|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, see, I've never encountered that problem...
The fact that you haven't encountered it does not in fact invalidate the point.
I've always wondered... are you typing out the little symbols, or does the forum do that for you?
The forum has an automatic censor for the most common offensive terms. I like watching the symbols change on each refresh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.
I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.
With f#&#ing who?
We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f#~+ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.
"Play something else" is f*~%ing useless advice.
I'd say the other people at your table?
IMO the best tables are either 3 players and a GM or 4 players and a GM.
If you want a different game, are willing to run it, and can't get 3 or 4 other people who you play with to give it a try for at least one session you either aren't trying, or play with very close minded people.
And if you have a group of exactly 5 people, and four of them refuse to try ANYTHING that isn't Pathfinder. . . well, that might be a pretty good indication that a new edition of Pathfinder isn't needed.
If you only play in organised play, then its easy-- ask to start a game of something else at the store, and talk to the other people at the PFS and sell them on why what you want to play is so exciting and find your 3-4 other people.
In my experience if you have only one other person excited about a system, you can both usually convince one more to try it, and there you have your four.
It isn't rocket science really.
Other systems don't provide incentives, like GM stars and such.
I also think bloat is personal era dependent. Back in the dim dark past there was really only the red books, and then Expert. From there I moved to 1st ed. and brought all the books (PHB, UA, DMG, MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, and Deities and Demigods). I guess you could class UA as 1st ed. bloat? Then moving onto 2nd ed. I brought EVERYTHING that TSR spat out, campaign settings, 'complete' books the works. That was bloat of the first order. Even the author of The Complete Book of Elves has an apology on YouTube video for that piece of crap. Still I was in my early twenties and bloat was good, more options, more rules, more, more, more!!!
Now in my mid-40's bracket I can't be bothered with all that b&!*~%!s, I want simple straight forward rules. If I was twenty again I would be begging Paizo to release more 'bloat'. As it is I care little for the splat books these days, interesting to read but I don't really care to learn the new rules. Back then I had no money but shed loads of time, now I have money but no time. Ironic...
20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'.
2 cents,
S.
I loved the complete book of Elves. That book was game evolving. The author of that book should be view as visionary. When we got it we house rule the crap out the game based on the Complete Book of Elves. Those blade single weapon proficiencies became feats, though we didn't call them that. We made all kind of crazy bonus combat things using he rules for the Blade Singer as the bench mark. Worked great. Then 3rd edition came and feats were there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, see, I've never encountered that problem...The fact that you haven't encountered it does not in fact invalidate the point.
And one opening sentence flaw does not in fact invalidate the rest of the post. Expand your circle or talk to those within it as adults.
Further, If you have players that are that stubborn, the problem isn't the system.
And one opening sentence flaw does not in fact invalidate the rest of the post. Expand your circle or talk to those within it as adults.
Further, If you have players that are that stubborn, the problem isn't the system.
See, TOZ? Your problem is you weren't speaking like an adult. Or your players are stubborn. Or something.
If only someone had told you sooner...
Further, If you have players that are that stubborn, the problem isn't the system.Who said the system was the problem?
Fair enough.
You really should try to expand your circle then, man. Aside from earlier, I've never seen you lose your s*it over something like that. Sounds like you have severely toxic players.
Do they even know you're...you...on here? Can they read this and just don't care?
|
You really should try to expand your circle then, man. Aside from earlier, I've never seen you lose your s*it over something like that. Sounds like you have severely toxic players.
Do they even know you're...you...on here? Can they read this and just don't care?
Go back to the start. Why did you think I was talking about my group?
It's just...really unfortunate, I suppose. I mean, have you just stuck it out with the same group of pigheaded folks, or have you left repeatedly and everyone you run into the same way?
I'd say the other people at your table?It's a crap shoot. Our Austin group wouldn't even play board games on off days. It was D&D or nothing.
Rocket science has nothing to do with it.
My guess is that if your group won't consider trying any other game under any circumstances then the chances are they aren't switching to a new edition just because its been published.
And one opening sentence flaw does not in fact invalidate the rest of the post. Expand your circle or talk to those within it as adults.
Further, If you have players that are that stubborn, the problem isn't the system.
See, TOZ? Your problem is you weren't speaking like an adult. Or your players are stubborn. Or something.
If only someone had told you sooner...
Well the games popularity is clearly the issue with it forcing him to play and all. It's like the mafia, breaking the legs of those that don't want to play it. You play it or else! :P
Or just maybe the group as a whole is fine with it as is.
I've always wondered... are you typing out the little symbols, or does the forum do that for you?Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.
I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.
With f+&$ing who?
We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f!##ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.
"Play something else" is f&!*ing useless advice.
Forum censor filter. Your subscription dollars at work.
My guess is that if your group won't consider trying any other game under any circumstances then the chances are they aren't switching to a new edition just because its been published.What does that have to do with anything I've said?
Much of the argument against bloat is for the purpose of moving to a new edition of Pathfinder and thus streamlining down...until it inevitably bloated out again.
I disagree, though. The kind of fanboys he's talking about want all the newest stuff, including editions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just maybe the group as a whole is fine with it as is.Have I ever said I wasn't fine with it?
You when you said "We don't play Pathfinder because it's good"? Three instances of swearing is also a good indicator that you're unhappy about it.
If you really are fine with it, then I don't understand the point of your post up to this point.
|
|
If you really are fine with it, then I don't understand the point of your post up to this point.
That there are other people who are not fine with so many options and that it is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. Just as it is perfectly reasonable for us to be fine with all the options Pathfinder has.
Swearing can be for emphasis as much as anger. And anger can have other targets, such as people who are missing the point of the argument.
Yeah, I don't have any interest in the boom/bust cycle either.
And this, right here, is why I take WotC to task for failing to offer 5E PDFs. I don't want to be at their mercy should they release a new edition which I don't like and inevitably stop producing the one I do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f*%@ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.
"Play something else" is f*#&ing useless advice.
While I agree with the second part (having heard that too often myself), I have a hard time to agree with the first paragraph. I'd rather play not at all than playing a system I don't like, but - more importantly - assuming that with "We", you mean your table of players, you are totally free to choose another option more to your likings, no matter how popular your choice may be, because who cares what other people are playing.
Apart from that, online options have developed enough, that you have choices, even if you -like me- live in kind of a roleplaying diaspora.
Now if you (general you because I do think that TOZ does already know that) like Pathfinder well enough, then by all means ignore such advice. Because Pathfinder is adaptable enough to be modified to better match your personal taste. All those options even in the Core books aren't THE Law, they are suggestions and if you don't like a speciifc suggestions, you don't have to use it as written.
Which is also my general take on the "bloated" discussion. In my opinion there's no such thing as too much options, there's only options I have use for vs. options other players may have use for.
Which is also my general take on the "bloated" discussion. In my opinion there's no such thing as too much options, there's only options I have use for vs. options other players may have use for.That is an excellent way of looking at it.
My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.
It's one of things that has led me to take a break from PFS. As a GM, even the Core Campaign requires that I understand the latest fiddly bits that show up in the scenario. And there are lots.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.
And those modules are obviously 'options other players have use for'.
My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.And those modules are obviously 'options other players have use for'.
Yes, but the point is that some of the utility normally offered by network externalities (in the form of readily available adventures) is decreased if I don't want to use the mechanical options. I can't simply ignore the bloat and not be affected as is implied.
My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.And those modules are obviously 'options other players have use for'.
So within the game of Pathfinder itself, saying "don't use that option" is helpful, but saying "don't use that game" within RPGs is not? I fail to see why the hair is split here in particular. Both are available options you can choose to use or not, one is merely a broader scope.
|
|
Yes, but the point is that some of the utility normally offered by network externalities (in the form of readily available adventures) is decreased if I don't want to use the mechanical options. I can't simply ignore the bloat and not be affected as is implied.
I totally agree. The more those options creep into modules, the smaller your available options becomes compared to the whole. So the people who say 'just pick and choose the options you want' are missing the point. If you don't speak up, Paizo doesn't know they are cutting you out of new content.
So within the game of Pathfinder itself, saying "don't use that option" is helpful, but saying "don't use that game" within RPGs is not? I fail to see why the hair is split here in particular.
Hopefully this response explains the problem to you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't know what you all are talking about on the popularity front. I play Pathfinder because I have loads of fun. Am I a minority in that?
So within the game of Pathfinder itself, saying "don't use that option" is helpful, but saying "don't use that game" within RPGs is not? I fail to see why the hair is split here in particular. Both are available options you can choose to use or not, one is merely a broader scope.
Once again, network externalities.
Unless you're arguing that without the bloat, Pathfinder would be less popular? Which I think is a reasonable argument to make. I'm not short-sighted enough to believe that my preferences are universal.
What I think is less reasonable is the idea that there are no downsides to bloat, and that those of us who dislike those downsides are just anti-choice grinches out to take people's shiny toys away. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an urban legend, and you know it.
I play Pathfinder because I have loads of fun.You having fun doesn't mean the game is good.
And another person's lack doesn't mean it is bad.
I play Pathfinder because I have loads of fun.You having fun doesn't mean the game is good.
I'm sure there are people that have fun with F.A.T.A.L.
It's still a terrible game.
I contend that I would have otherwise jumped ship a long time ago. Unlike whoever here can't get into a new system for whatever reason I have a lot of options to choose from in regards to systems and groups. If the system was diminishing something then there are directions to go. And it's not like I haven't tried out other systems either. I wasn't a grognard that refused to jump ship to 4e, I jumped onto Pathfinder long after I'd been playing RPGs to begin with even turning down or quitting other games in other systems. I'm not speaking towards the preferences of others but my own personal preference that I am absolutely fine with what I'm playing right now and I chose it above other things that I've played. I want to know if I'm a minority of that sentiment.
Oh! Now shift between aliases when you do it.
I have no idea what he's talking about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! Now shift between aliases when you do it.
Yes, begin the everlasting chaos!
Really, my ideal system has a simple, fast-running core that supports a large number of fictional archetypes out-of-the-box ("swashbuckler, I'm looking at you."). Mechanical supplements are therefore unnecessary, avoiding the inevitable boom-bust cycle. Instead, an ever-growing catalog of adventures and setting material grows on a stable rules foundation. Everything is made available in the widest variety of formats (print, digital, tool support) possible.
While I personally find this model ideal, I think it is far from ideal from the point-of-view of maximizing profits. And so here we are.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Malwing - I enjoy Pathfinder. A lot. It isn't my favorite, but it's good for a certain kind of game, and it does that well; High power fantasy. If you want grit, or something besides fantasy, it takes hacking the system apart with a saw and stitching it up, and when people do that I look at them like Why? but it's awesome for high fantasy. Trying to take Pathfinder and run low magic grit is like trying to move your furniture with a Mazda Miata when you have a Toyota Tundra in the garage.
Oh! Now shift between aliases when you do it.Yes, begin the everlasting chaos!
Feels good doesn't it.
Really, my ideal system has a simple, fast-running core that supports a large number of fictional archetypes out-of-the-box ("swashbuckler, I'm looking at you."). Mechanical supplements are therefore unnecessary, avoiding the inevitable boom-bust cycle. Instead, an ever-growing catalog of adventures and setting material grows on a stable rules foundation. Everything is made available in the widest variety of formats (print, digital, tool support) possible.
While I personally find this model ideal, I think it is far from ideal from the point-of-view of maximizing profits. And so here we are.
Aren't there a number of dead systems like that? Isn't that the basis of things like FATE or Fudge? Personally I went through a phase of homebrewing a system when I felt like moving to Fighting Fantasy feels but wanted diversity. It was kind of derivative of Macrolite d20 but functioned until that group moved on to other things in life.
Malwing - I enjoy Pathfinder. A lot. It isn't my favorite, but it's good for a certain kind of game, and it does that well; High power fantasy. If you want grit, or something besides fantasy, it takes hacking the system apart with a saw and stitching it up, and when people do that I look at them like Why? but it's awesome for high fantasy. Trying to take Pathfinder and run low magic grit is like trying to move your furniture with a Mazda Miata when you have a Toyota Tundra in the garage.
I've done that, except without the Tundra, or the garage, also it was a 84 Ford Escort, all by myself, as our first child was only a month old.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the point is that some of the utility normally offered by network externalities (in the form of readily available adventures) is decreased if I don't want to use the mechanical options. I can't simply ignore the bloat and not be affected as is implied.My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.And those modules are obviously 'options other players have use for'.
Except you can. . . there are plenty of options, many of which have been discussed here already--
First, if an AP uses non-core stuff they tend to print the rules right there in the book. You don't "need" anything except the module you are holding to run it.
Second, its all available on all those online places that have been mentioned a dozen times-- if you feel you "need" more information on a subsystem to be able to run it, then you can get that with a modest investment of time (not even money).
Third, if a NPC has a couple of options-- feats for instance, that are not in books you have or want to use, you can invest a small amount of time and just swap out those few options.
Finally, you can just skip the subsystems you don't like if you find any of those other three options too onerous.
Yes, you can run Kingmaker without using Kingdom Builder rules (though Kingmaker introduced those rules before Ultimate Campaign)/
I suppose if you are dead set against Mythic you might want to skip the Mythic AP, and if you are dead set against Occult you might want to skip the Occult AP. . .
But skipping 6/100 modules because their subject matter doesn't interest you isn't really a "bloat" problem. . .
|
|
My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.
I'll give you that, though for me personally, that poses no problem, because I'm firmly convinced that any adventure needs to be at least partially reworked to be adapted to a specific groups playstyle, PC composition and general taste (obviously, I'm not talking organized play). So I'm doing that anyway.
Also depends on what kind of options we talk about. I guess that it's much easier to ignore and to replace new spells, feats or monsters than let's say the Mythic components of WotR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malwing - I enjoy Pathfinder. A lot. It isn't my favorite, but it's good for a certain kind of game, and it does that well; High power fantasy. If you want grit, or something besides fantasy, it takes hacking the system apart with a saw and stitching it up, and when people do that I look at them like Why? but it's awesome for high fantasy. Trying to take Pathfinder and run low magic grit is like trying to move your furniture with a Mazda Miata when you have a Toyota Tundra in the garage.
Pathfinder is my favorite, but it's not the only thing on my shelf. For a while I've been trying to consolidate things into a few rpgs that can handle most things. Pathfinder goes for High power fantasy but extends to cyberpunk, steampunk, superheroes, space opera and so on(with third party intervention). Gritty speculative fiction is something I thought 5e would do but it's somewhere between gritty and Pathfinder. Fate powered things is probably my go to for gritty although I think I want to try Ryuutama, Numenera, and True20, in search for something that can handle the rest of the load. For me 5e is kind of failing as a go to for mid crunch high fantasy so I've been anticipating taking a shot at Five Moons.
I have no interest in other kinds of rpgs so that's probably what I'll stick with for the foreseeable future.
Except you can. . . there are plenty of options, many of which have been discussed here already--
First, if an AP uses non-core stuff they tend to print the rules right there in the book. You don't "need" anything except the module you are holding to run it.
Incorrect. They gave up on including it long ago. At best they note what is used, and even that isn't 100%.
Second, its all available on all those online places that have been mentioned a dozen times-- if you feel you "need" more information on a subsystem to be able to run it, then you can get that with a modest investment of time (not even money).
I don't want to have to learn the mechanics. The fact that they're free is irrelevant. If they didn't exist, I wouldn't have to learn them. Bloat.
Third, if a NPC has a couple of options-- feats for instance, that are not in books you have or want to use, you can invest a small amount of time and just swap out those few options.
Again, I don't want to have to swap things out. Not everyone has the time (or desire) to do so. That's the point.
Finally, you can just skip the subsystems you don't like if you find any of those other three options too onerous.
Yes, you can run Kingmaker without using Kingdom Builder rules (though Kingmaker introduced those rules before Ultimate Campaign)/
I suppose if you are dead set against Mythic you might want to skip the Mythic AP, and if you are dead set against Occult you might want to skip the Occult AP. . .
But skipping 6/100 modules because their subject matter doesn't interest you isn't really a "bloat" problem. . .
...or I can not use the material. As previously noted.
All of your "rebuttals" are basically you saying those things aren't a big deal to you. Great! More power to you. But as an argument that they don't exist, they're an utter failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always wondered... are you typing out the little symbols, or does the forum do that for you?Those other people are more than free to play the literally hundreds of other options out there for tabletop RPGs.
I am not there in person, so I can't quite see the guns being held to the heads of those complaining about Pathfinder while they roll the dice, hands shaking for fear of having their brains blown out if they choose another competitive option.
With f+&$ing who?
We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's f!##ing popular and getting together a table of a better game is nigh impossible.
"Play something else" is f&!*ing useless advice.
f%$* if I know. And apparently it does it for you.
I'll give you that, though for me personally, that poses no problem, because I'm firmly convinced that any adventure needs to be at least partially reworked to be adapted to a specific groups playstyle, PC composition and general taste (obviously, I'm not talking organized play). So I'm doing that anyway.
Also depends on what kind of options we talk about. I guess that it's much easier to ignore and to replace new spells, feats or monsters than let's say the Mythic components of WotR.
And I get that's it's 100% subjective. What bugs me is people saying "your reasons don't affect me, therefore they don't exist."