| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?
Simply put: No.
The issue I see is that those with the lower charisma want to be as effective as the one with higher charisma in terms of DCs from the start. You are correct that at least by later levels with items and the right investment of attribute points it can be fixed at later levels. More often than not sometimes a player with low charisma even after warned not to make it so low. Expects to be on par with the one with the high charisma. The system as is does not allow it imo.
They should take higher charisma then if that is a priority. I would also add that they might not really care about spell DC's. They might want to be better at buffing or have more skills. Under 2.0 you could possibly keep the abilitiy scores and have other ways to boost spells, class abilities, and so on. You do not need to get rid of ability scores, and even getting rid of ability scores would not guarantee equality in any certain area. You may have something similar to the ranger having to choose a fighting style. One bard could be better at spells, another could focus on social skills, and so on.
Your idea of making choices meaningless removes the need to even make a choice, and I don't think that is what people want. You have to pick and choose what you want to be good at. That is how it is for every system. Someone will always be better at something based on choices that are made.
|
You seem to want to remove all differences and consequences for differences from the game, in which case, what is the point of having a system at all if there are no consequences for making different choices within it?
Their a segment of the gaming population who want low stats without any of the penalties. Not me. I think their should be. let me be as clear as can be. Other members of the community not me.
My wish is that eventually D&D becomes more generic. Build the character as you want. Nothing predetermined. With the ability to add flaws and advantages as need be. I don't think it will ever happen and one can dream. And yes I know their are other generic rpgs on the market so no need to remind me on that end.
it b
You seem to want to remove all differences and consequences for differences from the game, in which case, what is the point of having a system at all if there are no consequences for making different choices within it?Their a segment of the gaming population who want low stats without any of the penalties. Not me. I think their should be. let me be as clear as can be. Other members of the community not me.
My wish is that eventually D&D becomes more generic. Build the character as you want. Nothing predetermined. With the ability to add flaws and advantages as need be. I don't think it will ever happen and one can dream. And yes I know their are other generic rpgs on the market so no need to remind me on that end.
it b
I believe .. and it has been years since I opened a GURPS game so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure with HERO that low/high stats include modifiers. The ability to add disadvantages and advantages is nice, however, but we sort of have that with Traits now, although that becomes less constructing a character idea and more "what can I take that will give me a bonus?"
I don't think it is a matter of the system needing an overhaul in that manner, at least not all of it, but rather the interaction between players and GM. If you talk it out beforehand and communicate, you can sometimes -- not always, but sometimes -- fix things like that.
It just depends on the sort of game the table wants.
|
|
They should take higher charisma then if that is a priority. I would also add that they might not really care about spell DC's. They might want to be better at buffing or have more skills. Under 2.0 you could possibly keep the abilitiy scores and have other ways to boost spells, class abilities, and so on. You do not need to get rid of ability scores, and even getting rid of ability scores would not guarantee equality in any certain area. You may have something similar to the ranger having to choose a fighting style. One bard could be better at spells, another could focus on social skills, and so on.
Cha 12 cha 16
0 11 131 12 14
2 13 15
3 14 16
4 15 17
5 16 18
6 17 19
They may not care about the DCs but they should if they want their spells to be effective. Boosting their spells usually comes at mod level or higher when they can spend gold on it. If the get the gold from the DM and if he allows them to find magic item. I do like your solution of having a different styles for either class.
Your idea of making choices meaningless removes the need to even make a choice, and I don't think that is what people want. You have to pick and choose what you want to be good at. That is how it is for every system. Someone will always be better at something based on choices that are made.
I know it's not going to happen but I would like to see D&D become more generic. It won't happen and it's too much of a change I get that. The only way I think to please gamers is if they can buld the character they want from scratch. Of course someone will be better at something other than another character. Their some in the hobby that want it all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"New" World of Darkness that either did or nearly brought down established brands/companies.
What are you talking about. NWOD or darkness in no way shape or form brought down it's establishee brand or company. If anything NWOD renergized a company that metaplot wise had painted itself into a corner. No matter what anyone did the world was going to end. Not to mention both old and new world of Darkness material was and is being released. I follow their monday morning meetings blog and anything they can say about new material. They are not in trouble in any shape or form. They can very well be hiding but I just don;t see it. I get you dislike change but please don't make stuff up.
New World of Darkness was released in 2004.
In 2006 White Wolf was purchased by CCP-- an MMO manufacturer (known for Eve online).
In 2012 it was announced that they would cease publishing all tabletop games.
In 2015 CCP sold White Wolf and all intellectual property to Paradox.
I'm not making this stuff up-- and I think being sold twice and announcing that all table top RPGs certainly count as bringing down an established brand.
Look at all the games with established IPs and fan bases that have churned through multiple company failures and have to be repeatedly rescued-- Battletech/ Mechwarrior, Shadowrun.
Shadowrun needed new editions because between 1 and 3rd edition you essential had Pathfinder editions with very little rules changes. Decking and Rigging were a pain to run in all three editions. Or at the very least needed another sourcebook to make functional imo. Fourth and now fifth actually made it easier and fun to play both riggers and deckers. I will concede that Catalyst Games needs better proof reading and edition. A failure hardly imo. I'm not a fan of mechwarrior or Battletech but I'm assuming that a slow steady release schedule as told by my gaming buddies again is not a failure to me anyway.
Shadowrun was published through three editions by FASA.
Then they were purchased by Wizkids and third edition publication was resumed by Fanpro.
Fanpro could not remain solvent and was purchased by Topps.
They then licensed the game to Catalyst.
Mechwarrior wasn't printed from 1999 until 2006 when a single reprint labelled "Battletech Classic RPG" but otherwise identical to Mechwarrior third edition was published.
Since 2006, a single book "A Time of War" was published in 2010.
I don't know what you call causing multiple companies to go out of business, be purchased, have production ceased, then eventually being licensed to smaller companies who also fail-- but I'd call it failure.
I can't say that two books published since the turn of the century (one of which was a second printing of an existing book) could be labelled as "slow and steady" or as anything other than a failure.
You see the world in some very rose tinted glasses if you consider any of these to be successes.
|
|
I don't think it is a matter of the system needing an overhaul in that manner, at least not all of it, but rather the interaction between players and GM. If you talk it out beforehand and communicate, you can sometimes -- not always, but sometimes -- fix things like that.
Communication is the key.
It's not always easy though. Some resent being told any advice. Then when they realize they should have listened to the advice blame the other players for being optimizers, munchkins etc. If your building a ranger who specializes in archery. Then get told to tale Precise Shot. Ignore it then keep missing because the player insists on always firing into melee.
Granted it's not a system problem more a player problem. I notice though with generic or similar systems their are less problems imo.
They should take higher charisma then if that is a priority. I would also add that they might not really care about spell DC's. They might want to be better at buffing or have more skills. Under 2.0 you could possibly keep the abilitiy scores and have other ways to boost spells, class abilities, and so on. You do not need to get rid of ability scores, and even getting rid of ability scores would not guarantee equality in any certain area. You may have something similar to the ranger having to choose a fighting style. One bard could be better at spells, another could focus on social skills, and so on.
Cha 12 cha 16
0 11 13
1 12 14
2 13 15
3 14 16
4 15 17
5 16 18
6 17 19They may not care about the DCs but they should if they want their spells to be effective. Boosting their spells usually comes at mod level or higher when they can spend gold on it. If the get the gold from the DM and if he allows them to find magic item. I do like your solution of having a different styles for either class.
I know it's not going to happen but I would like to see D&D become more generic. It won't happen and it's too much of a change I get that. The only way I think to please gamers is if they can buld the character they want from scratch. Of course someone will be better at something other than another character. Their some in the hobby that want it all.
Your idea of making choices meaningless removes the need to even make a choice, and I don't think that is what people want. You have to pick and choose what you want to be good at. That is how it is for every system. Someone will always be better at something based on choices that are made.
Mutants and Masterminds has a build your character type system, and the harder you hit, the less accurate you are. The ability to not get hit, and the ability to take damage are also capped. I had fun playing it, but it is different enough from PF/3.X that people who like PF may not like MM's system. .
Look into 2nd edition if you have never played, just to see what I am talking about. I never got to play 3rd edition so I don't know how the caps worked.|
|
New World of Darkness was released in 2004.In 2006 White Wolf was purchased by CCP-- an MMO manufacturer (known for Eve online).
In 2012 it was announced that they would cease publishing all tabletop games.
In 2015 CCP sold White Wolf and all intellectual property to Paradox.
I'm not making this stuff up-- and I think being sold twice and announcing that all table top RPGs certainly count as bringing down an established brand.
http://theonyxpath.com/
Their still publishing stuff. Maybe not under the name of WW. They still are. Follow my link.
Here a link to a Vampire the Masquerade product. They just kickstarted and recently put out:
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/160891?affiliate_id=13&src=TheOnyxP ath
Their not dead by any stretch of the imagination. Did they change owners a few times yes. Product is still coming out. With them planning to re=release material for Trinity and Scarred Lands eventually. New owners does not equal a failure.
Now if you want a rpg company that is if not dead on life support is Hero Games. Otherwise you very different and outright strange definition of a rpg being a failure.
By following your logic Pathfinder must be a failure because the original company dropped the IP and another picked it up. As long as money is made even in the sort term I qualify that as a success. Again new owners does not mean failure. If anything the fact that new people want to invest in a IP shows that they think it's popular enough to risk wanting to do a new edition even if it means alienating fans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New World of Darkness was released in 2004.In 2006 White Wolf was purchased by CCP-- an MMO manufacturer (known for Eve online).
In 2012 it was announced that they would cease publishing all tabletop games.
In 2015 CCP sold White Wolf and all intellectual property to Paradox.
I'm not making this stuff up-- and I think being sold twice and announcing that all table top RPGs certainly count as bringing down an established brand.
http://theonyxpath.com/
Their still publishing stuff. Maybe not under the name of WW. They still are. Follow my link.
Here a link to a Vampire the Masquerade product. They just kickstarted and recently put out:
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/160891?affiliate_id=13&src=TheOnyxP ath
Their not dead by any stretch of the imagination. Did they change owners a few times yes. Product is still coming out. With them planning to re=release material for Trinity and Scarred Lands eventually. New owners does not equal a failure.
Now if you want a rpg company that is if not dead on life support is Hero Games. Otherwise you very different and outright strange definition of a rpg being a failure.
By following your logic Pathfinder must be a failure because the original company dropped the IP and another picked it up. As long as money is made even in the sort term I qualify that as a success. Again new owners does not mean failure. If anything the fact that new people want to invest in a IP shows that they think it's popular enough to risk wanting to do a new edition even if it means alienating fans.
White Wolf is dead.
A completely different company is now releasing things.
A company folding and having all IP sold is a failure.
The fact that people care enough to reboot the IP after a failure and try again is not a success.
Do you understand business at all?
The people at White Wolf who published the New World of Darkness all got fired when the company was sold. They all lost their jobs because their products failed.
This has happened three times between the release of the New World of Darkness and today.
I don't see how you can call that a success-- it is objectively a failure.
Yes, if Paizo release Pathfinder 2.0 and they lose money, sell the company to Mattel and all get fired it would be a failure.
If five years later Mattel sells or licenses the Pathfinder name to someone else and they start publishing products again that doesn't somehow mean that the failure didn't happen-- it doesn't bring back the original company or give the people who lost their jobs their jobs back.
I don't really understand your thinking at all.
|
If paizo did make a PF 2, there is a 90% of it being ridiculously similiar to PF1 to ensure backwards compatibility with the adventure paths... You know, since the whole reason why PFRPG exists at all is so that they could keep making adventure paths and that their old adventure paths don't become outdated.
I'm not sure if this argument really holds. I own all adventure Paths up to Reign of Winter (I had to cancel my subscription after that), and while I plan to complete my collection (at least pdf-wise), restarted collecting the APs with Hell's Rebels and probably will resubscribe after Hell's Vengeance, I probably will never run or play them, but will probably mine them for ideas in whatever game I will eventually run. Not because those APs are bad, but just because I can only game so much in my spare time.
I already do this with other stuff no matter the publisher and no matter the system. So a new PF2 wouldn't change the value of the old material for me even without direct backwards compatibility.
This all said: Personally, I'm ready for a new edition, as long as it's really something new and not just a rehash of what has been done before. You say Pathfinder is getting better over time. I'm not sure if I agree (mainly as I'm way behind with reading all the new stuff) but if so, that means that the old stuff can (and should) be improved to get on par with the new stuff. And, quite honestly, I'm thinking that something like 13th Age already is the better Pathfinder, because I never considered Pathfinder to be about the rules but about the narrative and the setting (and I blame PFRPG for a massive focus shift, because it became so darned successful ;=) ).
Still, when Paizo asked us way back, if we would rather stay with 3.5 or if they should go the 4E route, I (and many others) answered that we'd stay Paizonians no matter which route they'd take. My answer's still the same, and it's not that I don't enjoy their newer stuff.
It's just that 13th Age as well as 5E (and even 4E) do and did improve on certain aspects on what came before, while Pathfinder decided to stick to backwards compatibility and thereby had to do without a lot of those improvements). Now having established the brand I think that they would be in a much more comfortable position to make some real changes and I trust them not to do this in the particularly asinine way their distinguished competition tried to do this. Let's be honest: the rules part is probably the part least responsible for the failure of 4E. They probably lost most of their fans because of the abysmal marketing and their setting policy. And I simply can't see Paizo making the same mistakes especially as they don't have to follow the decisions of people only interested in the brand.
But do I think, my wishes get fullfilled? As usually, no. Luckily, they are not central to what Pathfinder has to offer me, so I can happily live with that.
|
|
White Wolf is dead.
http://www.whitewolf-publishing.com/
Sure they are. Paradox acquired them yet their still a separate company. All that matters to me is that the IP and rpgs are maintained and keep getting published. You keep saying their products failed. Do you have proof of that. If not all your essentially saying is that " I don't like NWOD only OWOD therefore NWOD must have been a failure for "reasons". Did it ever occur to you that they might have been doing well but decided to take the money that CCP offered. It happens all the time.
White Wolf is dead.
A completely different company is now releasing things.
No, white wolf isn't dead. For example, they are making the next Vampire the Masquerade edition in-house. They are not just giving things away for other publishers.
Lots of stuff
I rather disagree, it doesn't immensely matter if some people convert adventure paths from any system to any other system, being able to continue writing 3.5e adventure paths is the reason Pathfinder exists and as far as I can tell it's still the big-wig's at paizo's main concern.
I don't consider the setting or narrative really since I personally think it's rather ridiculous and illogical, but I do have to acknowledge that the Original Pathfinder books were adventure paths telling narratives in the settings not splats.
As for 4e, the mechanics were a big issue for many reasons.
1. When you open the book and read it, it didn't look like D&D (which might not have been as bad if the game wasn't called D&D).
2. The structure used for classes is homogenus, giving the impression and feel that all characters are the same (even if they are rather different in how those mechanics cause you to function, it often still felt like everyone was the same).
3. Harder to homebrew new material.
|
|
As for 4e, the mechanics were a big issue for many reasons.
1. When you open the book and read it, it didn't look like D&D (which might not have been as bad if the game wasn't called D&D).
2. The structure used for classes is homogenus, giving the impression and feel that all characters are the same (even if they are rather different in how those mechanics cause you to function, it often still felt like everyone was the same).
3. Harder to homebrew new material.
Hm, I agree with points 1 and 2, though I think that's more of a problem of the layout than of the rules per se. Point 3, however I cautiously disagree, because the only reason why I find homebrewing easier in Pathfinder is that I don't give a damn about balance (which seems to be a major point even in Pathfinder related discussions^^.
I recall reading some article somewhere comparing the 3e reboot to the 4e reboot. And one main contrast was that the TTRPG community had stopped playing 2e, and moving on to other systems for various reasons (level limits, racial restrictions on classes, etc.), while WotC released 4th edition while there was still a strong and enthusiastic player base playing 3rd edition.
If anyone has enough hindsight to remember what the D&D world was like in the late 1990s, I'd like to know. But I'm guessing that there was more discontentment about 2e then than there is about Pathfinder now.
I recall reading some article somewhere comparing the 3e reboot to the 4e reboot. And one main contrast was that the TTRPG community had stopped playing 2e, and moving on to other systems for various reasons (level limits, racial restrictions on classes, etc.), while WotC released 4th edition while there was still a strong and enthusiastic player base playing 3rd edition.
If anyone has enough hindsight to remember what the D&D world was like in the late 1990s, I'd like to know. But I'm guessing that there was more discontentment about 2e then than there is about Pathfinder now.
I was playing D&D in the late 90's, and the internet wasn't a big thing. The only way you would have to measure discontentment (then AND now, arguably) is through sales. Everything else (then and now) is extremely subjective and anecdotal.
Given that, here's my 2e anecdote: :)
We loved 2nd Edition and played the crap out of it, but found the splatbooks were widely varied in terms of content, quality, and balance. (This was our first experience of RPG splatbooks that seemed to be published just to make money, and we were aware of the high output and inconsistent quality of those books)*. We slowed down on purchasing them, and stopped altogether but kept playing and enjoying the game without feeling any discontent about it whatsoever. (Remember this was in an era when you didn't have nearly as much access to publisher information. There were no online fora to hear what other groups thought, and other than the back covers of books and Dungeon magazines, there was barely news about what else might be coming out. We would see the books in the hobby shop, and that's mostly how we'd find out what there was to buy. How times have changed!)
We jumped on 3rd Edition right away, only because we were interested in seeing how the game changed. We were interested in the idea of Skills. That's about it. :) No big upsets or anything. Dropped one and picked up the next without much thought, really.
The difference now is that PF 2 is not just PF 2 - it is a version of Dungeons and Dragons and competes directly with that market and that brand. PF changing versions is not worth comparing to the D&D 2e-to D&D 3e-transition, because there is another parallel system to PF (with a stronger brand name) that offers an alternative to people who might jump from PF1 to PF2. Unlike 2e to 3e, there is another option floating around that people may jump to.
Again, I am a hardcore fan of both 5e and PF, and support and endorse both. But I think Paizo has an interesting and challenging decision to make in the coming years. They seem very smart and capable, and I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.
TL;DR Bottom line - no discontentment then, and none now with PF either.
*(Unlike my experience with 2e splatbooks, I find PF books to be of a fairly consistent (high) quality. Judging from reviews, a few aren't that great, but so far I'm very impressed and everything I've bought from Paizo.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
regardless if you think PF needs a new edition or what it should include, it seems IMHO a poor move to go to a simpler/less complex rule system, with 5E new and a viable competitor filling that niche. I would guess any new iteration of pathfinder will be hovering around the complexity of the present Pathfinder system, although individuals components may increase or decrease in complexity.
regardless if you think PF needs a new edition or what it should include, it seems IMHO a poor move to go to a simpler/less complex rule system, with 5E new and a viable competitor filling that niche. I would guess any new iteration of pathfinder will be hovering around the complexity of the present Pathfinder system, although individuals components may increase or decrease in complexity.
I don't think it's a commercial decision so much, but I agree. I think a lots-of-subsystems, lots-of-options game suits Paizo staff. One of the great things about them is that they clearly enjoy playing the game they design. I doubt they'd be very interested in designing a game that didn't suit their tastes.
regardless if you think PF needs a new edition or what it should include, it seems IMHO a poor move to go to a simpler/less complex rule system, with 5E new and a viable competitor filling that niche. I would guess any new iteration of pathfinder will be hovering around the complexity of the present Pathfinder system, although individuals components may increase or decrease in complexity.
Just wait a few years -- 5th Edition D&D will bloat up.
* * * * * * * *
And somebody mentioned Mutants & Masterminds above . . . Now you've got me salivating again over the thought of an unholy hybrid between Pathfinder and Mutants & Masterminds . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I would pay for? A rewrite of the CRB that fixed the RAMPANT language problems and page count issues. In all honesty, it would look virtually identical to the format for Numenera, where key concepts have page references in the margins. If they fix the horrible inconsistencies in language that exist throughout the entire book, they could probably cut enough pages to reintroduce rules that they accidentally cut in the first place, like Burrow. I don't necessarily want major changes to the rules here - just editorial changes that clean up the book and make it a more intuitive read. Key problem areas include the Environment chapter (this sucker is PAINFUL to read currently and, for the average table, the least understood rules in the entire book) and the Combat chapter.
The biggest roadblock to a 2nd Ed of Pathfinder is that it's built on the illusion of backwards compatibility - I say illusion here because of the vast power-level differences vs. 3.5 and 3.0 that cause encounters to become trivialized if not updated into the Pathfinder rules, meaning you're just looking at maps and plot from your modules, etc. Changing major elements of the rules threatens that illusion, and despite the fact that the majority of Pathfinder players have divorced themselves of a lot of the D&D baggage, it would cause a community schism.
I would love if a secondary project came up that was supported in the same way that Pathfinder currently is. I don't see the budget or resources available for it given the relatively thin margins of the industry. The price increases (earlier this year, as I recall) were an admission of this - they want to keep the barrier to entry low, but creating IP is expensive and time-consuming. Creating a second RPG product line would require extensive resources and not pay out immediately, meaning they would likely need another price increase on Pathfinder to subsidize it until it becomes self-sustaining. That would threaten sales of Pathfinder and I can't see that happening. It's not like you can reallocate current resources to make this without straining the existing production schedule, which has already been criticized significantly for being somewhat sloppy.
IMO, if we see a "2nd edition" Pathfinder, it's going to be from some people leaving Paizo or fans putting existing houserules (Kirthfinder, for instance) into publication. For that, I'd expect low adoption unless significant attempts were made to market and support the game upfront, much in the way that PFS contributes to marketing for Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While we're at it, I would like to point out how a rules light-option light setting might differ and what I would look into a rules-light one.
When a player asks me if he can jump over the ledge, grab onto it, scurry to it's side, drop down to the balcony there behind the sniper aiming at a team member and trip him/disable him/point a gun pointblank a say "move and your brains'll do some out-door decor" I dont want to ask "did you take the Ledge Jumper Feat for the extra 7.3 feet, the Good Grip trait from Numerian Cat People Adventures, and the If I Shoot Point Blank It Actually Matters feat chain?". Sure, I can bend rules and omit some others, but then we're in 100% house rule territory, and we're talking about rule systems so everything can be standardised and therefore universally easy to assume things.
To summarise:
Question/Player - I would like to do this and that.
Answer - Roll X with Y modifiers and apply you Z to it. When XYZ are any number of dice, any fixed attribute, any spendable resource.
Yes it is simple, but with enough options that dont come down to "when they moon is half full apply +2 circumstance bonus if you're talking to butterfly people, round down, and if your bab is 14-28*2 then it is doubled but for rounds/level".
I admit that I dont know many systems apart from PF (Shadowrun, D&D), so I am open to suggestions! I heard the Starwars system is quite easy and with enough depth, albeit quite story-telling driven.
I keep seeing this problem coming up but in the context of Pathfinder I've never really had this problem so it's hard for me to relate.
Besides that, I was under the impression that rules-lite meant that the engine was different as opposed to the amount of codified options. having a lot of options does kind of inherently create the Magic: the Gathering rules problem. (What I mean by that is that Magic: the Gathering is pretty easy to learn and there aren't that many rules. However with so many cards that thrive...
I see this problem with new players all the time. Old players are jaded and know that the rules don't support their ideas so they don't try anymore.
As others have noted in similar threads, PF 2.0 is already here, and I'm not talking just about a living system where errata responds to game imbalance. To their credit, I suspect, the developers are headed down a road where players can have their cake and eat it too. Unchained (hopefully the first in a series) appears to be a plug and play approach towards incorporating such change. Take what you like, leave what you don't with little risk of alienating the base. It is a paradigm shift in regards to viewing the necessity for new editions rather than slavish adherence to the former 5-10 year reboot model. A better question than asking if its time for 2.0 might be: when do we get another Unchained hardback?
Unfortunately, this plug and play approach you describe is terrible for new players. It requires tons of system knowledge to weed through optional rules people may or may not want and to know what is actually worth your time.
regardless if you think PF needs a new edition or what it should include, it seems IMHO a poor move to go to a simpler/less complex rule system, with 5E new and a viable competitor filling that niche. I would guess any new iteration of pathfinder will be hovering around the complexity of the present Pathfinder system, although individuals components may increase or decrease in complexity.Just wait a few years -- 5th Edition D&D will bloat up.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Who would have predicted that the only setting-neutral releases for the first year would be tiny PDF supplements every month?
Even if 5E did start pushing out supplements, that wouldn't change the fact that the underlying system is designed to be less complex than Pathfinder's.
I see this problem with new players all the time. Old players are jaded and know that the rules don't support their ideas so they don't try anymore.While we're at it, I would like to point out how a rules light-option light setting might differ and what I would look into a rules-light one.
When a player asks me if he can jump over the ledge, grab onto it, scurry to it's side, drop down to the balcony there behind the sniper aiming at a team member and trip him/disable him/point a gun pointblank a say "move and your brains'll do some out-door decor" I dont want to ask "did you take the Ledge Jumper Feat for the extra 7.3 feet, the Good Grip trait from Numerian Cat People Adventures, and the If I Shoot Point Blank It Actually Matters feat chain?". Sure, I can bend rules and omit some others, but then we're in 100% house rule territory, and we're talking about rule systems so everything can be standardised and therefore universally easy to assume things.
To summarise:
Question/Player - I would like to do this and that.
Answer - Roll X with Y modifiers and apply you Z to it. When XYZ are any number of dice, any fixed attribute, any spendable resource.
Yes it is simple, but with enough options that dont come down to "when they moon is half full apply +2 circumstance bonus if you're talking to butterfly people, round down, and if your bab is 14-28*2 then it is doubled but for rounds/level".
I admit that I dont know many systems apart from PF (Shadowrun, D&D), so I am open to suggestions! I heard the Starwars system is quite easy and with enough depth, albeit quite story-telling driven.
I keep seeing this problem coming up but in the context of Pathfinder I've never really had this problem so it's hard for me to relate.
Besides that, I was under the impression that rules-lite meant that the engine was different as opposed to the amount of codified options. having a lot of options does kind of inherently create the Magic: the Gathering rules problem. (What I mean by that is that Magic: the Gathering is pretty easy to learn and there aren't that many rules. However with
Actually when rules don't support something I kind of assumed that was what skills were for, in the sense that just because they describe what they can do doesn't mean that they describe what you can't do. Then there are the things that you don't want to work because then monsters can do it to PCs.
]Unfortunately, this plug and play approach you describe is terrible for new players. It requires tons of system knowledge to weed through optional rules people may or may not want and to know what is actually worth your time.Yes, complexity is daunting, especially if veteran players fail to shepherd in new players properly or if green groups decide against starting with the beginner's set and launch directly into the dozens of supplements available. I suspect, however, much of Paizo's base support and emergent fans do not fall into either of these categories. Many of those who find greater simplicity a draw are already playing 5.0 or will eventually do so just for that reason. PFRPG's strength lies in its multiplicity of choice and complexity; the competition already provides the alternative.
This is why I'm such a proponent of expanding the Beginner Box and keeping it on as a sister product. I'm currently GMing 9 year olds new to any roleplaying game that have no problem with the beginner box rules and it seems to fill needs enough. Plus low level adventures are still functional with it.
I don't think having a compatible sister product would be that rough on the player base since adventures are still very functional and that's pretty much the bread and butter of Pathfinder.
]Unfortunately, this plug and play approach you describe is terrible for new players. It requires tons of system knowledge to weed through optional rules people may or may not want and to know what is actually worth your time.Yes, complexity is daunting, especially if veteran players fail to shepherd in new players properly or if green groups decide against starting with the beginner's set and launch directly into the dozens of supplements available. I suspect, however, much of Paizo's base support and emergent fans do not fall into either of these categories. Many of those who find greater simplicity a draw are already playing 5.0 or will eventually do so just for that reason. PFRPG's strength lies in its multiplicity of choice and complexity; the competition already provides the alternative.
I think you would be wrong.
First, what system the group decides on in my experience is based entirely on 1 person: the GM. Many beginner groups start with an experienced GM who want to run in the system he is most comfortable in, regardless of which one it is.
Second, new groups wont know enough about different systems to accurately evaluate if one is the proper complexity for them. There are multiple reasons for this. 1. All of the mainstream games look the same level of daunting to new players. They all have hundreds of pages of rules to look through. 2. They don't know what actually makes the system complex (as is shown by people arguing in this thread about what constitutes complexity), and they will have no baseline with which to judge their first system against. 3. Being new, they don't actually know what they want yet. For many people it isn't until they branch out of their first system, which they may take decades to do, that they even see things that were bothering them with it.
For this reason, I think you need to do major system overhauls every once in a while to keep the core uncluttered enough for new players.
]Unfortunately, this plug and play approach you describe is terrible for new players. It requires tons of system knowledge to weed through optional rules people may or may not want and to know what is actually worth your time.Yes, complexity is daunting, especially if veteran players fail to shepherd in new players properly or if green groups decide against starting with the beginner's set and launch directly into the dozens of supplements available. I suspect, however, much of Paizo's base support and emergent fans do not fall into either of these categories. Many of those who find greater simplicity a draw are already playing 5.0 or will eventually do so just for that reason. PFRPG's strength lies in its multiplicity of choice and complexity; the competition already provides the alternative.This is why I'm such a proponent of expanding the Beginner Box and keeping it on as a sister product. I'm currently GMing 9 year olds new to any roleplaying game that have no problem with the beginner box rules and it seems to fill needs enough. Plus low level adventures are still functional with it.
I don't think having a compatible sister product would be that rough on the player base since adventures are still very functional and that's pretty much the bread and butter of Pathfinder.
Not a bad idea.
An example of this (that maybe no one of the boards will get) is a board wargame I play called Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). It's exceptionally complex and expensive to get into because it has a tonne of required modules, some of which are out of print. But it's one of the most popular money-making wargames out there.
The publishers decided to release a set of Starter rules called the ASLSK - Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit. The idea was to create a set of rules that worked in and of themselves, but also let people move into the fuller game if they liked.
The ASLSK is now exceptionally popular. There are three ASLSK base sets (that introduce different rules), and scenarios and campaigns that are designed just for the ASLSK crowd. Those ASLSK scenarios and campaigns are also playable using the full ASL rules (but a little less balanced).
So the publisher now effectively runs two independent lines of ASL, each with their own fan base, that also support each other. Some hardcore ASL players have moved to ASLSK because they prefer the lessened rules, but most only use it when playing newbies.
Food for thought. Maybe the most workable idea I've heard so far.
The trick would be to offer something in the PF Beginner's Box line that is different enough to attract people who like D&D, but aren't getting what they want in D&D 5e.
|
I'm all for it personally. Yes, the game mostly works, but the splat books are getting cherry-picked, and it is the nature of games to 'break' once people have too many options available. It's a bit of a shame, but we all know that, while they fixed a LOT, 3.5 had a lot of inherent problems, especially in the high levels.
Newer games like 13th Age have a cooler leveling system ("try before you buy" approach to leveling, getting to choose higher level abilities). 5th edition limited the number of buffs available to characters (preventing the math nightmare). And both are new enough to have not gotten over-bogged in splat books.
*plink* *plink*
There are editions and editions.
A new edition could fix a lot of the major problems Pathfinder has without changing anything on the character sheet except how CMB and CMD are calculated (or if they exist).
At some points I'm not sure if even that wouldn't cause a stir. I was reading up on things that went down during the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 and that did a lot of damage as well. Granted not that many companies depend on all of Pathfinder's rules working 100% as they did but at that rate I think what people would want isn't a "Pathfinder 2.0" but a "Core Rulebook Revised".
Which is really the better way to look at it. Most of the game's problem classes and options exist in the core rulebook and it has the best spells. Plus its the foundation for a lot of rules to the point where changing something would impact the rest of the game without contradicting it. The only issue is that it would effectively be a super-erratta as opposed to a fix to problems but re-buying the core rulebook is a lot easier than re-buying a whole rpg line.
There are editions and editions.
{. . .}
Will it fix the CMD? No. Pathfinder 2 isn't going to try in any case since that would require abandoning Golarion with its Runelords and Nex. Are there other problems that can't be fixed without breaking compatibility? Yes, but it's better to fix some problems than no problems.
+1 . . . Except I'm not sure what you mean about that last part, fixing the CMD. I know that monster CMD progression is considered problematic, but is it THAT big a problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will it fix the CMD? No. Pathfinder 2 isn't going to try in any case since that would require abandoning Golarion with its Runelords and Nex. Are there other problems that can't be fixed without breaking compatibility? Yes, but it's better to fix some problems than no problems.
Why would fixing disparity force Paizo to abandon Golarion? Allowing martials to be incredibly strong end game heroes and villains doesn't remove the potential for casters to be the same. Cayden Cailean and Norgorber were a Fighter and a Rogue that passed the Test of the Starstone; presumably, they would have been level 20 when they did it.
I would hope that you would agree that a pre-ascension Cayden Cailean should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Old-Mage Jatembe, and that a pre-ascension Norgorber would be just as much of a threat (if not more so) than any Runelord.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall reading some article somewhere comparing the 3e reboot to the 4e reboot. And one main contrast was that the TTRPG community had stopped playing 2e, and moving on to other systems for various reasons (level limits, racial restrictions on classes, etc.), while WotC released 4th edition while there was still a strong and enthusiastic player base playing 3rd edition.
If anyone has enough hindsight to remember what the D&D world was like in the late 1990s, I'd like to know. But I'm guessing that there was more discontentment about 2e then than there is about Pathfinder now.
Personally I saw more discontentment going from 1e to 2e than I did from 2e to 3e. I had several different gaming groups refuse to even buy 2e because their 1e books were good enough. I didn't really play much 2e until 1995 or so just because I couldn't find groups who would move past 1e.
By the late 90s a lot of 2e stuff had petered out and it was pretty clear that TSR was in trouble. We'd gotten the Options books, which were fun but in some ways quite broken. Otherwise it was all setting stuff, and there were a lot of 2e settings - Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Mystara, Birthright, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Planescape, Realms spinoffs like Kara-Tur, Maztica, Al-Quadim - I probably missed some.
My groups in the late 2e time period were quite ready for 3e. Conversions weren't perfect but you could still play roughly the same characters in the new edition, even though the mechanical changes were large the flavor changes were minor.
When 4e rolled around the internet was a thing, and 3.5e wasn't dying. My local groups felt we couldn't play the concepts we enjoyed from 1e-3.5e, and really it was the changes to flavor that turned us off of 4e. It's perfectly serviceable system, it just didn't give us the feel we wanted so we ended up with Pathfinder.
So I guess my takeaway is that a company should wait until their system is dying before releasing a new edition - then it will be welcomed, as opposed to resented.
On the White Wolf aside:
]Unfortunately, this plug and play approach you describe is terrible for new players. It requires tons of system knowledge to weed through optional rules people may or may not want and to know what is actually worth your time.Yes, complexity is daunting, especially if veteran players fail to shepherd in new players properly or if green groups decide against starting with the beginner's set and launch directly into the dozens of supplements available. I suspect, however, much of Paizo's base support and emergent fans do not fall into either of these categories. Many of those who find greater simplicity a draw are already playing 5.0 or will eventually do so just for that reason. PFRPG's strength lies in its multiplicity of choice and complexity; the competition already provides the alternative.I think you would be wrong.
First, what system the group decides on in my experience is based entirely on 1 person: the GM. Many beginner groups start with an experienced GM who want to run in the system he is most comfortable in, regardless of which one it is.
Second, new groups wont know enough about different systems to accurately evaluate if one is the proper complexity for them. There are multiple reasons for this. 1. All of the mainstream games look the same level of daunting to new players. They all have hundreds of pages of rules to look through. 2. They don't know what actually makes the system complex (as is shown by people arguing in this thread about what constitutes complexity), and they will have no baseline with which to judge their first system against. 3. Being new, they don't actually know what they want yet. For many people it isn't until they branch out of their first system, which they may take decades to do, that they even see things that were bothering them with it.
For this reason, I think you need to do major system overhauls every once in a while to keep the core uncluttered enough for new players.
Actually it is a combination of both. New players will just follow the GM, but most players I have met have tried several systems, and they tend to migrate toward the one they like the best over time.
Probably very true. At first I gravitated towards rules-lite systems and fewer options. I also absolutely hated D&D 3.5 after my first few forays into it.
Eventually that rules lite actually pisses me off for a lot of reasons after being with a group that went through a lot of systems. At some point I wanted to play some good old fashioned high fantasy when the rest of the group kept jumping around things like playing as vampire gods, tv producers, space monkeys or mormon wizards and the high fantasy systems just felt bland or didnt' make sense to me too often so I stopped playing with that group. My coworkers were into Pathfinder and I got into the beginner box before realizing it was basically 3.5 again but got hooked in.
So I started off HATING 3.5 and complex rules and ended up loving Pathfinder. AMA.
In my experience a group will either stick to the same thing forever or will vary system all the time. A lot of beginners don't realize they can do that (they don't know how different they are so don't realize it will matter), or aren't willing to put in the effort to learn multiple systems in rapid succession. The more systems you know the faster it becomes to learn new ones, and that can be a big deal for a lot of people. I find it is generally more design focused groups that vary system and other groups tend to try 1 for a while and if it doesn't fit their style the may branch out into others until they find one that clicks and then stick with it. But you know, experiences can vary.
|
|
but why would anybody move to Pathfinder 2, when we want something that is similar to 3.X?
For me, that's the thing. I've played 3E, 3.5 and Pathfinder for 15 years now. That's longer than I've used any edition of any game so far. And the art of RPG design has developed much in this time. So while I can imagine to play this game for some more years, and while I wouldn't mind getting a refined version of Pathfinder (Pathfinder .5, so to say), what I really would be interested in is to see what the Paizo gang could come up with without any restrictions to old rule traditions or to backward compatibility but with embracing the evolution of RPGs in the last 15 years.
For me it was never about the system. I came to Paizo, when they still published the old magazines. I stayed, when they lost those rights, because I think that they are an awesome company and trusted them to make something great out of their original Pathfinder plans (and man, how they delivered).
But while I would love to play their adventures with their own rules system to eternity, I find myself slowly, but steadily losing more and more interest in 3E/3.X/Pathfinder. And I don't think that "just" refining Pathfinder will really help in this respect.
Now Paizo should by all means do whats best for them, and if I'm in the minority and therefore don't get what I want, I won't blame them. It's just that I really hate the thought of eventually having to spend my rpg money elsewhere. ^^
I would hope that you would agree that a pre-ascension Cayden Cailean should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Old-Mage Jatembe, and that a pre-ascension Norgorber would be just as much of a threat (if not more so) than any Runelord.And that's the real problem. Because I wouldn't.
And that doesn't make a lick of sense. If Norgorber isn't a threat to a level 20 party then this game has serious issues.