an average game. Doesn't seem that way now, since WotR wasn't that long ago, but I doubt we'll see more products for it.

Mythic rules have actually been used in adventures more recent than Wrath of the Righteous.

[thejeff]

Zaister wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

I've never understood why bloat is a problem.

If we're getting flooded with an over abundance of unsupported mechanics, I can see there being a problem.

I do not see this happening, with words of magic being a possible exception.

Mythic is likely to be another, since it doesn't just fit into an average game. Doesn't seem that way now, since WotR wasn't that long ago, but I doubt we'll see more products for it.

Mythic rules have actually been used in adventures more recent than Wrath of the Righteous.

Designed for Mythic characters or as additions to enemies?

Now that you mention it, I think I remember hearing of the latter.

[Zaister]

The latter.

[Popupjoe]

Kthulhu wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

Please just consider that the reason people probably keep bringing it up because it keeps on happening...

Yes, we keep getting warned that bloat is going to kill Pathfinder.

However, it hasn't yet. If it does, I guess you'll be able to say you told us all.

I dunno about kill it, but I think that continually pushing splat out the door does hasten the next edition of a game, whether that be D&D, Pathfinder, or any RPG.

As for companies that have handled it well, I'll throw out Chaosium with Call of Cthulhu as well. True, they just published the seventh edition, but the first six were damn near interchangeable. Even the seventh, the biggest change to the system so far, is pretty easily compatible with everything that had come before.

And Call of Cthulhu really hasn't published many rules supplements in that time. Tons of adventures, some monster collections and other oddities, but given that they've been publishing books for the system for 35 years, very few rules supplements.
I've always wanted to play Cthulhu but 7 editions would make me wince at starting a game up. What if i picked the wrong edition? Isn't a new edition every lets say 5 years a little much? Isn't that just recycling to stave off bloat? Would we want a new pathfinder every 5 to 6 years?

Of course, one of the advantages that both systems I've mentioned have is that they are much simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder, and a lot more flexible. That reduces the need for supplements, as does the system trusting in the GM and not feeling the need to codify a rule for everything.

[stormcrow27]

Nope. I play Rifts, and every game is different. I run two different Pathfinder games. One is Way of the Wicked with 6 players, and the other is Rise of the Runelords with 4 to 5ish. The core experience was something I never embraced because core characters and races bore me (playing 1st and 2nd Ed for 17 years ripped out any desire to be the dwarf fighter/cleric etc, plus 3.0 and 3.5 released a variety of useful supplements over the years, and 4th ed was yuck on instant reading), and I love the options that Pathfinder offers. Do I see a lot of different character builds? Yup. Do I get tired sometimes of the constant planning for all 20 levels? Yup. But when I look back at 1st and 2nd Ed's assumption of the big four, and the rather haphazard way expansions came out trying to add in new ideas, I prefer the more ordered path I see with Paizo. I do think that TSR and WOTC released some excellent campaign material, and a lot of the older 1st and 2nd Edition releases were far better with adventure and world building then 3.0/3.5 worlds (with the exception of Eberron), but the move towards Realms only was a big mistake, as was the desire to split the Magic and D&D lines into two separate entities. 4th and 5th edition are the product of corporate design rather than more organic development, and the lack of an equivalent to the OGL/d20 SRD license was a grand failure.

[stormcrow27]

And as for player entitlement or wanting to use the newest/OMG/character of the month, any good GM will examine the material the person is requesting BEFORE they let it into their game. If you don't find it useful, then inform the player that it won't work and find another option. Saying no is fine. Unless the player has some emotional issue, they will accept it and you can move on with the game. I think too many GMs become afraid they will lose players if they don't let them play what they wish, and lose their spine or control over the game. If you lose a player over something as simple as saying no to a character class, then I wouldn't want to play with that player anyway. 9 year old children huff off in a storm, not adults, if not allowed their way.

[Blakmane]

TarkXT wrote:

Can you be the lord of your own island and use the kingdom building rules?

No.

It's like you hate fun! D:

[thejeff]

Popupjoe wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

As for companies that have handled it well, I'll throw out Chaosium with Call of Cthulhu as well. True, they just published the seventh edition, but the first six were damn near interchangeable. Even the seventh, the biggest change to the system so far, is pretty easily compatible with everything that had come before.

And Call of Cthulhu really hasn't published many rules supplements in that time. Tons of adventures, some monster collections and other oddities, but given that they've been publishing books for the system for 35 years, very few rules supplements.

I've always wanted to play Cthulhu but 7 editions would make me wince at starting a game up. What if i picked the wrong edition? Isn't a new edition every lets say 5 years a little much? Isn't that just recycling to stave off bloat? Would we want a new pathfinder every 5 to 6 years?

Editions came fast in the early years, but were pretty compatible. Tweaking, new packaging. I know we used whatever versions and adventures we had up to 5th basically interchangeably. I think rather than just reprint, they'd update and improve, but it wasn't like everyone threw out all their old books and moved to the new version. Newcomers would get the new one.

5th Edition came out in 92 and 6th in 2004. Apparently there's now a 7th, which I haven't seen yet.

It's a very different animal than Pathfinder. The mindset is different.

[Scavion]

Blakmane wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Can you be the lord of your own island and use the kingdom building rules?

No.

It's like you hate fun! D:

I know right?! Tark is crazy.

But yeah, even if you talk about bloat, Paizo still puts out way more APs/Modules/Scenarios than Crunch. If you're not utilizing these sources in some way, I'd wager you're missing out a bit and might be why you have a problem.

I like digging through modules and PFS Scenarios for good encounters to tweak and use myself.

[Rhedyn]

I feel the rules are not thorough enough.

If I am not adding thirty numbers together every-time I attempt to scratch my ass, that just isn't D&D.

Rules bloat is a lot like botulism: Bursting with flavor!

[bookrat]

Bloat? What bloat? Hell, I'm buying 3PP stuff to expand my games even further. And I already own every core pathfinder book plus several splat books.

Except Unchained, and that's only because I just found out about it and I've aready reached my monthly hobby spending limit. What? I got kids; can't spend all my income on my hobbies. They keep demanding food. What is it with these kids? Every other day it's food food food!

[wraithstrike]

thejeff wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

Go look at any thread that talks about limiting player choice - whether for thematic reasons or worries about mechanics.

Everyone knows that a GM who imposes any limits whatsoever is obviously going to railroad the game and is probably just a frustrated novelist.

That is not fair at all. I have seen both GM's and players have pitchforks at them depending on how extreme things get. Many of those GM's took things to a very far extreme, and/or had an "because I said so" attitude. Now at the end of the day "no" is "no", but how you talk to people can make you lose a lot of points.

[Brother Fen]

Unless your GM makes you play everything Paizo releases, there is little reason for concern. Their mantra has always been "all you need is the Core Rule Book (and the Bestiary if you're a GM)."

I'm more concerned about the bloat of bloat threads.

[Mr.Fishy]

Mr. Fishy can and has made a playable character in ten minutes without a book...Mr. Fishy has also seen a player spend two and a half hour making a character. Mr. Fishy has been asked to run for weird and outlier concepts, not because of a character idea or a story line that needed to be explored but because. The reason was because...

Mr. Fishy enjoys options and creative freedom. Crayola makes a box of 64 piece crayon box...Mr. Fishy thinks that's awesome...He also thinks that trying to cramp 64 different colors into one picture is stupid. If you want to cram every option into a game Mr. Fishy is cool with that. Mr. Fishy will grab his game bag and roll up a character.

Asking Mr. Fishy to cram also your stuff into his game isn't fair. You want unlimited options, then you run them...You GM.

Mr. Fishy will play in your game with your rules. Please do the same.

It's not the bloat; it's the entitlement that players bring that irks Mr. Fishy. Paizo does sit at this table, Paizo does get a vote.

[Arturus Caeldhon]

For me the problem is more players to GMs, and me as a GM having to constantly 'keep up' with new material. I have to read it, or read about it and trust the opinions of random strangers, and then make a rather arbitrary judgement on whether or not the book is ridiculous or not. For the first couple books, it wasn't a problem. But things have just been getting more and more crazy.

Sure, I could just ban all but the CRB, but players don't typically like that. They want options, even if they don't understand - or care - how those options will effect the game at large. It basically just makes my game harder.

If they were to continue to create content that was balanced against the CRB, I would have no problem. They are not doing that.

P.S.: If there is a bloat in bloat threads, it is because the bloat is getting worse. Duh!

[GreyWolfLord]

Kudaku wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

This, basically. The Pathfinder system is a smorgasbord. Rather than forcing yourself to eat from every single dish, just sample the things you want to try out.

Then you can run a superhero Mythic Wrath of the Righteous game, a pulp sci-fi Iron Gods game and a horror survival Carrion Crown game without having to learn three completely different game systems.

This would be my sentiment as well. When I come to these boards, I find people who play in FAR different playstyles than what I see normally.

On these boards I see optimization out the wazoo and accepted as normal, but RARELY see people do these things IRL. On these boards I see people saying Rogues are terrible, but I see them played ALL THE TIME IRL. These boards are hardly representative of what I see going on with PF IRL.

IRL I see GM's outside of society saying what they will or won't use in their Campaigns ALL THE TIME.

In fact, there are tons that only use the CRB, and many others that only use the CRB and APG.

I find it rare for a campaign to use ALL the books simply for several reasons...

1. The GM doesn't have all the rulebooks that have been published

2. the GM may only have the core rulebook...

3. The players may only have some of the rulebooks or maybe only the CRB itself.

4. The GM doesn't feel like hauling all the rulebooks to the session, even if they have all the rulebooks...

5. The GM doesn't feel like shuffling through all the rulebooks to determine what the players characters can do

6. The players themselves don't want all the rulebooks and limit it and...

6a. because of that many times only use the CRB because that's what most of the players use

7. Restrict some options of the rulebooks to only whats in the PRD because NO ONE wants to bring rulebooks and want to go as light as possible...

and tons of other reasons. Rarely do I see anyone just simply fiat to use all the rulebooks, normally its more limited. The MOST I've seen are CRB ONLY groups to tell the truth. I think that could be a reason that Core for Society MAY be a great move, because most players I know are ONLY familiar with the CRB and not hardcore enough to get more than that.

Even with the PRD, I don't think most players want to shift through more than the basic stuff for their characters. You find the hardest of the hardcore on these boards who may use all the rules from all the books, but I don't think you average PF player is actually like that. Most of them stick with far simpler characters and rules than incorporating everything Paizo has created.

[Tacticslion]

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me the problem is more players to GMs, and me as a GM having to constantly 'keep up' with new material. I have to read it, or read about it and trust the opinions of random strangers, and then make a rather arbitrary judgement on whether or not the book is ridiculous or not. For the first couple books, it wasn't a problem. But things have just been getting more and more crazy.

Sure, I could just ban all but the CRB, but players don't typically like that. They want options, even if they don't understand - or care - how those options will effect the game at large. It basically just makes my game harder.

This is a valid thing - however, if you're unwilling to GM with the extra options, simply explain that you don't feel comfortable doing so. If your players insist that you do something you're not comfortable with, they're being a jerk. If they really want to see material, then offer to step down as a GM and to allow them to GM instead - this way they can showcase the new material and you can learn it. If they don't want to GM, then the problem is entirely on their part - your answer is "I'm sorry, it makes me uncomfortable, and I don't wish to do it." - that should be enough for friends.

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

If they were to continue to create content that was balanced against the CRB, I would have no problem. They are not doing that.

HOLY CRAP, MAN, HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ CORE?! Most (not all) published elements are far more balanced than that wonky book!

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

P.S.: If there is a bloat in bloat threads, it is because the bloat is getting worse. Duh!

Conclusion does not follow premise. There are too many variables for this simplistic a statement to be made, especially with a condescending "duh" at the end.

[wraithstrike]

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me the problem is more players to GMs, and me as a GM having to constantly 'keep up' with new material. I have to read it, or read about it and trust the opinions of random strangers, and then make a rather arbitrary judgement on whether or not the book is ridiculous or not. For the first couple books, it wasn't a problem. But things have just been getting more and more crazy.

Sure, I could just ban all but the CRB, but players don't typically like that. They want options, even if they don't understand - or care - how those options will effect the game at large. It basically just makes my game harder.

If they were to continue to create content that was balanced against the CRB, I would have no problem. They are not doing that.

P.S.: If there is a bloat in bloat threads, it is because the bloat is getting worse. Duh!

It is not so much that each book is not comparable to the CRB, but when you have options from book A, B, and C, and you combine them, then you can run into problems.

[Steve Geddes]

Tacticslion wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

P.S.: If there is a bloat in bloat threads, it is because the bloat is getting worse. Duh!

Conclusion does not follow premise. There are too many variables for this simplistic a statement to be made, especially with a condescending "duh" at the end.

FWIW, I thought that was a joke "Duh!" rather than a condescending one.

[Tacticslion]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

P.S.: If there is a bloat in bloat threads, it is because the bloat is getting worse. Duh!

Conclusion does not follow premise. There are too many variables for this simplistic a statement to be made, especially with a condescending "duh" at the end.

FWIW, I thought that was a joke "Duh!" rather than a condescending one.

You are probably correct. I, for one, can totally misread things on the internet. Shocking, I know!

The last part was a joke. I mention this because, you know, it actually is easy to misread things on the internet!

In any event, I duly publicly retract the implication that it was condescending instead of a joke, as the latter is the greater likelihood. My apologies!

[Wrath]

To back up what GreyWolflord said earlier, many of the pathfinder players in my local gaming shop don't even know this website exists. They get all their Pathfinder stuff in store and design/run their own games. None of the players in my home game use this board at all.

These boards are not representative of the majority at all.

[wraithstrike]

Wrath wrote:

To back up what GreyWolflord said earlier, many of the pathfinder players in my local gaming shop don't even know this website exists. They get all their Pathfinder stuff in store and design/run their own games. None of the players in my home game use this board at all.

These boards are not representative of the majority at all.

I think it might be more accurate to say the boards might not be representative of the majority. Just because they do not post online that does not mean they do not have similar beliefs. Many of the better optimizer I have met did not spend a lot of time here, but if they did they would fit in well. At the same time some that do know about the boards do not optimize very well at all.

[Wrath]

wraithstrike wrote:

Wrath wrote:

To back up what GreyWolflord said earlier, many of the pathfinder players in my local gaming shop don't even know this website exists. They get all their Pathfinder stuff in store and design/run their own games. None of the players in my home game use this board at all.

These boards are not representative of the majority at all.

I think it might be more accurate to say the boards might not be representative of the majority. Just because they do not post online that does not mean they do not have similar beliefs. Many of the better optimizer I have met did not spend a lot of time here, but if they did they would fit in well. At the same time some that do know about the boards do not optimize very well at all.

fair call

[Kthulhu]

Popupjoe wrote:

I've always wanted to play Cthulhu but 7 editions would make me wince at starting a game up. What if i picked the wrong edition? Isn't a new edition every lets say 5 years a little much? Isn't that just recycling to stave off bloat? Would we want a new pathfinder every 5 to 6 years?

There are literally more differences between the 1st printing and the most recent printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook than there are between the first six editions of Call of Cthulhu. 7th Edition made the biggest changes to date, but it's really on the same level as a transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. And the real difference in bloat is that CoC has never added a bunch of rules supplements beyond its core rulebooks. There have been a few, yes; but less in that game's 35 year history than in the 5-6 years of Pathfinder. Substantially less, even.

[Kthulhu]

thejeff wrote:

Apparently there's now a 7th, which I haven't seen yet.

Haven't recieved my hardcovers yet, but the PDFs are gorgeous. Chaosium seems to have finally taken some cues from Pegasus Spiele's German edition of Call of Cthulhu, in terms of aesthetics. The addition of colour art as one of the stretch goals helps as well. It will be one of the most beautiful books in my RPG library, I think.

[Brother Fen]

I think obsessive handwringing is just part of online culture. In real life, these discussions never come up. I'm sure if I went to gaming cons every weekend it would be different but in home games and the people I talk to at the local shop - no.

Personally, I enjoy the challenge when I GM. I accept the responsibility of making everyone's characters and ideas work within the campaign I have set before them. I generally allow anything Paizo published and approve third party material on a case by case basis.

I like it when my players get to do what they want to do so they feel fulling entrenched in their character which leads to them fully enjoying the scenario they are playing.

[Zhayne]

There is no such thing as bloat.

Why?

Because you are under no obligation to purchase, use, or allow ANY material you don't want to. You can ban stuff out of core if you want. Don't like mythic rules? Don't buy 'em, don't use 'em, don't allow 'em. Same goes for any other game element or game supplement you want.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Whenever this threat comes up it reminds me of the economic theories of how choices lead to waste - and we should only have one or two of each product for higher effiency.

The end result? It sucks - and you end up with Soviet Russia - where the few products you do have are all horrible. (Yes - I know that the comparison is a bit of a stretch - but these threads make me think of it all the same.)

Choices > No Choices

Every
Single
Time

[Rhedyn]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Whenever this threat comes up it reminds me of the economic theories of how choices lead to waste - and we should only have one or two of each product for higher effiency.

The end result? It sucks - and you end up with Soviet Russia - where the few products you do have are all horrible. (Yes - I know that the comparison is a bit of a stretch - but these threads make me think of it all the same.)

Choices > No Choices

Every
Single
Time

pffff comparing to soviet Russia. You need to compare to Nazis

I want rule diversity over rule purity.

[Bad Coyote]

The only reason that a GM would have to fear the concept of "rules bloat" is that they do not have control of their game. If you are a GM you are a GAME MASTER. Take control of your game, master it. If a player wants to use rules that you do not include in your game, tell them no. If they insist on doing it anyway, let them run their own game. It is like being a parent and complaining about how other people are raising your children poorly. It is your job to control the rules, do not let the rules control you.

[LazarX]

Wrath wrote:

To back up what GreyWolflord said earlier, many of the pathfinder players in my local gaming shop don't even know this website exists. They get all their Pathfinder stuff in store and design/run their own games. None of the players in my home game use this board at all.

These boards are not representative of the majority at all.

I live with two people who are 5 star judges. One of them, my spouse has posted maybe 5 times, if that much, in the board's entire history. The other only interacts with the venture officer board. Most of the people we judge with in the NJ-NYC area don't use the boards at all.