Drinking coffee is almost always a solitary experience. Please try a different analogy.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.
No. My friends and I use to go out for coffee all the time, and my battle buddy at my last duty station and I went out for coffee as a social thing on a regular basis.
It has been (until the Keurig coffee machine) even more so if you didn't get out because generally you had to share the same pot and agree on at least the base type of coffee to be drank.
At least they haven't gone the warhammer 40k way...
Same stuff only more expensive as the means of production become cheaper and continuously reconning the old mechanics back into themselves.
It's just as bad as League of Legends "Game change for the sake of game change" policy.
I just miss the original Magi-Nation CCG...Wow, blast from the past. I haven't played that since the new set was still in the works. I think I still have my Core deck laying around somewhere.
I have it as part as my dead CCG collection. As much fun as I had with it, I think it had small flaws that kind of killed it. I guess in the case of RPGs though the only real way that it dies is that nobody plays it. What rpgs are more than 5 years old and no new material in 5 years and people still play it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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+%+*.
Well why doesn't the GM want it? Oh you have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON?!!? Okay I should totally understand how this would ruin your fun by allowing it.
Not fitting theme is a good enough reason.
Wanting it to be rare is a good reason (I've heard of games with no divine casters and another that had no arcane casters)
I've been in a game where our first 2 levels were in NPC classes, and all of our Classes had to be untrained (like barb or sorcerer), no trained classes allowed (like alchemist or wizard).
It having a complicated mechanic you don't want to deal with (grapple or illusion)
Etc.
Any justifiable reason is a good reason.
But if you have no reason to ban it other than you want to say no. That's kinda a jerk move and you'll probably have upset players which I feel would lead to the GM getting upset.
player: I want to play a figher
GM: NO
player: why not?
GM: no reason, I just want to tell you no
player: well, would you please let me play a fighter? I really want to be a generic feat guy for this character.
GM: No, you can't be a fighter because I said so. There is no other reason besides the fact that that is what I said.
player: That's pretty lame, you're not allowing me to play this guy for no reason?
GM: Correct
player: Pft, that's stupid. I'll now be angry and yell at you about this
GM: I'm going to continue to say no for no reason and get angry that you're getting angry
So if you have no reason to ban it, you might as well allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess in the case of RPGs though the only real way that it dies is that nobody plays it. What rpgs are more than 5 years old and no new material in 5 years and people still play it?
I mean, in theory, 2nd Edition.
2nd Ed still has some die-hard fans who use only it.
That being said, 1st and 2nd Ed are surprisingly compatible with 3.5 and Pathfinder - at least the magic items - so taking new materials and back-porting them isn't too awful.
Even the spells, which may take some serious finagling, are, in theory, usable. The difference in how spellcasting works (Actions, Rounds, or Minutes, vs. the "spell starts on your Init, ends on your Init-minus-X) is gnarly as hell, but not TOO awful to figure out.
The classes, however, are completely incompatible. So don't expect a Pathfinder Gunslinger, Warpriest, Alchemist, or Bloodrager to show up in a 2nd Ed game, even with tweaks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
player: I want to play a figher
GM: NO
player: why not?
GM: no reason, I just want to tell you no
player: well, would you please let me play a fighter? I really want to be a generic feat guy for this character.
GM: No, you can't be a fighter because I said so. There is no other reason besides the fact that that is what I said.
player: That's pretty lame, you're not allowing me to play this guy for no reason?
GM: Correct
player: Pft, that's stupid. I'll now be angry and yell at you about this
GM: I'm going to continue to say no for no reason and get angry that you're getting angry
Why do people jump to this whenever DM imposed limits are brought up? Does this actually happen to anyone? If so stop hanging out with these people and go meet better ones. Shouldn't be hard to up the bar on that.
Frikkin obviously a DM will have a reason for imposed limits. You even called out "I don't want to deal with it" as justifiable which is certainly a more generous stance than many others. So is there really a horde of DMs out there who give no reasons at all when asked? Or can people finally start assuming that when a DM imposed limit is brought up they have a reason?
- Torger
player: I want to play a figher
GM: NO
player: why not?
GM: no reason, I just want to tell you no
player: well, would you please let me play a fighter? I really want to be a generic feat guy for this character.
GM: No, you can't be a fighter because I said so. There is no other reason besides the fact that that is what I said.
player: That's pretty lame, you're not allowing me to play this guy for no reason?
GM: Correct
player: Pft, that's stupid. I'll now be angry and yell at you about this
GM: I'm going to continue to say no for no reason and get angry that you're getting angry
Why do people jump to this whenever DM imposed limits are brought up? Does this actually happen to anyone? If so stop hanging out with these people and go meet better ones. Shouldn't be hard to up the bar on that.
Frikkin obviously a DM will have a reason for imposed limits. You even called out "I don't want to deal with it" as justifiable which is certainly a more generous stance than many others. So is there really a horde of DMs out there who give no reasons at all when asked? Or can people finally start assuming that when a DM imposed limit is brought up they have a reason?
- Torger
Posters on this board have defended "just because" as a reason to not allow something in similar topics.
However I agree, that if someone gives this as answer it might be a good idea to find a new game. The GM being your friend is not an excuse to accept deal with this answer, if you don't like it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider "I don't like it" to be a sufficient reason.
The GM puts a lot more time and effort into a game than the average player. his right to have fun is just as important as the player's. Yet it seems to be popular on these forums to imply that a GM who imposes any sort of limit is a horrible tyrant, and the players should all quit and walk out on him. But somehow if the GM quits, he's being a whiny crybaby who can't stand not having his own way. Nice double standard some of you are putting out there.
I consider "I don't like it" to be a sufficient reason.
Why don't you like it? Especially to the point that I can't play it.
I don't like the Rogue class, the ranger class, or the witch class. Should I ban all of those in my games because I personally don't like playing 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.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.
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.)
If I were to hazard a guess I think he's more talking about
"Ahh man all these Fighter/Rogues in Skull and Shackles would probably be better statted out as Slayers"
or
"Man, wish that feat existed when they wrote this guy in X AP"
or
"Man, this difficult enounter by core/APG standards is made completely trivial by X option introduced in Y book"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider "I don't like it" to be a sufficient reason.
The GM puts a lot more time and effort into a game than the average player. his right to have fun is just as important as the player's. Yet it seems to be popular on these forums to imply that a GM who imposes any sort of limit is a horrible tyrant, and the players should all quit and walk out on him. But somehow if the GM quits, he's being a whiny crybaby who can't stand not having his own way. Nice double standard some of you are putting out there.
I think you are exaggerating. The problem is not the GM saying no to most reasonable people. It is when nobody understands why/how _____ ruins his fun, so think he is saying no "just because".
"I don't like it because _______" is a valid reason to most people. Now of course nobody can make the GM explain himself, but if you do something people don't like, and they don't know why you are doing it, you should not be surprised when they do not support your decision.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thejeff has a point. What is justifiable is subjective. I think what should be looked at is does the GM have a reason which can be stated. Different things bother different people so while a player may think the GM's objection is trivial, to the GM it could be important.
The next step is to see if there is a way for the player to introduce X without bothering the GM. If so that should be done, but if it is something the GM just will not accept then the player either has to choose another ____, or find another game.
So this just turned into another Player vs GM thread, eh?
It's been debated as often as Alignment and Paladin Codes, guys.
Can't we just agree to disagree and get back to the original topic at hand?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this just turned into another Player vs GM thread, eh?
It's been debated as often as Alignment and Paladin Codes, guys.
Can't we just agree to disagree and get back to the original topic at hand?
In general, this thread has been civil and the varying philosophies behind different opinions on which sourcebooks to use is absolutely pertinent to the original discussion. It just happens that players and GMs (frequently) tend to fall on opposite ends of the philosophy spectrum which result in competing interests. Having a discussion about what expectations are reasonable from both sides and where middle ground can be found is hardly a Player vs GM thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thejeff has a point. What is justifiable is subjective. I think what should be looked at is does the GM have a reason which can be stated. Different things bother different people so while a player may think the GM's objection is trivial, to the GM it could be important.
The next step is to see if there is a way for the player to introduce X without bothering the GM. If so that should be done, but if it is something the GM just will not accept then the player either has to choose another ____, or find another game.
I hugely agree with what you're saying here, Wraithstrike.
I know that analogies only go so far, but here's one:
I have three significant fears in my life. Firstly, I panic if I wake up without knowing where other people in the house have gone. Second, I'm scared of tripping on door frames. Third, I'm scared of railway platforms.
One of these I can explain, but I don't like to. One of them is because of something that happened to me as a child, and I don't mind telling people about it. And one of them I have absolutely no idea about, it just scares me.
I can articulate the emotion well enough in all three cases, but if someone attempts to persuade me that any of them are "silly" or "trivial" reasons to be afraid, then I won't respond well.
Thejeff has a point. What is justifiable is subjective. I think what should be looked at is does the GM have a reason which can be stated. Different things bother different people so while a player may think the GM's objection is trivial, to the GM it could be important.
The next step is to see if there is a way for the player to introduce X without bothering the GM. If so that should be done, but if it is something the GM just will not accept then the player either has to choose another ____, or find another game.
I hugely agree with what you're saying here, Wraithstrike.
I know that analogies only go so far, but here's one:
I have three significant fears in my life. Firstly, I panic if I wake up without knowing where other people in the house have gone. Second, I'm scared of tripping on door frames. Third, I'm scared of railway platforms.
One of these I can explain, but I don't like to. One of them is because of something that happened to me as a child, and I don't mind telling people about it. And one of them I have absolutely no idea about, it just scares me.
I can articulate the emotion well enough in all three cases, but if someone attempts to persuade me that any of them are "silly" or "trivial" reasons to be afraid, then I won't respond well.
That's because fears are legitimately psychologically defined and can bring up great anxiety when experienced or even discussed. Not liking a class and banning it from the table is unlikely to bring about such anxiety associated with phobias, and if they do then I feel it would be a good reason to ban the class from a game.
I'm surprised no one has brought up the point I always go to when this subject is brought up: this isn't the GMs game. It's the tables game. The game belongs to everyone at the table and the rules used should be decided upon by everyone at the table. Not just one person. It doesn't matter if one or more people put in more effort; these are all voluntary roles and as such any person can fullfill each role as they choose. But the entire table should be deciding what they want to play and how they want to play, together, as reasonable mature adults are wont to do.
Does the entire table want to play a game where fighters aren't allowed? Go for it! Does everyone want to play a game where magic is non existent or even just not allowed for the players? Have fun! But one person shouldn't be a dictator over others just because they voluntarily chose a role as a majority storyteller. After all, every person involved is telling the story together, and everyone involved should be part of the decision making for the type of fun they wish to have.
If I, as an adult, am going to tell another adult they they cannot do something or are not allowed to do something, they dang well deserve an explanation if time allows. The only situation where there won't be sufficient time is when someone life is in danger, and that is rarely the situation while playing a tabletop game. Anything less than reasonable discussion and/or explanation is simply a lack of respect for another person. At the very least, a "no for now and we'll discuss later" should be given. I do not even accept anything less from my parents, my wife, my children, my boss, my coworkers, or my employees. Why should I accept less from someone I am enjoying my hobby with?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Ok, I will make some comments about GM banning. I am in no way saying this for all or even most GM's. But they are applicable to me and all but 2 of the GM's I have known that banned material.
Exception 1) The GM was very poor at optimizing. So every time the players came up with a particularly powerful 'gimmick' that they used repeatedly, he would see it as that 'gimmick' being too powerful, stomping all over his campaign, and then ban it. His PC's were also usually pretty weak.
You can say "he just needs to learn..." But he literally seemed unable to do so. I played with the guy for years. He simply does not seem to have the type of mind to assemble the building blocks effectively. And I don't think he was ever able to see that in himself.
We as players eventually learned to not concentrate a build too much on a gimmick and to also rotate through tactical options not relying on any one thing too often.
Exception 2) The GM simply did not have the time or money to own or review all the multitude of possibilities. He ran with CRB, ACG, Bestiary 1, and Bestiary 2. He has those pretty close to memorized. That is all he was willing to use, learn, and own.
Yeah, sure he doesn’t need to own and know everything. He can just rely on his player to own and know what they are using. But he is more than just a bit OCD and can’t let go that much. (I have enough of it to understand what he feels.) he would feel like he had to stop the game nearly every time they used something from a different book and make sure they were using it correctly and that he understood all the potential ramifications. Especially when the players in that particular group, would get anything very complex partially wrong about 1 time in 4. Some players grumbled about it a lot, but if he ran the game within the limits he had for himself, it was usually a pretty decent campaign. Not stellar because he was a bit more controlling and railroad than I like. But still decent.
He also always made the point, “If you really want more books in the game, one of you can feel free to GM it. I just can’t do that.” None of them took him up on it (but still complained). I was willing to GM, but didn’t have the prep time at that point in my life.
Story Time. Several years ago, I made a homebrew world. I made a whole bunch of house rules because it was an experiment to try and generate a specific result in the atmosphere of the game. (Namely I was trying to duplicate the feel of a book series without duplicating the storyline.) I have no idea if it would have worked or not.
I spent a fair amount of time building characters and trying them in mock combats. The house rules did change how quite a few things worked with each other. So there was a bunch of stuff that I didn’t allow or changed how it worked. There were quite a few things that I just didn’t allow. I specifically listed out a bunch of things that I would allow but warned them that they wouldn’t work very well with the house rules. They were very weak.
However, all that was mostly just the stuff in the CRB. I obviously did not have the time to go through everything. I said very clearly, that if they wanted something not in the CRB or not listed they should let me know beforehand so I could take the time to see how it worked within the new rules. Not necessarily banned, just let me know so I could check it.
Then there were a bunch of changes for the plot. There were no elves or orcs, in fact a lot of ‘known’ races were missing. Currently no samuri, gunslingers, or summoners. Gods refused to grant any divine powers to anyone with any arcane powers (so definitely no mystic theurges). Certain types of magic didn’t work or were extremely more difficult (min +2 spell levels) for summoning, dimensional, or teleport type magic.
All of that was clearly written up and given to everyone long before the campaign was agreed to. Everyone said they wanted to try the campaign or I wouldn’t have done it. There were no surprises.
The whole campaign plot was intended to be solving the mystery and find out that the gods had done something cataclysmic to cause those changes. Then if they wanted to they could try and reverse those changes (I actually hadn’t figured that part out yet).
Of the 6 players, 4 insisted on playing the banned races and classes, with virtually nothing from the CRB (didn’t work it out with me ahead of time), then specializing in the classes of magic that were difficult but I was expected to change it back so they were functional again. To be perfectly honest I had set up those specific items to be gone because no one in the group ever wanted to play them anyway. It should not have been even perceived as a loss. But as soon as I said they couldn’t have them, that is all they wanted.
They b!*@@ed, wined, complained, and moaned about it nonstop. “But why can’t I run an elf summoner? It really isn’t all that OP compared to a pouncing barbarian. I never said it was. So let me run one. It doesn’t work in this plot. So change the plot. Etc…”
The only way I could get them to stop was to explain exactly why most of those items weren’t allowed. Everyone single one of them said that was actually a pretty good storyline. Which of course, was now completely ruined. I tried to run it from that point as just an open sandbox, but it was pretty much dead before it even got started.
Now when I run a game for that group, I will no longer do anything accept an AP (with few alterations) where anything is allowed. It is certainly less fun for me to run that way, but I'm not going to open myself up for the headache of trying anything else.
Most of the GM’s I have know had at least similar reasons for what they banned or altered. There was some specific reason that was part of the campaign world or plot. However, they can’t always tell you every reason.
But there are a lot of players that react very badly to what they perceive as taking their toys away for no reason except that you are a lousy GM.
Again, I am not saying that is the way it is for every GM. But it was for me and most of the GM’s I’ve gamed with in the past couple of decades.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the other hand, if I don't like what I might be gming, I'm not a masochist and won't do it. Which means either find a different gm, or no game. I have no obligation to, and you wouldn't even want me to, Gm something I don't enjoy. If I don't enjoy it it will be like the teacher which hates their subject matter - no one taking it will enjoy the class. I'm not going to go through the work of setting up and running a campaign otherwise. Call it selfish, but there you go. No more selfish than a payer deciding they must have that one race or class and nothing else will do. I make campaigns. I invite people I think will enjoy that style game to play. The restrictions are right there on the book's cover. If you don't like them, no one is requiring you to come play that game.
That is exactly right. This is a group game and everyone in the group needs to make a decision together. If you don't want to run it the way everyone wants to play, maybe someone else can run it. Maybe your a player this time. Maybe everyone should choose a different game because there is someone who won't have fun with the current option. Maybe it can be altered slightly so everyone can have fun. If a decision cannot be agreed upon, perhaps it's time to find a different group.
This is a game. The people playing it are most likey adults (there are a fair amount of teenagers and children playing, too). Adults are able to come to mutually agreeable decisions. This entire argument about player entitlement or GM dictatorship feels like it belongs entirely in the realm of teenagers who haven't matured well enough to discuss a subject with another person without getting mad. Especially when people are being described as "b@@&&ing and moaning" about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, trying to circle this tangent back around to the original: Is "I like a simpler game and want to restrict this to Core and APG" a sufficient justification? Or does the GM need to provide specific justifications for each individual class, feat, spell or other ability anyone wants from outside those sources?
In other words, is "Just don't use it" an acceptable response to complaints about bloat?
For some groups/players, Yes.
For many others, No.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, trying to circle this tangent back around to the original: Is "I like a simpler game and want to restrict this to Core and APG" a sufficient justification? Or does the GM need to provide specific justifications for each individual class, feat, spell or other ability anyone wants from outside those sources?
In other words, is "Just don't use it" an acceptable response to complaints about bloat?
Yes. If you are GMing and you want to GM a game with limited books for the sake of, "I don't have time or capacity to worry about the full range of classes available and want to keep the scope narrower I think that is valid.
However if the group wants a wider range of books and rules available than you are comfortable GMing for perhaps it's time to step aside and let someone else GM.
If that's not an option then the group as a whole (aka both players and GM) needs to come up with a solution.
Possibilities are:
1 for 1 class subbing (there are no druids, but there are magus/ there are no paladins but there are alchemist) to keep the number of options the same but target them to what people want to play.
Book for book subbing (this one is a bit harder, as later books tend to build on earlier books).
Going with a "core" game this time, and maybe not in the next campaign.
so on and so on...
I tend to limit what is available in my games. I have two reasons to do so:
1. On the boards with the time available I love just about everything. At a table as a GM I cannot by myself track each of those rule sources, each of the characters, and all of the story line at one time. Limiting sources helps me not have to worry about forgetting important aspects.
2. Setting specific: One of my favorite home settings to run is no divine except oracles, no spontaneous except oracles. Magic is a thing studied and those that have it "naturally" are odd and suffer from it (the oracle's curse) but also have completely different powers than magic as it's understood. Most of the 'mundane' classes are available and the races are mixed up a bit.
If I can I find a way to work with the players to get what they want, and what I want out of the game. with one of the above strategies if possible.
The games my group and I run are PRD-only, and basically not ALL of the PRD.
We use the CRB, APG, UC, UM, ARG, ACG, UE, Ultimate Campaign, NPC, MC, and Bestiaries 1-4.
Mind you, that leaves out the Gamemastery Guide (there's only a few pages that we use often, Chases being the most useful), Mythic Adventures (not our cup of tea, but the rules are great for making bosses), and Technology Guide (doesn't fit with the themes of most games).
We'll likely use Pathfinder Unchained, though no idea if we'll use Occult Adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am itching for unchained.
It's kind of a watershed book for me. They won't have the legacy excuse anymore. So if they don't deliver, I might just move on to a different game (or just delve deeper into 3rd party material).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a "pathfinder 2.0"
I would pay good money for a "pathfinder revised core rule book"
That is get rid of bad language - clear up things that are confusing - take time to explain things (like freedom of movement for example).
Clean up things that need cleaned up and even revise rules/classes/feats if needed.
(i.e. you can use vital strike as a standard action - boom no longer confusing for people not familiar with rules lawyering and crufty language).
They don't need to change the rules system to put out something new and awesome - I'm pretty sure there is enough evidence on these very forums for them to find and fix most of the problems. Anyway I'd appreciate that product in a hot second.
|
At the same time if all they offer is yet another rehash with little mew material chances are it might not sell well either. There is 3.5 and Pathfinder. Two editions with the same rules. We don't need a third one imo. The best solution is Unchained. With 5E fixing some of the flaws of third. I can't see anyone reinvesting another 100$ for a edition that offers more of the same imo. My gaming group and myself are simply not interested in the same rules yet again with new art. A new edition of a existing rpg has to offer minimum 50% new material before I might even consider even looking through the core.
|
|
At the same time if all they offer is yet another rehash with little mew material chances are it might not sell well either. There is 3.5 and Pathfinder. Two editions with the same rules. We don't need a third one IMO.
It will be the fourth.... 3.0, 3.5, PF, and PF.5. Not to mention the scores of other d20 games whose corpses litter the 2000s.
|
|
It will be the fourth.... 3.0, 3.5, PF, and PF.5. Not to mention the scores of other d20 games whose corpses litter the 2000s.
Well four versions. Maybe if 5E had not been so well received. As well as fixing some flaws while making the game easier to run as well. So the next version has to offer something new imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far nothing except the Core Rulebook has been a "rehash".
Wounds & Vigor were a direct update of Wounds & Vitality, but even that was a bit more flushed-out, but beyond that Paizo's put out pretty much put out pretty unique things.
Classes can be seen as equivalents, but, again, even then it's much more of a thematic "Pathfinder version" - in practice, they're often very different and much more fleshed-out than their 3.5 equivalents.
The Marshal became the Cavalier; the Hexblade the Hexcrafter Magus, the Warmage the Eldritch Scion, and the Duskblade the basic Magus; the Favored Soul became either the Oracle, Inquisitor or the Warpriest (depending on whether you see it as a divine mage-knight or as a spontaneous divine full-caster); The Ninja became, well, the Ninja; the Scout became the Skirmisher Ranger; the Swashbuckler became, obviously, the Swashbuckler.
However, that basically leaves the Witch, Alchemist, Hunter, Brawler, Investigator, Bloodrager, Skald, Arcanist, Shaman, Gunslinger, Summoner, Witch, and Slayer are all unique to Pathfinder.
When it comes time for a Pathfinder 2nd Edition, more than likely it will largely be codifying the most popular variant rules from Pathfinder Unchanged, thus leaving every book EXCEPT the original Core Rulebook untouched.
Since Unchained is designed to not affect any of the printed options like classes, feats, etc., and only really touch on the basic architecture of the game, that seems like it's the logical progression, and makes sure that a "PF2.0" doesn't make any books beyond the Core (and probably Unchained) obsolete.
Well four versions. Maybe if 5E had not been so well received. As well as fixing some flaws while making the game easier to run as well. So the next version has to offer something new imo.
It will be the fourth.... 3.0, 3.5, PF, and PF.5. Not to mention the scores of other d20 games whose corpses litter the 2000s.
I mean, D&D is really one of the few games that makes radical changes with each edition, and even the changes from 1st Edition to 2nd weren't tremendous.
D&D to AD&D WAS, but that's why it was classified as an entirely different game, and why D&D rules were still printed even up until the late 80s.
Even games like Warhammer/40K don't make gigantic, sweeping changes with each Edition - their are minor tweaks made, but overall the basic gameplay is preserved. That's why you can STILL play Da Orks even after several editions have passed since they've gotten a book.
Most games DON'T make radical changes to their rules. Even MTG made a radical paradigm shift only ONCE, and the way they did so left literally every card but ONE usable (in fact, most cards got power UPGRADES because of the changes). Other than that, Magic went through 10 official "Editions," and has had 5 subsequent pseudo-Editions since then.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You have been *incredibly* misinformed by someone. M:TG has consistently ranked among the best-selling games in the industry nearly every year of Magic's 22-year history, and was number one for many of those years. And I guarantee you that there's a tremendous profit involved—Hasbro has regularly called out M:TG as one of the brands that generates the most revenue for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if the Core Rulebook were revised without making too much of a dent in the rest of the rules, the only thing that would be off is some of the math in APs and page number references. I don't think that's too high of a price to pay
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: go play 5E. Rules light, I highly doubt there will be any "feats and classes" splatbook for it, ever,
Oh you poor naieve little bag. I just want to scoop you into my black and gnarled talons and keep you in a little dark hole forever just as you are.
To the OP: go play 5E. Rules light, I highly doubt there will be any "feats and classes" splatbook for it, ever,Oh you poor naieve little bag. I just want to scoop you into my black and gnarled talons and keep you in a little dark hole forever just as you are.
Didn't wizard say that they don't intend to expand 5th?
I've heard that if 5th didn't retake the market, WotC was going to drop D&D development.
|
|
I mean, D&D is really one of the few games that makes radical changes with each edition, and even the changes from 1st Edition to 2nd weren't tremendous.
D&D to AD&D WAS, but that's why it was classified as an entirely different game, and why D&D rules were still printed even up until the late 80s.
OD&D to Basic was also a pretty big chance, from what I understand. The various versions of BECMI weren't really anymore D&D than AD&D was. Two different branches off the same root.
In general I think you're right about most games changing less between editions than D&D has - at least since the 2E -> 3.0 transition.
Original D&D, AD&D, Basic D&D (all four varieties), and 2E D&D weren't really all that different, to tell the truth. You could pick a character, a monster, etc out of any of them and plop it down into one of the others, no changes, and it would work. It might not be exactly the same as the equivalent monster/character native to that system, but it generally wasn't all that far off either.
All in all, I'd say that ALL the editions before 3.0 were at least as compatible with each other as the different flavors of 3E (3.0, 3.5, and PFRPG) are with each other.
2E => 3E is when they started to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
Good luck transitioning a level 15 AD&D Elven Fighter/Cleric into BECMI without any changes.
The base systems are close enough that you literally do not have to make any changes, that's my point. Will it be a 100% RAW BECMI character? No. But it's playable, and the pre-3E games didn't tend to have as many people waiting with spreadsheets, ready to pounce on tiny errors as SOME editions have.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck transitioning a level 15 AD&D Elven Fighter/Cleric into BECMI without any changes.The base systems are close enough that you literally do not have to make any changes, that's my point. Will it be a 100% RAW BECMI character? No. But it's playable, and the pre-3E games didn't tend to have as may people waiting with spreadsheets, ready to pounce on tiny errors as SOME editions have.
Actually, transitioning said Ftr/Clr between 3e/3.5e/PF is far simpler than making a move between an edition where elves are a race to an edition where elves are a class.
To the OP: go play 5E. Rules light, I highly doubt there will be any "feats and classes" splatbook for it, ever, and as a bonus - zero North-Western progressivism shoved forcibly down delicate religious throats. I mean, what's not to love?
Err...it's called Dungeons and Dragons....
That's enough to cause a massive morale panic in some areas of religion...