Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:


Mr.Fishy wrote:


Mr. Fishy doesn't mind the new books it's the let me play the new stuff or else entitlement mentality of player that gripes Mr. Fishy.
Calling it player entitlement does a disservice to players as a whole. Sure some can be rude and try to force a DM to use any and every thing in the books. In my experience players ask me if I want to use something new. I review it and give it a yes or no. Both sides act lie adults, polite and treat each other with respect. The way some here make it sound asking for a new option in the lastest sourcebook is almost as bad as if they were asking if it was ok to sleep with their girlfriend.

And some people here act as if saying no is the same as if actually stealing their girlfriend.


TarkXT wrote:
memorax wrote:


Mr.Fishy wrote:


Mr. Fishy doesn't mind the new books it's the let me play the new stuff or else entitlement mentality of player that gripes Mr. Fishy.
Calling it player entitlement does a disservice to players as a whole. Sure some can be rude and try to force a DM to use any and every thing in the books. In my experience players ask me if I want to use something new. I review it and give it a yes or no. Both sides act lie adults, polite and treat each other with respect. The way some here make it sound asking for a new option in the lastest sourcebook is almost as bad as if they were asking if it was ok to sleep with their girlfriend.
And some people here act as if saying no is the same as if actually stealing their girlfriend.

I generally kick players from the group that are rude or unwilling to play by the paramaters my table sets (not that I set many parameters to begin with) but its honestly very easy to simplify the game by just declaring "core only" or whatever subset is desired.

The players you mention need to actually get their girlfriends stolen away to help set some perspective; they will soon realize the difference between "we're sticking to these rules" and "Martha just rode off into the sunset with that guy on his motorcycle, tough breaks dude."

If the latter happened I suppose I'd be willing to let him play his special exception character, just to be a chum....


Mr.Fishy wrote:

Starbucks comes out with a new coffee...is the same. You don't have to drink it and no one hates you for refusing to try it. Paizo drops a new book some one is going to ask to use it regardless of your opinion of the new.

Mr. Fishy doesn't mind the new books it's the let me play the new stuff or else entitlement mentality of player that gripes Mr. Fishy.

Drinking coffee is almost always a solitary experience. Please try a different analogy.

Sovereign Court

Neurophage wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:

Starbucks comes out with a new coffee...is the same. You don't have to drink it and no one hates you for refusing to try it. Paizo drops a new book some one is going to ask to use it regardless of your opinion of the new.

Mr. Fishy doesn't mind the new books it's the let me play the new stuff or else entitlement mentality of player that gripes Mr. Fishy.

Drinking coffee is almost always a solitary experience. Please try a different analogy.

How about Dominoes coming out with weird pizza types since it's usual a shared foodstuff? Some people want to try all of the new types - others want to just stick with pepporoni.


I force my players to purchase at least 4 hardbacks before they can play at my table. Then I make my table Core rulebook only. Paizo keeps getting money, and I don't have to pretend the system is 'bloated'...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm kinda late to this conversation but here I go...

I kinda picked up Pathfinder because it was somewhat amorphous while still having one leg within heroic fantasy. Even within just Golarion setting there's a 'go anywhere, do anything' kind of feel where we aren't stuck in medieval stasis or married to fantasy aesthetics of Greyhawk. We even have rules for fusion reactors and laser guns. And when third party comes into the picture just using my own shelf I can play My Little Pony steam-wizards in space if I wanted to.

So I have to ask, as someone who was not really playing during 3.5, wasn't that the point of continuing 3rd edition? And even now we get printed out alternate rules or extra rules to go through whatever play style we need to play the kind of game we want? Isn't that why some of us haven't jumped ship to 5th edition? I know I haven't because I have enough books and third party material to play who I want, where I want, how I want and at any power level I want and to do it all I have to do is slot some things out and plug some things in, not learn another system that probably does not mechanically satisfy me or my needs.

As far as bloat goes, I have two full shelves of material and still waiting eagerly for Pathfinder Unchained so that's the camp I'm in. I have situations like, Mythic Adventures, where I rarely use it because I'm not always in the mood to run Ultra-Super-Powered Adventures, but I just don't use it when I don't feel like running it and don't join games that use it when I don't feel like playing it. (Although I'm not that terribly picky as a player.) I'm just not that bothered by material bloat unless it comes out in weird chunks. Especially since all the hardback information is free online.

I will say that I would welcome a second edition if that happens. Its not like anything would change. Make one core book and make it easy to plug into normal adventure paths and BOOM. You have two games. You don't even need to call it a new edition, just make it a 'tweak edition' like Mythic Adventures. I've argued before that the Beginner Box should just be turned into a Muppet Babies version of the full game, going to lvl 10 so you can just have a second system that plugs in easily with the first system. Heck, 5th edition plugs in well with Paizo APs, and I play with 3.5 paizo modules and have to do basically nothing aside from calculating CMD/CMB. Sure this adds to the 'bloat' by making a new type of Pathfinder but sometimes I'd want to play Pathfinder Lite, just like sometimes I'd want to play Pathfinder Plus (Mythic).

Sovereign Court

CraziFuzzy wrote:
I force my players to purchase at least 4 hardbacks before they can play at my table. Then I make my table Core rulebook only. Paizo keeps getting money, and I don't have to pretend the system is 'bloated'...

Wait - you force your players to buy books which you won't let them use?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
So I have to ask, as someone who was not really playing during 3.5, wasn't that the point of continuing 3rd edition? And even now we get printed out alternate rules or extra rules to go through whatever play style we need to play the kind of game we want? Isn't that why some of us haven't jumped ship to 5th edition? I know I haven't because I have enough books and third party material to play who I want, where I want, how I want and at any power level I want and to do it all I have to do is slot some things out and plug some things in, not learn another system that probably does not mechanically satisfy me or my needs.

From Paizo's point of view, as I understand it, the point was to keep a system in print to publish adventures for. The license to do so for 4E was not to their liking.

I think it probably turned out better than they expected.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I force my players to purchase at least 4 hardbacks before they can play at my table. Then I make my table Core rulebook only. Paizo keeps getting money, and I don't have to pretend the system is 'bloated'...

Amateur. I force my players to buy ME at least four hardbacks before they can play at my table, and then only let them use Core for their characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Malwing wrote:
So I have to ask, as someone who was not really playing during 3.5, wasn't that the point of continuing 3rd edition? And even now we get printed out alternate rules or extra rules to go through whatever play style we need to play the kind of game we want? Isn't that why some of us haven't jumped ship to 5th edition? I know I haven't because I have enough books and third party material to play who I want, where I want, how I want and at any power level I want and to do it all I have to do is slot some things out and plug some things in, not learn another system that probably does not mechanically satisfy me or my needs.

From Paizo's point of view, as I understand it, the point was to keep a system in print to publish adventures for. The license to do so for 4E was not to their liking.

I think it probably turned out better than they expected.

Which does lead to an argument against myself, if Paizo stopped publishing the RPG, and Player Companion lines after Occult Adventures, and just kept printing Modules, APs and Campaign Setting Books, what would happen? Would it really be that bad? There's tons of third party to keep more feats and spells and junk afloat.


Blackwaltzomega -

You call it nostalgia, I call it different taste. I'm not a power gamer, and I get most of my at-table satisfaction from strategic play and role-playing rather than maximized PCs. I've always had a ton of fun and managed to be very effective playing exactly the PC classes that people tend to condemn on the message boards.

What's more, as a DM, I never, ever have problems with fighters or rogues or monks finding ways to contribute meaningfully to the story, the adventure or to the combats. It has literally never happened in one of my games that the casters took over the story and eclipsed everybody else.

What HAS happened at my table is that OP'd builds have messed up party balance dramatically...and bizarro options that I hadn't anticipated have messed up the flavor of the adventures.

That's fixable - it's not the end of the world.

But I'm not exaggerating or fudging when I say that the abstract, numeric DPR-type powergaming analysis of PC builds that you describe has never been an issue at my table, while the brokenness issue of complex power builds has been repeatedly.

--Marsh

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I heard about the ACG I did what I normally do with new books. I call it the five stages of class acceptance

Stage 1: Disdain: "Meh they all look totally uninteresting. Hunter? Why wouldn't I play a Ranger?"

Stage 2: Curiosity: "sigh... I suppose I need the book for PFS... Where's my debit card?"

Stage 3: Surprise: "They can do what now!? That's... That's actually really cool!"

Stage 4: Acceptance: "Heheheh suckers! Let me show you what damage a Bloodrager can do!"

Stage 5: Indulgence: "OK so warhorn bookings for the next con.... Lets see... Slot 1 Swashbuckler followed by Slots 2 & 3 with my Warpriest and then the Mod on Sunday with my Investigator."

Right now I'm at Stage 1 with Occult Adventures and Stage 5 with the ACG.


Malwing wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Malwing wrote:
So I have to ask, as someone who was not really playing during 3.5, wasn't that the point of continuing 3rd edition? And even now we get printed out alternate rules or extra rules to go through whatever play style we need to play the kind of game we want? Isn't that why some of us haven't jumped ship to 5th edition? I know I haven't because I have enough books and third party material to play who I want, where I want, how I want and at any power level I want and to do it all I have to do is slot some things out and plug some things in, not learn another system that probably does not mechanically satisfy me or my needs.

From Paizo's point of view, as I understand it, the point was to keep a system in print to publish adventures for. The license to do so for 4E was not to their liking.

I think it probably turned out better than they expected.

Which does lead to an argument against myself, if Paizo stopped publishing the RPG, and Player Companion lines after Occult Adventures, and just kept printing Modules, APs and Campaign Setting Books, what would happen? Would it really be that bad? There's tons of third party to keep more feats and spells and junk afloat.

I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo could keep afloat. I've heard that the Core rules are still their best seller, so there's that income. And all the adventure/campaign stuff.

They'd be smaller, of course. Less people working the rules end of things. I'd hesitate to suggest that, but if it pushes out the edition cycle and reduces the risks that come with a new edition, it might be worth it.

The other question of course is what happens with all the players who genuinely like the constant stream of new options? If a sizable percentage of them stop playing, it's a different story.

In the end, I do think it would be a bad move. Pathfinder is built on the "build game". That's a large part of what made it and 3.x in general so popular. That's the part of the game and the audience that needs the constant feed of new rules.
It's not what I like about the system, but I do understand that many people do.

Contributor

Malwing wrote:
Which does lead to an argument against myself, if Paizo stopped publishing the RPG, and Player Companion lines after Occult Adventures, and just kept printing Modules, APs and Campaign Setting Books, what would happen? Would it really be that bad? There's tons of third party to keep more feats and spells and junk afloat.

If the anti-bloat committee wants less player options, I feel like they're not the ones who are going to be investing in 3PP if Paizo was to discontinue creating player crunch.

Of course, most of this discussion is nonsensical because the no-crunch folks are basically asking Paizo to abandon a working business model because of a vocal minority. (Remember, if crunch wasn't selling books, they wouldn't be writing crunch books.)

I think its also interesting to note that a Bestiary every year isn't a staple to Paizo's business model, but at least one player crunch product every year is. I wonder why.


thejeff wrote:

Except it's not the end game of every other system. There are plenty of rpgs that don't follow that cycle. Admittedly, they're from smaller companies with a smaller customer base than Paizo.

Some of us would prefer a more steady state approach than the expansion - reboot cycle.
I don't know whether that's possible on Paizo's scale.

I'm actually having a hard time thinking of any systems I know that aren't either brand new or completely dead that haven't done a new edition at some point. That being said I'm hardly the most versed person when it comes to all the systems out there so I suspect there's probably a few.

To my mind the "steady state" occurs when the next edition releases.

3.5 for instance is currently in a steady state as are 1.0 2.0 etc.

Many still choose to play them and I expect that's part of the reason.

Wanting a company to release a slow trickle when there's clearly a market for a flood feels to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. And I feel like even at a slow trickle they'd eventually reach the no longer interested saturation point. It'd just take them longer to get there.

- Torger


ElterAgo wrote:
However, I know a LOT of players would immediately walk away from such a game muttering about 'authoritarian control freaks should just go write a book.'

And I won't miss having them at my table.

- Torger


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo couldn't keep afloat.

That's the case with Wizards of the Coast, as well.

That's the case with all game companies - the Core games/books are always the best sellers.

Munchkin (Fantasy) is still THE best-selling Munchkin game out there. It hasn't stopped Stave Jackson Games from putting out Munchkin 2-8, along with various permutations like Munchkin Legends and Munchkin Pathfinder, and of course entirely separate versions like Munchking Apocalypse, Munchkin Cthulhu, and Munchkin Zombies.

There's a REASON that WOTC rereleased only the Core Books for 1st, 2nd, and 3.5, along with 1-2 Core+ Books for each edition (Unearthed Arcana and Dungeons of Doom for 1st Ed, Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium for 3.5): Those are the best-sellers, the most in-demand, and are fairly sure-sellers at that.

Not only ISN'T that a reason to be worried, that's actually a GOOD thing - the minute the Core Rulebook starts becoming less-popular than the expansion books is when you should worry, because that means people are losing interest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Marsh wrote:

Blackwaltzomega -

You call it nostalgia, I call it different taste. I'm not a power gamer, and I get most of my at-table satisfaction from strategic play and role-playing rather than maximized PCs. I've always had a ton of fun and managed to be very effective playing exactly the PC classes that people tend to condemn on the message boards.

What's more, as a DM, I never, ever have problems with fighters or rogues or monks finding ways to contribute meaningfully to the story, the adventure or to the combats. It has literally never happened in one of my games that the casters took over the story and eclipsed everybody else.

What HAS happened at my table is that OP'd builds have messed up party balance dramatically...and bizarro options that I hadn't anticipated have messed up the flavor of the adventures.

That's fixable - it's not the end of the world.

But I'm not exaggerating or fudging when I say that the abstract, numeric DPR-type powergaming analysis of PC builds that you describe has never been an issue at my table, while the brokenness issue of complex power builds has been repeatedly.

--Marsh

I'm curious how you arrived at the point of "abstract, numeric DPR-type power gaming analysis" in my comments that the archetypes in the books outside CRB were the best thing to happen to a number of the classes in it. I said nothing about damage per round, I spoke merely of classes that were competent at what the player wanted to do or had a better flavor than the core-only version of the class.

My point on fighters, for example: The Core fighter has no identity. He's a guy who has a lot of feats. There's no flavor to the class, you're just a warrior who works harder. The class screams "generic" at the top of its lungs. It is a tabula rasa whose class features have far less roleplaying synergy than someone roleplaying a sorcerer coming to grips with their bloodline or how the barbarian's player chooses to role-play entering Rage. In other books, however, you can give the fighter a lot of fluff and mechanics the vanilla fighter doesn't have! The master of a particular weapon, a fighter who dabbled in alchemy to enhance his already-impressive fighting skills, a fighter who knows something of magic and has a loyal familiar like a wizard does, all of the fighter's archetypes crystalize into a more compelling character chassis than the basic version, which is just a vehicle for feats and a couple generic damage bonuses. That's boring. What's NOT boring is something like the Lore Warden, playing an agile and well-educated master at arms, or the Tactician, who sacrifices some of his solo power to become a real team leader-type character that emphasizes teamwork. "Fighter" doesn't say anything to me. It's just someone who fights good. It sounds like less of a heroic class than the Warrior does. "Cad" says something to me. "Unbreakable" says something to me. Archetypes give the Fighter a focus it sorely lacks, but even better, they give it FLAVOR you won't find in the Core book.

The Core Monk doesn't seem to know what it wants to do. Flurry of Blows says the class wants to full-attack as often as it can, but Fast Movement indicates the class wants to rush around the battlefield, taking advantage of its enormous speed to always be in the best position. You can't do both. Additionally, the class is bloated with a lot of abilities that sound neat but feel rather weak in gameplay. Styles from Ultimate Combat made the Monk 100% more interesting to play, and great archetypes focused things the Monk wanted to do; Monk of the Sacred Mountain created a flavor for the monk that answered "fast movement vs stand your ground and flurry" with "flurry" by making a monk that's all about being the immovable object, the Hungry Ghost Monk has a great malevolent flavor to contrast the peace-and-wisdom style usually associated with being a monk, and the Quingong Monk lets you add some excellent mystical powers to your ki pool to build the kind of monk YOU want. Do you want a monk who is less about combat and more about ancient wisdom to support the team? Check out the Sensei. Do you want more of a warrior monk? The Sohei is great. Do you want to have fun with all the cool style feats we made specifically for the Monk? Why not Master of Many Styles?

I'm not talking about complex power builds, but the majority of the archetypes you will find in the sourcebooks you find on the PRD are just fine balance-wise. Core-only is no safe haven for balance. It is entirely possible for a player who has it in their head to power-game to shaft the campaign with the unmodified core casters and the core-only spell lists available to them. What you ARE locking out in hopes nobody min-maxes are a number of character types that are not well-realizes in the CRB. I can't force you to accept those things, but I do feel Pathfinder's a poorer game when one can only adhere to the bare-bones vanilla version of each class rather than explore the entirely new worlds of character flavoring and mechanics that archetypes open. People will min-max no matter what you do. You can get a Barbarian that does a bazillion damage or a wizard who completely derails the campaign on a daily basis without a single splatbook. I doubt I'll change your mind, but in my opinion, all you're doing in a Core-only campaign is missing out on new chances to more perfectly play the character you imagine when you roll the dice. It wouldn't hold my interest very long.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Providing the product I committed to buying isn't going to make me stop buying it... but continuously changing the product I committed to buying after the fact just might.

I've very confused by the notion of "continuously changing the product I committed to buying after the fact." You seem to be implying some sort of bait-and-switch here that I am very confident we are not doing. We tell you what's coming well in advance of taking money for it.

Or are you trying to say that our new products are somehow changing things you already own? 'Cause If somebody's breaking into your house and putting things into your older products that make you use newer products with them, it's not us. Don't want to use Mythic? Don't use Mythic. But Mythic didn't change your Core Rulebook.

Wiggz wrote:
Combined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing its collective value.

Mythic didn't change your Rise of the Runelords either—at least, no more than you choose to let it. (But you know what would *really* make your previous AP purchases obsolete? Having us update them.)


Also, I'm just gonna leave this here rather than re-state my feelings on the Bloat-sayers

As to the original post:

Let me educate you thusly - Magic the Gather has Formats. It has: Standard, Draft, Sealed, THG, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Pauper, EDH, Tiny Leaders, Pauper EDH, Momir Basic, Emperor, Planechase, Pack Wars, Five Color, and Cube.

That game has been around for 21 years - 22 years in September.

Different modes of play aren't bad. Rules variations aren't bad. They just let different groups play different ways.

You and your friends play with the rules you want - no more, no less. There ya go.


Torger Miltenberger wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Except it's not the end game of every other system. There are plenty of rpgs that don't follow that cycle. Admittedly, they're from smaller companies with a smaller customer base than Paizo.

Some of us would prefer a more steady state approach than the expansion - reboot cycle.
I don't know whether that's possible on Paizo's scale.

I'm actually having a hard time thinking of any systems I know that aren't either brand new or completely dead that haven't done a new edition at some point. That being said I'm hardly the most versed person when it comes to all the systems out there so I suspect there's probably a few.

To my mind the "steady state" occurs when the next edition releases.

3.5 for instance is currently in a steady state as are 1.0 2.0 etc.

Many still choose to play them and I expect that's part of the reason.

Wanting a company to release a slow trickle when there's clearly a market for a flood feels to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. And I feel like even at a slow trickle they'd eventually reach the no longer interested saturation point. It'd just take them longer to get there.

At some point, yes. Not all have done so because of bloat and many have had very minor revisions or long apart.

Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.

With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.


I'm with Lemmy here. I like lots of options and have purchased lots of Paizo material and oodles of 3pp options (shoutout to Interjection Games, Rogue Genius Games, Aluria Publishing, and many others). What I object to are the inclusion of non-options or poorly balanced options that won't be used by either the GMs or players due to their mechanical failings and being options that either get passed over every time due to the opportunity cost of selecting that option, or have a disruptive effect on the game out of scale of what another option with a similar opportunity cost might have.

I always welcome more quality product that makes me want to introduce it to my game. I'd prefer it if the books were shorter rather than including more filler, uninspiring, or non-options.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Also, I'm just gonna leave this here rather than re-state my feelings on the Bloat-sayers

As to the original post:

Let me educate you thusly - Magic the Gather has Formats. It has: Standard, Draft, Sealed, THG, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Pauper, EDH, Tiny Leaders, Pauper EDH, Momir Basic, Emperor, Planechase, Pack Wars, Five Color, and Cube.

That game has been around for 21 years - 22 years in September.

Different modes of play aren't bad. Rules variations aren't bad. They just let different groups play different ways.

You and your friends play with the rules you want - no more, no less. There ya go.

As a Magic player I have no idea what Tiny Leaders or Momir Basic is but this is pretty much why I play Magic instead of Yugioh and why I think Magic has survived well into it's current popularity (which is surprisingly bigger than I thought it was last year.)

Since I was into Magic before I was into any edition of D&D including Pathfinder I still don't understand the bloat vs nonbloat mentality. Before I got into Pathfinder I wanted to try out 3.5 and only used the main three books because I didn't understand the rules. When I first started with Pathfinder I ran the Beginner Box before going Core Rulebook only. As I got more familiar with the rules I got the APG and stuck with that and the Core Rulebook, and so on. And those are all reasonable ways to play. If the GM is new and doesn't want to deal with anything beyond the core rulebook I'd think of myself of being a jerk if I decided to insist on both being in the game and NEEDING to use options/items from Ultimate Combat. And I know some people will do that, because I had to shut down conversations like that as a GM, but they shouldn't. Part of what the GM will or won't allow is what the GM understands and keeps up with and if you just bully your way into going past their comfort zone the GM is going to inherently be bad at running. In Magic terms its like bringing some EDH when the whole table only came to draft and then insisting on still being in the game without drafting despite having drastically different levels of decks.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I force my players to purchase at least 4 hardbacks before they can play at my table. Then I make my table Core rulebook only. Paizo keeps getting money, and I don't have to pretend the system is 'bloated'...
Wait - you force your players to buy books which you won't let them use?

Of course I do - that seems to be the only way to keep pathfinder from ceasing to exist in the next 17 months. Without doing this, they would not only stop selling items, but the game would also no longer be fun if there were too many sources available (bloat).

I don't know why this is difficult to grasp...

Sovereign Court

CraziFuzzy wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I force my players to purchase at least 4 hardbacks before they can play at my table. Then I make my table Core rulebook only. Paizo keeps getting money, and I don't have to pretend the system is 'bloated'...
Wait - you force your players to buy books which you won't let them use?

Of course I do - that seems to be the only way to keep pathfinder from ceasing to exist in the next 17 months. Without doing this, they would not only stop selling items, but the game would also no longer be fun if there were too many sources available (bloat).

I don't know why this is difficult to grasp...

But if you never use anything sans Core - why would you care if Paizo stopped printing new stuff?


We could make the game subscription-based no matter how many books you have and if you stop payments Paizo will confiscate your books.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I force my players to purchase at least 4 hardbacks before they can play at my table. Then I make my table Core rulebook only. Paizo keeps getting money, and I don't have to pretend the system is 'bloated'...
Wait - you force your players to buy books which you won't let them use?

Of course I do - that seems to be the only way to keep pathfinder from ceasing to exist in the next 17 months. Without doing this, they would not only stop selling items, but the game would also no longer be fun if there were too many sources available (bloat).

I don't know why this is difficult to grasp...

But if you never use anything sans Core - why would you care if Paizo stopped printing new stuff?

....


thejeff wrote:

At some point, yes. Not all have done so because of bloat and many have had very minor revisions or long apart.

Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.

With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.

This argument has never made sense to me. Even if a product is no longer being actively supported, it's not as though the investment you've already made goes away. Your books don't burst into flames the instant a new edition is released. Plenty of people never made the switch to 3rd edition. Plenty of people never made the switch to Pathfinder. All of their books still work just as well as they did when they bought them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

We could make the game subscription-based no matter how many books you have and if you stop payments Paizo will confiscate your books.

Daily reminder that Digital Rights Management does more to encourage piracy than prevent it.


Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:

At some point, yes. Not all have done so because of bloat and many have had very minor revisions or long apart.

Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.

With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.

This argument has never made sense to me. Even if a product is no longer being actively supported, it's not as though the investment you've already made goes away. Your books don't burst into flames the instant a new edition is released. Plenty of people never made the switch to 3rd edition. Plenty of people never made the switch to Pathfinder. All of their books still work just as well as they did when they bought them.

Makes it harder to convince people to buy into the new edition.

Sure, they've still got all the old books and can still just keep playing that. That doesn't help the company putting out the new rules.

Contributor

Vic Wertz wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Providing the product I committed to buying isn't going to make me stop buying it... but continuously changing the product I committed to buying after the fact just might.

I've very confused by the notion of "continuously changing the product I committed to buying after the fact." You seem to be implying some sort of bait-and-switch here that I am very confident we are not doing. We tell you what's coming well in advance of taking money for it.

Or are you trying to say that our new products are somehow changing things you already own? 'Cause If somebody's breaking into your house and putting things into your older products that make you use newer products with them, it's not us. Don't want to use Mythic? Don't use Mythic. But Mythic didn't change your Core Rulebook.

Wiggz wrote:
Combined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing its collective value.
Mythic didn't change your Rise of the Runelords either—at least, no more than you choose to let it. (But you know what would *really* make your previous AP purchases obsolete? Having us update them.)

He *might* be referring to errata and FAQ, Vic, but I honestly don't know. Personally, I like when questions have firm, uncontestable answers and would rather have an official answer that I don't like then an unofficial answer that I sometimes like, depending upon which GM is giving it to me because said answer is constantly changing. The first scenario means that I simply don't build any characters with that option. The second means that I might build a character with that option, but then get subjected to torrents of house rules that make my interest in my theoretical character unstable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.

With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.

"People who like that sort of thing" are the people buying the shelves of books to begin with. They're the reason it's a successful business model. When a new edition comes along they have the same choice they had going from 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 to PF. Get on board and reinvest or continue playing their older system.

Historically a sufficient quantity have gotten on board and bought a second shelf full of books.

Those who haven't are quickly replaced with the new generation who are getting into the hobby for the first time. X years down the road they'll be faced with the same choice.

For example I played some earlier editions under other DMs invested modestly in 3.5 chose to make the jump and invested fairly substantially in pathfinder and when PF 2e hits I'll probably stop purchasing new product and shore up my PF collection. I'll have enough content to keep running games for the foreseeable future. I'll have a full and robust rule set that I've tweaked to my liking and know inside and out with witch to do it.

My consumer dollars will be replaced by someone who is getting into buying product for the first time with PF 2e and the circle of life will continue.

and I'm pretty ok with that.

- Torger


thejeff wrote:

Makes it harder to convince people to buy into the new edition.

Sure, they've still got all the old books and can still just keep playing that. That doesn't help the company putting out the new rules.

Then just don't call it a new edition. Call it a new game, instead.


Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:

At some point, yes. Not all have done so because of bloat and many have had very minor revisions or long apart.

Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.

With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.

This argument has never made sense to me. Even if a product is no longer being actively supported, it's not as though the investment you've already made goes away. Your books don't burst into flames the instant a new edition is released. Plenty of people never made the switch to 3rd edition. Plenty of people never made the switch to Pathfinder. All of their books still work just as well as they did when they bought them.

Same here. I invested in Pathfinder a lot because it works fine enough for me. I'm not going to jump ship to a Pathfinder 2.0 unless it was drastically better or something, and even then if the "drastically better" part was that it was simpler I'd just treat it the way I do with 5th edition; I buy the three main books and play 5th ed and play way more Pathfinder.

Speaking of the Magic: the Gathering comparison up above this really reminds me of when some friends tried to get into Magic. They didn't like that it was expensive, that there were too many cards, too many formats and was basically a terrible game for being a broken mess of rules that cost too much and they shouldn't be releasing 4 sets a year and instead become a living card game model so that everyone has all the cards for a lower price. Meanwhile the store I work at literally has a magic event every day where people pay money in some way or another to play Magic despite all these better games being around that are easier to learn, less money intensive, smaller, takes less commitment and/or are a living card game because people wanted to play magic every day. What are they going to do stop printing cards when people are paying them money to print cards?


Torger Miltenberger wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.

With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.

"People who like that sort of thing" are the people buying the shelves of books to begin with. They're the reason it's a successful business model. When a new edition comes along they have the same choice they had going from 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 to PF. Get on board and reinvest or continue playing their older system.

Historically a sufficient quantity have gotten on board and bought a second shelf full of books.

Those who haven't are quickly replaced with the new generation who are getting into the hobby for the first time. X years down the road they'll be faced with the same choice.

For example I played some earlier editions under other DMs invested modestly in 3.5 chose to make the jump and invested fairly substantially in pathfinder and when PF 2e hits I'll probably stop purchasing new product and shore up my PF collection. I'll have enough content to keep running games for the foreseeable future. I'll have a full and robust rule set that I've tweaked to my liking and know inside and out with witch to do it.

My consumer dollars will be replaced by someone who is getting into buying product for the first time with PF 2e and the circle of life will continue.

and I'm pretty ok with that.

A lot of them also plan to stick with the old rules, but shift over eventually. OTOH, that tendency played in to the 4E transition: PF's initial appeal was "You can keep playing 3.5, with new adventures." A lot of people bought the CRB and kept using their old 3.5 stuff, eventually mostly switching over as more PF books came out.

I'm just saying, not only can the transition to a new edition be put off longer, but it's an easier transition to make with a smaller rules set.

OTOH, as I said initially, I don't think it's the right move for Paizo. I think they're stuck with the cycle. Too much of their fanbase is hooked on the never-ending stream of new build options.


Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Makes it harder to convince people to buy into the new edition.

Sure, they've still got all the old books and can still just keep playing that. That doesn't help the company putting out the new rules.
Then just don't call it a new edition. Call it a new game, instead.

I started making a thread this morning but I thought better of it and saved those thoughts on a google doc.

Since it's related I'll post it here:

"Every once and a while I see threads either demanding a second edition of Pathfinder's rules or a cry to not stop. Because of how Dungeons and Dragons has worked in the past there are a lot of assumptions on the fate of Pathfinder if it were to not continue. Basically what I'm saying that, if there was a Pathfinder 2.0, would Pathfinder 1.0 have to end?

A lot of complaints about Pathfinder as a system seems to be things inherited from the past, and much like Magic: the Gathering's inability to make 'instant' a supertype rather than a subtype(bonus points for anyone knowing what I'm talking about)Paizo can't change or clarify some things without wrecking the entire system and the compatibility of adventures up until that point. So players ask for a new edition to clean things up because Pathfinder isn't THAT broken and flawed, we just want to get the rules all freshened up and modernized. It may be inevitable at some point. But what does that mean for ole-school Pathfinder?

Well I was thinking, I'm in a 5th Edition game playing a Pathfinder module,(because Paizo writes some good adventures). Using the Monster Manual the GM just looks up a monster or NPC and switches it with the monster in the page number. Its actually pretty easy. So, if there is a Pathfinder 2.0 why can't we do that? Like future adventures just name the monster and give bestiary page numbers and the adventure could work for both systems? Its not like these monsters really change that much between editions. You're still poking goblins at lvl 1 and so on.

We don't even need to stop printing 1.0, if the rules for 2.0 are different enough. I mean why not? stuff would come out slower but if it's still going I'd buy both sets of new books. Most of us seem to find flaws in Pathfinder and tweak it with house rules which makes me super excited for Pathfinder Unchained instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and jumping to a whole new game. Throw in some patch books and I'm good enough. Its confusing for the new player but so what, they'd have Patfinder 2.0 and since its easy to translate by the time their invested in that they should be savvy enough to go over to the free rules online and make a Pathfinder 1.0 character when they want to join in on some crunchtastic Pathfinder.

I'm just saying that I think it's possible to have our cake and eat it too.


Malwing wrote:
Speaking of the Magic: the Gathering comparison up above this really reminds me of when some friends tried to get into Magic. They didn't like that it was expensive, that there were too many cards, too many formats and was basically a terrible game for being a broken mess of rules that cost too much and they shouldn't be releasing 4 sets a year and instead become a living card game model so that everyone has all the cards for a lower price. Meanwhile the store I work at literally has a magic event every day where people pay money in some way or another to play Magic despite all these better games being around that are easier to learn, less money intensive, smaller, takes less commitment and/or are a living card game because people wanted to play magic every day. What are they going to do stop printing cards when people are paying them money to print cards?

That's the thing: People AREN'T paying them to print cards. Most money in MtG comes from buying individual cards directly from a shop to build a deck. You work at a store, so I don't need to mention that a store isn't going to order more product unless they're selling out of the product they have. The last time I looked up, I found out that Wizards is losing money on every set they print.

The comparative benefits of the LCG model are literally the reason Richard Garfield made Android: Netrunner after he was done with MtG.


Neurophage wrote:
The comparative benefits of the LCG model are literally the reason Richard Garfield made Android: Netrunner after he was done with MtG.

Richard Garfield designed Netrunner, released in 1996 with a blind pack distribution model.

Andorid Netrunner the LCG is an updated version of that game released in 2012 with the LCG distribution model.

I was always under the impression he had little to do with the remake. Could be entirely wrong though.

</threadjack>

- Torger


Neurophage wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Speaking of the Magic: the Gathering comparison up above this really reminds me of when some friends tried to get into Magic. They didn't like that it was expensive, that there were too many cards, too many formats and was basically a terrible game for being a broken mess of rules that cost too much and they shouldn't be releasing 4 sets a year and instead become a living card game model so that everyone has all the cards for a lower price. Meanwhile the store I work at literally has a magic event every day where people pay money in some way or another to play Magic despite all these better games being around that are easier to learn, less money intensive, smaller, takes less commitment and/or are a living card game because people wanted to play magic every day. What are they going to do stop printing cards when people are paying them money to print cards?

That's the thing: People AREN'T paying them to print cards. Most money in MtG comes from buying individual cards directly from a shop to build a deck. You work at a store, so I don't need to mention that a store isn't going to order more product unless they're selling out of the product they have. The last time I looked up, I found out that Wizards is losing money on every set they print.

The comparative benefits of the LCG model are literally the reason Richard Garfield made Android: Netrunner after he was done with MtG.

Yes and no. Numbers-wise Limited the biggest money-sink.

Netrunner wasn't made because Garfield thought a different model of gaming was better, he made a number of games after M:tG. Also he hasn't been exactly 'done' with Magic considering that he was on the team for Return to Ravnica and probably other sets since then. People still buy new and exciting cards and play new and exciting drafts. I'm not saying Netrunner or any other game is worse (some games are worse and deserve to be shot, just not Netrunner) but my point was that the CCG model isn't still making money because they've hypnotized people into staying in or that there aren't any other options like some of my friends seem to think. The game has a ton of players because they like it.


Neurophage wrote:
The comparative benefits of the LCG model are literally the reason Richard Garfield made Android: Netrunner after he was done with MtG.

Are you not aware that Netrunner was a standard CCG for YEARS?

It became an LCG very late in it's life, and the reason ISN'T that it's a better model than a TCG. And Garfield had no hand at all in Netrunner becoming an LCG. Netrunner became an LCG around the same time that Game of Throngs: The Card Game transitioned from TCG to LCG.

The reason Fantasy Flight uses LCGs is that no TCG on the market can compete with the Big Three.

Pokemon, Yugioh, and especially Magic the Gathering so thoroughly dominate the TCG market that no other TCG lasts for longer than 3-4 years.

LCGs can be made in smaller quantities, with smaller card pools, and kept in constant print if need-be. Trying to make a TCG/CCG in this day and age is utter suicide, because you WILL be beaten by the Big Three.

THAT is the reason why Fantasy Flight makes LCGs - not because it's a "better" model or that it's one that's friendlier to players; it's because, if they didn't, they would end up in the Bargain Bin like so many TCGs before them.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
The comparative benefits of the LCG model are literally the reason Richard Garfield made Android: Netrunner after he was done with MtG.

Are you not aware that Netrunner was a standard CCG for YEARS?

It became an LCG very late in it's life, and the reason ISN'T that it's a better model than a TCG. And Garfield had no hand at all in Netrunner becoming an LCG. Netrunner became an LCG around the same time that Game of Throngs: The Card Game transitioned from TCG to LCG.

The reason Fantasy Flight uses LCGs is that no TCG on the market can compete with the Big Three.

Pokemon, Yugioh, and especially Magic the Gathering so thoroughly dominate the TCG market that no other TCG lasts for longer than 3-4 years.

LCGs can be made in smaller quantities, with smaller card pools, and kept in constant print if need-be. Trying to make a TCG/CCG in this day and age is utter suicide, because you WILL be beaten by the Big Three.

THAT is the reason why Fantasy Flight makes LCGs - not because it's a "better" model or that it's one that's friendlier to players; it's because, if they didn't, they would end up in the Bargain Bin like so many TCGs before them.

I didn't know about Netrunner, but when I played Call of Cthulu before it switch to LCG that was the stated reason on the forums as to why they switched, except that VS was the thing instead of pokemon. If every other Fantasy Flight CCG went the same way for the same reason I'd believe it, it seemed a smart move for CoC. At the time I was trying out VS, Maple Story and The Spoils, and the only reason why I see that anymore is because everyone gave me their cards when they quit. (I have a dead CCG collection.)

Shadow Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
The "I don't want it" with no reasoning probably isn't going to be received by anyone well. Why not? Cause. Because why? Just cause. And now you have a frustrated player and probably a frustrated GM too.

I see it like this. The GM doesn't want it. The GM is just as entitled to have fun as the player. The GM is the GM, and as such, sets the house rules and allowed resources.

Yes, the bolded portion is true. The GM is entitled to have fun to. The GM is not there solely to be your b#$#*.


VS was an excellent game that had a major failing in that the very first set was just absolutely broken.

Excuse me, not the very first set - that's misleading.

X-MEN were just absolutely broken. Everything else was just meh.

There was no reason to play ANYTHING other than an X-Men deck, except maybe an X-Men/Brotherhood deck. There were too many X-Men, they were all too efficient, and they were far, far too synergistic.

If they ever fixed that problem, it came way too late in the game's life - X-Men dominated VS games from day 1, and every time they printed another good X-Men character in a later set, or any good card that could be thrown into an X-Men deck, it only added to the problem.

Shadow Lodge

Zhangar wrote:
I'll also note that at least one of Kthulhu's examples of a "bloat free" game was Call of Cthulhu - a game where expanding player options would be pointless. At the end of the day in CoC, you're playing a normal person who's going to retire, go insane, or die. =P I believe CoC's character progression was limited to improving your skill checks (though it's worth noting that everything was resolved as a skill check) or learning spells (which speeds up the "go insane" part).

The BRP System is used for more than just Call of Cthulhu, however. It originated with RuneQuest - a fantasy RPG not unlike D&D or Pathfinder. Except not devoted to convoluting itself needlessly. :P

Zhangar wrote:
I'm not familiar with Swords & Wizardry, so no comment there.

You should check it out. It's free.


Mismanagement is to blame for a lot of TCG deaths.

Upper Deck had a magnicient game in the WoW: TCG. With the backing of loot cards behind it and the fact that it was actually a realy good game it stood poised to be well.

But, they blew it with poorly managed tournament support, ludicrous rarity spreads, and all that came with it. When cryptozoic split off from upper deck and took the license with it they were getting things back into gear...

And then Hearthstone happened. Blizzard realized it didn't have to compete with big fish at their own game. It just changed the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I see it like this. The GM doesn't want it. The GM is just as entitled to have fun as the player. The GM is the GM, and as such, sets the house rules and allowed resources.

While I definitely agree, I'll also add that, if you are going to be the DM, especially in your own homebrew setting, you do have a responsibility to be at least open-minded. GM's that disallow anything but the Core book irk me because they not only are limiting the options of players, but they also often do so because "everything outside of the Core is broken" without realizing that the majority of PRD outside the Core Rulebook is extremely balanced and only helps to bring weaker classes more in line with all other classes (except the Wizard and Cleric, who are perennially broken, but that's why they get the fewest new useful toys in each new book).

I can understand choosing not to use weird variants like Wounds/Vigor, Mythic things, etc.

But just straight-up not allowing anything on the assumption that the Core is the only thing that's balanced is both misinformed about how broken the Core book actually is, and ignorant of potential options for players.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I see it like this. The GM doesn't want it. The GM is just as entitled to have fun as the player. The GM is the GM, and as such, sets the house rules and allowed resources.
While I definitely agree, I'll also add that, if you are going to be the DM, especially in your own homebrew setting, you do have a responsibility to be at least open-minded. GM's that disallow anything but the Core book irk me because they not only are limiting the options of players, but they also often do so because "everything outside of the Core is broken" without realizing that the majority of PRD outside the Core Rulebook is extremely balanced and only helps to bring weaker classes more in line with all other classes (except the Wizard and Cleric, who are perennially broken, but that's why they get the fewest new useful toys in each new book).

If you really want balance, you ban Paizo books (especially the Core Rulebook), and only allow Dreamscarred Press classes and options from Psionics Unlimited or Path of War.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:


And some people here act as if saying no is the same as if actually stealing their girlfriend.

True. Yet the same can be said of certain Dms as well. If either one side or both is being difficult. One either finds a new table as a player. Or asks the player to leave.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not too sure a large segment of players even still use their 3.5. material. As more often than not most don't want to waste time converting the older material and prefer using the newer material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ermagherd! Game blerht!

251 to 300 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.