| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder
Pathfinder Society
Pathfinder Society Core
Pathfinder Unchained
Beginner Box
Mythic Rules
etc.
I know there has been some concern expressed in the past about bloat, but at least past instances of bloat still all used the same ruleset, right?
Having to parse through all the different rules and alternate rules and options and alternate options and versions and alternate versions to determine what's actually legal in your game and what isn't is actually starting to affect our play. I'm looking at the acceleration and I'm starting to wonder what the end-game looks like...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We get about two bloat threads a month. They all end the same way, with some folks convinced that there is too much and others that want more.
So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.
The question I asked was a sincere one... with so many versions of the game out there and more seemingly on the way, what does the end-game look like?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of options pick what you like and go.? I don't know. Can a RPG system continue to grow and thrive or does it have to die? Is that the inevitable outcome? I fear talk of bloat and the end is neigh stuff hastens this possibility, I fear it gets people in the mindset that the end is inevitable and rapidly approaching thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Ok lets say its one rule set to rule them all. Is that what people want? Only one way to play? Are we better with (hopefully) well thought out variations of play to fit the varied gamer?
I personally do not care much for Pathfinder Society, I get way more entertainment from my regular group. But if something happened, God forbid, to my group and I wasn't able to play with them I'd be very happy to have the Society.
I brought my son into gaming a couple of years ago. I wish I started with the beginner box.
I've played Mythic....
I'm happy for the options though I prefer vanilla Pathfinder for the most part. Looking forward to sampling unchained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The end-game means Paizo goes out of business, and Pathfinder closes up shop. Publishing companies make money by publishing new material. Asking Paizo to close up their shop isn't going to get very far.We get about two bloat threads a month. They all end the same way, with some folks convinced that there is too much and others that want more.So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.
The question I asked was a sincere one... with so many versions of the game out there and more seemingly on the way, what does the end-game look like?
Yeah, we both know that's not what I'm asking.
I've been a long-time subscriber to Pathfinder products and never - not when I started and not now - did I ever think 'boy if they don't continuously introduce new rules, expanded rules, new versions of old rules and expanded versions of new versions of the old rules then I'm not going to buy it any more'. Quite the opposite, the whole point of signing up for the long haul was a relative certainty (or hope at least) that lessons had been learned and the focus would be on continuity and quality of product rather than endlessly versioning itself to death.
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.
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.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 their collective value.
This line right here made me chuckle a little. I have everything Paizo has released for the core PF line, along with almost everything from the campaign setting and the companion books (I skip APs because I don't want to run another person's adventure.) The most used book at my table? The first Pathfinder book I bought. Core. Next most used? APG. I still value the old books as much as the new ones. I guess I just don't see new options as something that makes my old options irrelevant.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you often find yourself buying a second or third core rulebook? I doubt it. Perhaps you should structure your request as:
'Paizo should produce more adventure paths/modules'
Rather than
'Paizo should produce less'.
Because the second isn't a viable business model at this point. Paizo isn't going to get a lot of sales by reprinting things people already have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok lets say its one rule set to rule them all. Is that what people want? Only one way to play? Are we better with (hopefully) well thought out variations of play to fit the varied gamer?
I personally do not care much for Pathfinder Society, I get way more entertainment from my regular group. But if something happened, God forbid, to my group and I wasn't able to play with them I'd be very happy to have the Society.
I brought my son into gaming a couple of years ago. I wish I started with the beginner box.
I've played Mythic....
I'm happy for the options though I prefer vanilla Pathfinder for the most part. Looking forward to sampling unchained.
There is some debate as to how well thought out some of the additions have been, in the rush to get us more, more, MOAR!
I got into Pathfinder because I really, really liked Pathfinder. I did it against my better judgement after having been burned by a number of other game systems that had quite literally expanded themselves out of existence... I did it because I was sure it'd be different this time, that Paizo was a different sort of company, but every time I come to the boards the game I bought into seems to be getting less and less recognizable.
I know everyone won't agree with me and that's fine, but as a long-time supporter of Paizo products, I feel compelled to express my concerns and frustrations, especially see in this path emerge that I've been down so many times before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't get my head wrapped around the collector's value of an AP. I don't buy my gaming material with the intention of flipping it as an investment some time down the road. The previous material you purchased has't changed. CRB is still the CRB and the AP is still the AP. The only real issues are the AP's that were published for D+D, not Pathfinder.
Again, we both know I'm not talking about speculative investment or 'flipping' AP's as a collector... I'm talking about modules and adventure paths that were written, balanced against what options there were in the game at the time they were written becoming gradually more obsolete as those options gets swallowed by a host of new ones the original adventure could never have taken into account.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not a fan of rules bloat; I'd much rather see adventures and campaign materials than crunch. But I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority there.
Happily, with the introduction of the Core campaign, the problem has been solved (at least for PFS).
The end game is a new version of Pathfinder wherein all of the bloat is cast away and replaced with a new set of core rules. I expect it will happen within the next couple of years; although, I don't expect a new version to be very drastic. It will most likely still be based upon the Standard Reference Document. That is--if Paizo doesn't end up partnering with Wizards of the Coast and start writing adventure paths for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition.
Do you often find yourself buying a second or third core rulebook? I doubt it. Perhaps you should structure your request as:
'Paizo should produce more adventure paths/modules'
Rather than
'Paizo should produce less'.
Because the second isn't a viable business model at this point. Paizo isn't going to get a lot of sales by reprinting things people already have.
I don't view my 'request' - if a request was even made - as a desire for them to produce more or less... just a request that they continue to produce the game that I signed up to play in the first place. As I said, its starting to become unrecognizable to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone has their limit. I think Mythic is the limit for our group. Although I hit my limit on spells pretty much after APG. Most of the spells that have come out are either uninteresting, weird, overpowered, or just plain awful. I rarely even check the full spell list when playing a caster, but rather just the Core spells. Pathfinder is still the best option, just not by as much ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that means you need to stretch your skills as a GM. You think your group is stomping through an AP? Change it! or introduce some new complications. That's what my spouse is doing with Wrath of the Righteous and we all have a better gam from it.I can't get my head wrapped around the collector's value of an AP. I don't buy my gaming material with the intention of flipping it as an investment some time down the road. The previous material you purchased has't changed. CRB is still the CRB and the AP is still the AP. The only real issues are the AP's that were published for D+D, not Pathfinder.Again, we both know I'm not talking about speculative investment or 'flipping' AP's as a collector... I'm talking about modules and adventure paths that were written, balanced against what options there were in the game at the time they were written becoming gradually more obsolete as those options gets swallowed by a host of new ones the original adventure could never have taken into account.
Trust me, that's not an issue. I've been developing an expansive campaign based around Rise of the Runelords, three books from Shattered Star and one book from Curse of the Crimson Throne combined with a host of homemade side quests and tie-ins that equal to another 3 or 4 volumes... I did a massive rewrite of Wrath of the Righteous to fix the debacle that was Mythic rules. My 'skills as a GM' are just fine... great story, exciting adventures, memorable characters, that's where creativity is best applied, not continuously inventing new mechanics and changing old ones. I'm fine with people figuring out new ways to fly, but that doesn't mean I want them changing the rules of physics to do it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I know a system that hardly ever changed its rules and is still around today. Palladium. The rules have remained the same for something like 30 years now. I grew up on it, I loved it. Its still kind of supported with like 4 new books or so a year. But I get laughed at mercilessly for even admitting I played it. I love the broken clunky system and Kevin S the creator will never change it for as long as he lives. But no perfection will ever come of something that never evolves. It is what it is, house rules the system till you get what you like.
I love pathfinder for the support and the optional rules. I change what I want and I do it often because I've had to do it with many other systems.
|
|
The end game is a new version of Pathfinder wherein all of the bloat is cast away and replaced with a new set of core rules. I expect it will happen within the next couple of years; although, I don't expect a new version to be very drastic. It will most likely still be based upon the Standard Reference Document. That is--if Paizo doesn't end up partnering with Wizards of the Coast and start writing adventure paths for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition.
Say it ain't so!
I change what I want and I do it often because I've had to do it with many other systems.
Exactly. Its called 'critical mass' for a reason... I'd rather not rush quite so headlong into it, and I'd rather Paizo not follow the road down which 'many other systems' have trod and ultimately perished.
|
|
Am I wrong in seeing a correlation in this and Magic the Gathering? I mean look that system has changed a bunch and it's still going strong. Every new set introduces a new mechanic or "Rules" if you will. Its still magic its still fun. I never played for an ante card as they suggested in the beginning. I would love to play Plane Chase but no one does around here, in fact everyone here plays EDH a different version of the rules then I prefer.
Different cards have come and gone some were flops others underpowered many stuck and changed the game. Isn't that like whats happening here at Piazo?
Am I wrong in seeing a correlation in this and Magic the Gathering? I mean look that system has changed a bunch and it's still going strong. Every new set introduces a new mechanic or "Rules" if you will. Its still magic its still fun. I never played for an ante card as they suggested in the beginning. I would love to play Plane Chase but no one does around here, in fact everyone here plays EDH a different version of the rules then I prefer.
Different cards have come and gone some were flops others underpowered many stuck and changed the game. Isn't that like whats happening here at Piazo?
Not at all. Apples and oranges. Apples and dump trucks, actually, just as a game of chess is very different game from a dance recital. RPG's aren't competitive, they're cooperative and the mechanics are intended to set the stage for a great story (and take a back seat to it when necessary)... whereas in Magic the story is only there to justify the mechanics and its the story that's marginalized in favor of the hard and fast rules. People who want to play card games play card games, people who want to play RPG's play RPG's - neither is a worthwhile substitute for the other because they are completely different things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't get my head wrapped around the collector's value of an AP. I don't buy my gaming material with the intention of flipping it as an investment some time down the road. The previous material you purchased has't changed. CRB is still the CRB and the AP is still the AP. The only real issues are the AP's that were published for D+D, not Pathfinder.Again, we both know I'm not talking about speculative investment or 'flipping' AP's as a collector... I'm talking about modules and adventure paths that were written, balanced against what options there were in the game at the time they were written becoming gradually more obsolete as those options gets swallowed by a host of new ones the original adventure could never have taken into account.
Actually they are balanced against the CRB. If you have an optimized group they will curbstomp an AP. If you have a less optimized group you will have less tweaking to do barring some strange corner case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game has enough rules for me now, but I am not against more options. When a new book comes out it is put on the "can be used on a case by case basis" list. When I get time to really look at it, then the book, or at least portions of it get added to my permanent list.
I am still struggling to see why other GM's feel the need to know or allow every book that is made.
Some will say what amounts to "but my players want to use it because they buy it, and will annoy me about it".
Then tell your players how you do things, and if they buy a book they may not be able to use that is their fault.
Of course someone will say "but they might leave if I make them wait.." OR "they will leave if I don't say yes to their demands".
If your area is a place where gaming is hard due to lack of players then let them leave. They will come back. If not then you are probably better off without them. Play online.
If your area has an abundance of players then you have nothing to worry about because it is still easier to find new players, than it is to find a GM so just recruit more players, and going online is an option.
PS: I am not saying the "do as I say" players are a problem for anyone in this thread. I am just presenting an alternative if they are a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your area is a place where gaming is hard due to lack of players then let them leave. They will come back. If not then you are probably better off without them. Play online.
If your area has an abundance of players then you have nothing to worry about because it is still easier to find new players, than it is to find a GM so just recruit more players, and going online is an option.
The problem occurs when you have a close knit group of friends. Then you have to make compromises. And when Paizo keeps releasing gonzo first party stuff these discussions get more and more difficult.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
With every new hardcover that comes out, at least one character from my group is able to be redone to closer match their players' original vision. So if anything the focus of my games is becoming clearer with more options, not more muddied.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing they're doing as a company is giving people options they can choose to use in their games.
Choose being the operative word.
The core game they're doing for organised play is for those who feel things are way too complicated. There's length of those folks out there, so this keeps them in.
Normal organised play is for those who want lots of options, complexity etc. I couldn't DM in that system to tell you the truth.
As for anyone who's playing home games, well you take whatever options you want. If you don't want them, don't use them.
Really, all Paizo is doing is catering to multiple play styles while keeping the same setting and core design. It is something other companies did in the past, but they split their settings or design etc to the point where they broke the player base up too much and couldn't support everything.
I basically see it as two types of product.
The APs are pre written. Everything you need to run them is in core book and bestiaries for the most part. New systems are included in the AP so you often don't need new books. That's for folks like me who are time poor.
The rest is for folks who like to design and run their own stuff. It provides a structured rule set to frame your game around. Take what you want for your game. Leave everything else out.
Organised play is between those two.
I other words, it's only bloat if you let it be. Especially now there's a core only PFS.
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only bloat if you see it as bloat. Different people have different levels of tolerance with this sort of stuff and is very subjective.
Personally, I don't see it currently as bloat as so far the additional options have just made it easier for my characters and my players characters to better reach the concept they imagined.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with new rulebooks and new options. I do have a problem with poorly thought out rules and badly edited books, and even when those books get an errata not nearly (not even close to) everything gets corrected (including the editing errors). Those things hurt my games.
The problem occurs when you have a close knit group of friends. Then you have to make compromises. And when Paizo keeps releasing gonzo first party stuff these discussions get more and more difficult.If your area is a place where gaming is hard due to lack of players then let them leave. They will come back. If not then you are probably better off without them. Play online.
If your area has an abundance of players then you have nothing to worry about because it is still easier to find new players, than it is to find a GM so just recruit more players, and going online is an option.
That is when you tell your friends the problem with adding more things, and how it bothers you as a GM to insta-add it. Personally I don't have a problem with compromising. Saying "I will look at this", or "not everything Paizo adds is automatically added, but I will try to get it into in ASAP" seems fair to me.
Maybe they don't understand the GM's point of view because they have never GM'd, or maybe they GM in such a way that allowing everything does not bother them. However, but that is not a Paizo problem. That is a table problem.
"It works for other people.." is not synonymous with "it works". These friends need to understand this.
Although I hit my limit on spells pretty much after APG. Most of the spells that have come out are either uninteresting, weird, overpowered, or just plain awful.
You take that back, you dirty swine! The best spell in the game comes from Ultimate Magic! I'd be lost without that one!
On a slightly more serious note:
I'm not certain I see what the big problem is here. We have Pathfinder; that's the official game with all rules included as possibilities. Pathfinder Society's basically just standard Pathfinder, adjusted slightly to allow for playing in an organised, modular fashion. Beginner Box is an introductory thing, can't really count that as rules bloat!
If anything, Pathfinder Society Core Campaign is fixing the perceived rules bloat. I don't see why you'd complain about it from a "things are getting too bloated!" perspective.
Mythic rules can simply be ignored. I don't intend to play in or run any mythic campaigns myself.
Really, what it comes down to is GMs needing to decide what they're comfortable with, and making that clear prior to starting a campaign. If you don't like how many options there are out there now, tell your players that! It's not too tough to do, I hope?
Some people are going to want to run Core Rules only. That's fine. Some people are going to want to run Core + APG only, or Core + APG + Ultimates only, or whatever combination they feel is best. That's all fine, just outline to your players what you want. Personally, I'm quite happy with the route of "I'm generally okay with whatever sources you wanna pick from, but I'd like to be given a general idea of where you're planning to go with your character so I can determine whether there's going to be any problems with it."
P.S.: I don't think we can complain too much about Pathfinder Unchained just yet. I don't believe we've got a good enough understanding of just what it's going to change, and can't really have an informed discussion on the implications of that.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: no offense, but (from a supporter of the current status quo) what is it you actually want? Honest question, asked as innocently as I can. You've made a lot of statements about bloat - and you are entitled to do so - but no comment about the changes you'd like to see made. I'm truly curious to know what you're interested in seeing happen, since you seem aware that Paizo won't just cease production (obviously). Do you have an idea of what your ideal future for the Pathfinder brand looks like? Please share.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has always been my opinion that bloat is a problem with consumer perception and not the actual game system. But I have always loved more options and ideas in the game systems I have played so I am obviously biased. I would rather have too much to choose from than not enough.
The rule sets/books my group does not like we simply do not use.
They are OPTIONS, not mandatory. If you do not want 'your' game changed then do not use the newer options in 'your' game. It really is that simple.
But the fact is a publishing company publishes or dies and Paizo has done a better job than most on keeping new content balanced and compatible with previous content.
Don't want bloat? Don't use new product. It really IS that simple.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must have the bestest group in all of RPG-dom.
They always ask what content is allowed before assuming anything and make a character.
No matter what game system.
I am truly blessed, it seems.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, what company has handled bloat well does anybody have any opinions?
Frog God Games, with Swords & Wizardry.
One rulebook, a bunch of monster books (Monstrosities, Tome of Horrors Complete, Tome of Horrors 4, Rappan Athuk Bestiary), and a couple of more or less system-neutral supplements (Bill Webb's Book of Dirty Tricks, Tome of Adventure Design).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, what company has handled bloat well does anybody have any opinions?
Steve Jackson Games has handled it pretty well with GURPS.
Although GURPS is in Fourth Edition right now, Fourth Edition is really only the first major change; first through third edition were pretty similar. GURPS/4e is also more similar to GURPS/3e than any two editions of D&D ever were.
However, they managed to do this without too much bloat. Yeah, by the end of its cycle, GURPS/3e had a fair bit of bloat. Partway through the system they released the "Compendia" that collected together the various options that had shown up in other books that were of good general use, which was an indication that the "core" system was outgrowing the core rulebook. Also, with 3e, you couldn't do some things you wanted to do (e.g. things like Transhuman Space) without pushing the system around its edges pretty hard. That's why they came out with 4e, which was a nice and clean settling of the system. It also wasn't that very different of a system.
I've never felt that GURPS got bloated. The options really are just that, options.
Of course, it's an entirely different beast from Pathfinder. GURPS is designed as a toolkit that can be used to build a whole host of different types of games. If you're running a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game, the entire "Spaceships" series is trivially ignored. Pathfinder, in contrast, is all just one game, and indeed while it's setting neutral, really it's all designed to work well with Golarion. It's far more focused than GURPS. Additionally, Pathfinder is (or at least was until 5e) the market leader, and so had many, many more players than GURPS, which meant it employed many more people and would be expected to put stuff out at a faster rate. So, Pathfiner is both focused, and bigger in terms of products. Thus, it's not really a fair comparison.
Still, answering the question, I think GURPS has done a fine job of handling the bloat issue. Yes, part of the solution is jumping to a new edition as a sort of "reboot"... but they go a loooong time between editions, in RPG company terms.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?
I'm running Skull and Shackles
Can you play a gunslinger?
Yes.
Can you be mythic?
No.
Can you wield a laser pistol?
No.
Can you be the lord of your own island and use the kingdom building rules?
No.
Can you use these various supplements not on the d20pfsrd that you know I don't own?
No.
Can I be a wereshark?
No, but you can be ate by one.
Paizo puts out the books to sell books. And you can buy them whether or not you intend to use them. Actually using the books is on you. If you start to have back troubles because you can't lift the combined stash maybe you should reconsider your approach and voluntarily limit what you allow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?
This, basically. The Pathfinder system is a smorgasbord. Rather than forcing yourself to eat from every single dish, just sample the things you want to try out.
Then you can run a superhero Mythic Wrath of the Righteous game, a pulp sci-fi Iron Gods game and a horror survival Carrion Crown game without having to learn three completely different game systems.