| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's just it, though, I don't want a "dead" system. I want one with continued activity on the adventure and setting front, but not the mechanical front. In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.
Like I said, I appreciate that people don't agree with me, but not that some of them feel the need to tell me my (subjective) preferences are objectively wrong. As if they need to make the Internet safe for their point-of-view, or something. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just it, though, I don't want a "dead" system. I want one with continued activity on the adventure and setting front, but not the mechanical front.
I think that's a key thing.
With a well-designed game, you don't need to keep changing the rules to keep the game interesting. The most recent substantive change to the rules of chess was the introduction of a chess clock in 1851 -- that's 1851, not 1951.
I don't see any reason why interesting and imaginative scenarios can't be written (and fun characters designed) within the limits of the existing ruleset.
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.That's just it, though, I don't want a "dead" system. I want one with continued activity on the adventure and setting front, but not the mechanical front. In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.
Like I said, I appreciate that people don't agree with me, but not that some of them feel the need to tell me my (subjective) preferences are objectively wrong. As if they need to make the Internet safe for their point-of-view, or something. :P
I guess that makes sense. Probably not going to happen but makes sense.
I guess that makes sense. Probably not going to happen but makes sense.
Thanks!
And no, I'm not holding my breath. ;-)
HA! I knew that I wasn't alone with this thought.In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.
Oh man, it was an amazing time. Sadly, it appears that adventures (or magazines, for that matter) don't keep the lights on any more.
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.
And your argument amounts to "Options I don't want are keeping me from using books I don't want"
What do you want? You want Paizo to perpetually publish modules using nothing but the CRB?
You want Paizo to perpetually publish modules using nothing but the CRB?
Why not? It's not like Will Shortz changes the rules on how to solve crossword puzzles every time a new book comes out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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."
I think it stems from continually reading "I don't like lots of options" as an argument which can be rebutted.
It's not an argument, intending to establish a conclusion it's a statement of preference.
You want Paizo to perpetually publish modules using nothing but the CRB?Why not? It's not like Will Shortz changes the rules on how to solve crossword puzzles every time a new book comes out.
Because they obviously enjoy their other products as well?
I don't know if the "sky is falling all this bloat are ruining my modules" is true because I by and large don't run from modules.
But if you can make an AP better now with an option that wasn't available from only the core book why would you not?
If you can offer support to the different rule sets, why would you publish those rules then say "APs are only for core, a Magus will never show up in one no matter what"?
(or any other option from any other book instead of Magus if you prefer another example).
There are obviously plenty of people who either aren't bothered by the bloat, or actively want the additional options.
|
For that matter, I wasn't paying attention back in the 3E days, but did none of the bloat that WotC was putting out affect Paizo's adventures & settings? I guess if most of that wasn't OGL, maybe it didn't.
Oh it did, though non-OGl rules options would be completely printed where needed so you didn't need to look it up elsewhere.
And it wasn't as pronounced as it is today, because they didn't need to publish a complete adventure path to support their newest rules option book.
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.
I suspect most people who play pathfinder do so because they enjoy it - I doubt you're in a minority.
However, with regard to choice of game, we don't all have the luxury or ability to chop and change systems. (Whether due to geography, personality or just plain ignorance/isolation). I have one group I play RPGs with and we choose what game to play based on a kind of group consensus. I like playing with that group (can't really play with anyone else, to be honest) but am in a minority in terms of game preference - so we've kind of migrated to a compromise system (5E, for now) and I've resigned myself to essentially never playing my preferred system.
I suspect there's a number of people playing PF for similar reasons - I don't think they're the majority, but I'm sure they exist. Bloat would be an issue for them (since keeping up with changes to a system you don't really like is no doubt a pain - I personally think we should also include Paizo's FAQratta as an instance of bloat, although it doesn't usually get bundled in to the conversation).
|
|
But if you can make an AP better now with an option that wasn't available from only the core book why would you not?
The question is if it really improves the APs. Is WotR really superior because of the inclusion of the Mythic Rules, or could a non-mythic variant of said AP have reached the same level of quality? And while were at it, is the improvement, PFRPG supposedly offers compared to 3.5, reflected in the quality of the APs?
But generally I kinda agree. If Paizo likes the stuff they crank out, it wouldn't make much sense, if they didn't use it for their adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For that matter, I wasn't paying attention back in the 3E days, but did none of the bloat that WotC was putting out affect Paizo's adventures & settings? I guess if most of that wasn't OGL, maybe it didn't.Oh it did, though non-OGl rules options would be completely printed where needed so you didn't need to look it up elsewhere.
And it wasn't as pronounced as it is today, because they didn't need to publish a complete adventure path to support their newest rules option book.
I don't understand.
I'm talking about Paizo using WotC's rules expansions in their adventures back in the day. If those weren't OGL, Paizo couldn't print them where needed, right?
I think it was a little different because they were predominantly publishing through dungeon magazine which was a separate license (so they could do Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etcetera adventures despite not being open content). They probably had access to stuff most 3PPs didn't.
There are obviously plenty of people who either aren't bothered by the bloat, or actively want the additional options.
For me there won't be enough options until it is possible to build every single character imaginable.... and for each of those builds to be equally combat effective. So yes, I actively want more options :)
They might keep the lights on, but having rules too made more money.
For that matter, I wasn't paying attention back in the 3E days, but did none of the bloat that WotC was putting out affect Paizo's adventures & settings? I guess if most of that wasn't OGL, maybe it didn't.
There was some use of third-party OGL stuff, but it was usually included in the magazine. As you pointed out, most of WotC's stuff wasn't OGL, so for the most part it was core only (IIRC).
Edit: As correctly pointed out by Steve upthread, Paizo must have had a license to use non-OGL WotC stuff, because I distinctly remember BOVD content. Still, it seemed to be the exception, rather than the rule, but perhaps my memory is not accurate.
Is there a parallel situation now though? There are 3pp putting out adventures and settings for Pathfinder. Do any of them match your preference for lack of rules bloat?
Or do they use all Paizo's stuff since it's OGL?
Since you bring it up: In my (limited) experience, third party stuff is a mixed bag as far as what it uses. I've picked up half a dozen or so things from Raging Swan (great stuff, btw), and most of it has used just the Core, or stuff that is built from just the Core (NPC Codex -- which I incidentally adore, for all its warts). I have no idea if that is true across the line, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was a little different because they were predominantly publishing through dungeon magazine which was a separate license (so they could do Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etcetera adventures despite not being open content). They probably had access to stuff most 3PPs didn't.
One must remember, that the magazines, even when published by Paizo, actually served to promote official D&D, which included showing stuff from the books. I just took a look to Dungeon #142 and found references to Libris Mortis, the Fiend Folio, Stormwrack, Fiendish Codex, Complete Adventurer, DMG II and MMII and III. Also just as an example, for the Savage Tide AP they used the Affiliation Rules from Player's Guide II.
Now I haven't controlled every instance but I think to remember that everything they needed from this books was actually spelled out in the adventures, so you didn't need those books just for running the adventure. But it was still there.
Paizo had special license probably stemming from the fact that the Paizo founders and members (nearly) all had played part in the revitalization of D&D through WotC (being former WotC members). So they weren't "just another" 3PP (no disrespect meant in any way) and I don't think that any other publisher would have gotten the same rights to publish the magazines (or any rights at all).
As far as Pathfinder 3PPs go, you can find everything, from just using Core to using stuff from a lot of additional sources. Just took another look at the introduction to Path of Iron, and found references to Bestiaries 1 to 4, Ultimate Magic and Combat, Advanced Player's, Class and Race guides.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and some of those books I only bought because they were written by Paizo people. But still, Paizo would need official license to use this stuff.
Oh, very true. James Jacobs has mentioned on occasion that he gave a lot of his personal IP to them.
I meant more "this may be why they chose to use stuff from books people might not own". ^_^
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Fiendish Codex I is still excellent, so why wouldn't you want to use this stuff if possible.
To be honest, I would love to see Paizo sometimes use stuff from 3PPs. As an example, I loved some of the Super Genius Games classes, and if Owen is good enough to actually work for Paizo nowadays, this speaks to the quality of what he designed beforehand.
Or Dreamscarred Press' Psionics stuff. Won't happen but I'd love if it did.
Even if it means even more bloat.
To be honest, I would love to see Paizo sometimes use stuff from 3PPs. As an example, I loved some of the Super Genius Games classes, and if Owen is good enough to actually work for Paizo nowadays, this speaks to the quality of what he designed beforehand.
They have used 3PP material in the past, but the problem is Paizo's staff (and freelance writers) can barely keep up with their own material, let alone exploring much of the 3PP offerings. They also aren't going to use complicated subsystems like Psionics or Spheres of Power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'm happier with bloat, heck, I keep up as much as I can with 3rd party just to have more options. Some of the best character concepts and ideas I've ever had came from flicking through 3rd party books and looking at the fantastic ideas other people had come up with for little rule sets, or new ways of doing things.
Druid sects that gain their powers from fey pacts rather than nature itself, to inhabit places like the Scarred Lands or Worldwound. The Darkwood heart being the dark secret at the soul of the Shudderwood. Rules on how to create false idols and secret gods, as well as create your own. Countless templates.
The problem I find isn't keeping up with things, its when players know all the rules off by heart, when was the last time your GM really threw you for a twist using something mechanical, really?
For me it was last session when we broke into a Twilight Fey court, he broke out the torches and had us work out on the map where shadows were as we advanced as dual pairs of Shadow Fey Knights and Lurker in the Light Oracles twisted light and dark against us, topped off with a battle with a Shadow Lord templated Shining Child that could only be described as a Living Darkness Child, who was the Moon Knight of the Princess of the Midnight Sun, armed with some brutally powerful curses.
All of it 3rd party practically.
You can keep things simple, safe and balanced, or you can give people evocative ideas, cool concepts and let them work things out for themselves. More content is never bad content, as long as its approached with a mature and open mind by everyone involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I belive in bloat and I very much dislike it.
Bloat in my world is NOT more options though. Bloat is the avalanche of horrible trap options that litter the game as a toppled trashbin.
There are tons of feats, spells and archetypes that are simply horrendous, even though most of them are written to sound thematically cool.
These are the bloat, filling up the system with useless garbage that is simply a waste of pages, put there for the one reason that a book needs a certain amount of feats, spells and archetypes because that is what the buyers expect.
I won't be paying 58 dollers (I don't live in the US, making for added costs) for a book that countains a handfull of things that I like and find useful and another handfull that I hate, but my table find useful and then 2/3 of the book being completely useless because it is trap options, unnecessary rules additions and other garbage.
I have left Pathfinder behind because it was becomming bloated with horrible, pointless "options" that cost me a ton of money for a few grams of quality. In addition; I found the quality of everything after the APG to drop drastically, making each subsequent book less and less useful and interesting.
These days when I trawl the PRD for inspiration it seems to me that everyone at Paizo, their dog and their entire extended family is allowed to write feats, spells and archetypes, its just that bad.
At the same time the editing quality is also dropping steadily, making the finished product riddled with mistakes that could easily have been avoided.
So the bloat is there, not in the form of more options, but in the illusion of more options that is really just page filler and sloppy editing.
|
|
There are tons of feats, spells and archetypes that are simply horrendous, even though most of them are written to sound thematically cool.
These are the bloat, filling up the system with useless garbage that is simply a waste of pages, put there for the one reason that a book needs a certain amount of feats, spells and archetypes because that is what the buyers expect.
And why do the buyers expect that? Probably, because they have other standards in their games as you do. What you may find horrendous, they may find useful. What you call trap option, may actually be quite feasible in their games.
I wouldn't spend a ton of money for a few gram of quality either. Luckily, the things I find completely useless in any Pathfinder book are few and rare, so it's more like a spend a lot of money for a lot of quality stuff. But I also don't "powergame the heck out of a character", as you put it in a former post and also don't run games where powergaming is a necessity. Which allows my players to take thematically cool sounding options without having to worry that they become too weak by not making the optimal choice. I also tend to find ways so that players actually can use those options ingame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To quote the griffon: This is where we end to agree.
I like to see how crazy a concept I can make and then I usually skip it for something more ... alive. Powergaming is not necesserily a bad thing as a mental exercise, it helps gaining insight to what a system has to offer, what to avoid and what doesn't work as the flavor describe it.
I've never run a game where powergaming was a necessity, I prefer story over system and will go easy on my players if it fits the story, rules and challenges be damned. But I will NEVER actively seek ways for useless feats, archetypes and spells to become useful. It is not my job as GM to correct the mistakes of the system, especially not when I'm paying almost 60 dollers for a single book.
About thematically cool options:
This is a battle game. A friend of mine once defined 3.5 D&D (and thus Pathfinder) as a "bag 'em and shag 'em" game. This means that you go kill something to take its loot, then go back to town to spend said loot and shag a few wenches (his words, mind), then go back out to kill more stuff. All for the purpose of becomming better at killing stuff so that you can get better loot, by killing stuff.
Following that line of thought:
If the game is designed around the concept of killing things for their loot, then options that do not add to your ability to killing said things are trap options. Trap options are unnecessary and take up page space that could be used on more relevant things, such as expanding classes to make them better or more interesting.
Thematically cool sounding options:
Thematic options are pointless. All they do is lock you into a mindset where you must have a feat, talent or spell to do something that should otherwise have been fairly simple to adjudicate as game master. Thematic feats, archetypes, spells and whatnot actually serve to limit options for roleplaying characters, not expanding them.
Besides; "...thematically cool SOUNDING..." <- this is just bad. If the options sound cool they should live up to that and many, if not most of them, simply does not. You even say it yourself that you "...tend to FIND WAYS so that players actually CAN use those options ingame." It is horrible that their choice of options are not easily used into the game but that you, the game master, has to find ways for them to be used :(
So the bloat is real. The question is more if we are ready to face what it means and deal with it accordingly. Which I was not, hence I left the game behind. And no, not for 5E, I'm done with d20 in general.
|
|
This is a battle game.
No it isn't. It's much more than that. It's a roleplaying game. Combat is part of it true, but it's much more than that. It's character development, it's creating memorable stories, and, most important of all, it's having fun with you're friends. It's Lord of the Rings as well as Conan the Barbarian
But I will NEVER actively seek ways for useless feats, archetypes and spells to become useful.
Didn't say that exactly. I actively seek ways for feats, archetypes and spells to become useful in my game, because no matter how powerful an option is, if there's no opportunity to use this option, you could have just as well chosen some other option. Where we differ is what we consider to be useful.
It is not my job as GM to correct the mistakes of the system.
The thing is : That's exactly what part of being a GM is all about. Because there is no such thing as an error-free system.
Besides; "...thematically cool SOUNDING..." <- this is just bad. If the options sound cool they should live up to that and many,...
Well they do. They inspire and they give benefits. We can argue the whole day about how big this benefit should be, but to be honest, I'll take inspiring over mechanically sound any time of the day. Luckily, most options are both. At least for me.
No, it is a battle game. People attach roleplaying to that, but aside from alignment restrictions, which can be ignored easily, there are no rules for roleplaying.
I can add roleplaying to my Legos after I build them, pretending the guy and ship I put together are my avatars, but it doesn't mean Legos are a roleplaying toy. Yes, it's what most people do with them (that is, in fact, what playing with most toys is), and it's probably one of their primary intents, but it is not the Lego manufacturer's job to make sure your play time AFTER you build is enjoyable, only that the mechanism you choose to play with is sturdy.
I know we call them RPGs, and RP is awesome, but the system itself - the books sold, the mechanism, the product itself - is about combat, skill tricks, and other mechanical resolution to what happens as a result of the choices you make, NOT the choices themselves within the game, the actual roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, you're thinking of 4th edition.
This is a battle game.No it isn't. It's much more than that. It's a roleplaying game. Combat is part of it true, but it's much more than that. It's character development, it's creating memorable stories, and, most important of all, it's having fun with you're friends. It's Lord of the Rings as well as Conan the Barbarian
What mechanics actively adds to the roleplaying experience?
Skills certainly don't as they reduce roleplay to single tests, such as convincing the king to lend you an army becomes a diplomacy check to make him helpful.Class mechanics bring nothing to the roleplaying experience as they are all about how the character fights. Archetypes are simple additions to classes, so they don't bring anything either.
Spells? Feats? Talents? None of these adds to the roleplaying experience, they only add mechanical benefits (or often nothing at all).
Nothing in the rules actually help you create a memorable story. True, the game supplies a grid on which you can build a good story, but you can create memorable stories without any system at all.
It is not my job as GM to correct the mistakes of the system.The thing is : That's exactly what part of being a GM is all about. Because there is no such thing as an error-free system.
I agree that there is no such thing as an error-free system. But I do not agree that it is my job to correct glaring mistakes.
My job is to make a good story and make sure that everyone is enjoying themselves, not correct lazy editing and half-thought rules.
Besides; "...thematically cool SOUNDING..." <- this is just bad. If the options sound cool they should live up to that and many,...Well they do. They inspire and they give benefits. We can argue the whole day about how big this benefit should be, but to be honest, I'll take inspiring over mechanically sound any time of the day. Luckily, most options are both. At least for me.
I can follow you on the inspiration. But why is it a good idea to force players to spend limited resources on something that functions ONLY as inspiration? Why not allow the players to spend their limited resources on something that is actually mechanically sound AND give them the benefit of being inspired for free? Why must it be a trade-off?
The argument of Inspiring before Mechanically sound is like the dowager in Downton Abby saying "If the choice is between principle and logic, I will take principle any day!" It makes no sense to demand a feat to make a Coup de Gras that deals non-lethal damage, it should just be possible for free. And there are loads of feats like that, that's the bloat, senseless filler "options."
It doesn't even anger me that these trap options are in the game, it saddens me that customers can be fed that kind of crap and still believe that it is fine.
Nope, you're thinking of 4th edition.
I'm sorry, aside from alignment, tell me what page the rules for how to roleplay are on. Not guidelines. Not suggestions. Actual rules.
I'm not sure where the discussion is at exactly but wanted to add my 2cp.
I think my fear, and I'm not really on the "too many books and too much bloat" boat yet, but the fear is power creep.
Try as hard as they might, eventually new material will come out that is outright better than old material. Not just allowing you to do "new things" but just hands down mechanically better. It's not that I don't want new material, it's that as a GM I don't want to have to keep constantly adjusting the adventure paths or the challenges of scenarios to deal with ever increasing power levels of players. My friends when I play (and players when I GM) are and always will be optimizers. And they really hate it when I tell them they can't have the new latest source. There is a sense of entitlement that for them that I should let them have everything Paizo publishes and it often creates a certain level of resentment between myself (as a GM) and my players. Heck there is even a certain level of resentment when I'm playing and I see players using and abusing game mechanics to reach absurd levels.
So that's my issue. I fear power creep. And while I can house rule out new sources and allow things on a case by case basis it is a rule which chafes many.
I wish there was a way to guarantee new material wasn't "stronger" mechanically just new and different. But that material rarely gets used either because why play the interesting archetype when mechanically it's not as good as playing the unaltered class.
I dunno where I'm going with this so I'll stop, just wanted to explain it from my perspective.
|
|
tell me what page the rules for how to roleplay are on. Not guidelines. Not suggestions. Actual rules.
There are no rules for how to roleplay because the different ways to roleplay are infinite. There are guidelines, there are suggestions. And those are as important for the play as the actual rules part, if not even more important. Because the rules are nothing more than suggestions either. I play Pathfinder, because I like those suggestions better than, lets say, the rules suggestions of AD&D, but I won't treat them as if they be the most important part of what we're actually doing at the game table. The rules themselves are interchangeable.
Which makes the Gamemastery Guide arguably the most important book in the whole Pathfinder line. Because that's the book talking about the real important parts of the game, no matter which system you play.
Oh, and by the way:
What mechanics actively adds to the roleplaying experience?
Can be all. If an archetype inspires me to build a specific character (and I'm not talking about the rules backbone), it directly adds to the roleplaying experience. Same goes for any other option. I'm not thinking in character builds but in actual characters. So when chosing traits, i'm not looking for a particular bonus I want to have, but for an character idea I want to play, the bonus is fine, but it's the inspiration which is important.
YMMV, of course.
Oh, and by the way:
What mechanics actively adds to the roleplaying experience?Can be all. If an archetype inspires me to build a specific character (and I'm not talking about the rules backbone), it directly adds to the roleplaying experience. Same goes for any other option. I'm not thinking in character builds but in actual characters. So when chosing traits, i'm not looking for a particular bonus I want to have, but for an character idea I want to play, the bonus is fine, but it's the inspiration which is important.
YMMV, of course.
See I can understand thinking in characters. I have never played in a group where people did not think in characters. The problem with the bloat is that if you ONLY think in characters you will be punished for not ALSO thinking in builds.
I have seen it a lot, it is one of the reasons my group left Pathfinder behind. We had the issue that a couple of members couldn't be bothered finding their way around all of the material to find the things that fit their concept without handicapping them. Something I can only get behind, playing Lawyers and Ledgers isn't as fun as one would think.
When we finally got them characters that could function within the concept and not need a wheelchair, the people playing the characters had trouble remembering the slew of rules necessary for their character concepts to come together. It was a hassle not worth the fun we had actually roleplaying those characters.
On the other hand: two of the other players had an instinctive understanding of good options and bad options and was quite skilled at avoiding the bad ones, though by no means being powergamers.
Because of the bloat of bad/trap options, this created a natural divide within the group, unless the less rules-interested players got a lot of help.
That divide is the problem. Why is it acceptable that some players are punished for making character choices over optimization choices?
But to address your point directly (I tend to get a little long-winded, sorry about that):
The inspiration you gain from an archetype might as well be gained from a book, comic or movie. Nothing mechanical in the archetype help you roleplay that archetype, the closest thing it has for that is a bit of flavor text, if that much. Thus an archetype adds nothing mechanical to the roleplay experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, you're thinking of 4th edition.I'm sorry, aside from alignment, tell me what page the rules for how to roleplay are on. Not guidelines. Not suggestions. Actual rules.
I'm not going to argue this because this is something I particularly like about Pathfinder. I was in a group that frequently played roleplaying and narrative centric indie systems and one thing that I found that I hate is for the system to tell me how to run a story or my character sheet telling me how to run my character beyond setting the limits of what I can and can't functionally do.
On the idea that you're punished for making flavor choices; I think that's true but not to a great extent unless you're optimizing in some way. I know Stormwind Fallacy gets called a lot but honestly the most functional games I've ever run or played were the tables of people who couldn't optimized their way out of a paper bag because the bar was low to be useful compared to your fellow players, making flavor build decisions less detrimental and the APs were still 'winnable' with a bunch of scrub builds playing through. Basically if you're not using the internet to sort out the best things to do then more like 90% of a given book is pretty useful instead of garbage.
Nope, you're thinking of 4th edition.I'm sorry, aside from alignment, tell me what page the rules for how to roleplay are on. Not guidelines. Not suggestions. Actual rules.
Chapter 12, Core Rulebook and the entirety of The Gamemastery Guide.
Those are all suggestions, not rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same thing.
All rules in every game are merely suggestions and guidelines.