Yeah - I think it's a misinterpretation of Plain English to say that it can only be done with simplistic rules. Plain English is so that things don't have circular logic and 'legalese'.
I was not suggesting that Plain English only works with simplistic rules (5e itself isn't a rules-lite game), merely that the only plain english games that I have found as of now have been 5e and various rule-light games that were exceedingly rules light. It'd be foolish of me to suggest that these are the only Roleplaying games ever written in Plain English with my limited bubble of experience.
In my mind, I wish that the rules would be written like a technical manual, not like a novel or a law. That means that every rule should be short, to the point and unambiguous.
In actuality, the rules seem to revel in their ambiguity. An for example the poorly defined "attack action" vs "attack as a standard action." Also the "hands of effort" stuff.
As to other rules light systems - I just don't like them much. Tactics etc. are a large part of why I play RPGs. To make such tactics meaningful there need to be a decent chunk of rules to support them.
Someone obviously has never played Savage Worlds.
Way lighter rules system than Pathfinder.
Tactics matter more than stats, or anything else really, except perhaps superior numbers, but that's mainly because with more people you can get into better tactical positions.
I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.
I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."
The bolded part is a fairly common misconception among the TTRPG community, especially with games like D&D and Pathfinder. Every option in ALL the books are optional. That's from the PHB or Core book to the supplemental Psionics and Gunslingers. No one book with options hold a greater weight than another, even if said options are fairly more common. Players who enter a game should all be open-minded to the options or restrictions that the DM decides to put forth (or communicated prior to the game) that assumptions are kept to a minimum.
With that aside, I do agree with the initial post that just because more options come out, they're all instantly bad or cheese or somehow make the game worse. Like you said, no one is forcing these options on people and if they or the group doesn't like something just don't use it, but don't try to claim they shouldn't be created at all.
I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.
I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."
The bolded part is a fairly common misconception among the TTRPG community, especially with games like D&D and Pathfinder. Every option in ALL the books are optional. That's from the PHB or Core book to the supplemental Psionics and Gunslingers. No one book with options hold a greater weight than another, even if said options are fairly more common. Players who enter a game should all be open-minded to the options or restrictions that the DM decides to put forth (or communicated prior to the game) that assumptions are kept to a minimum.
With that aside, I do agree with the initial post that just because more options come out, they're all instantly bad or cheese or somehow make the game worse. Like you said, no one is forcing these options on people and if they or the group doesn't like something just don't use it, but don't try to claim they shouldn't be created at all.
If you ban base book stuff without a good reason two things can happen.
1. You appear to be the fun police.
2. People will ask: Why are we even playing this game then?
If you ban base book stuff without a good reason two things can happen.
1. You appear to be the fun police.
2. People will...
... it's not exactly hard to come up with a reason to ban core.... I mean, it has sooo many grandfathered in balance issues that can be fixed by using non-core classes/homebrew/third-party rather easily.
... it's not exactly hard to come up with a reason to ban core.... I mean, it has sooo many grandfathered in balance issues that can be fixed by using non-core classes/homebrew/third-party rather easily.If you ban base book stuff without a good reason two things can happen.
1. You appear to be the fun police.
2. People will ask: Why are we even playing this game then?
Which means you have a well thought out rational reason.
I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.
I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."
The bolded part is a fairly common misconception among the TTRPG community, especially with games like D&D and Pathfinder. Every option in ALL the books are optional. That's from the PHB or Core book to the supplemental Psionics and Gunslingers. No one book with options hold a greater weight than another, even if said options are fairly more common. Players who enter a game should all be open-minded to the options or restrictions that the DM decides to put forth (or communicated prior to the game) that assumptions are kept to a minimum.
With that aside, I do agree with the initial post that just because more options come out, they're all instantly bad or cheese or somehow make the game worse. Like you said, no one is forcing these options on people and if they or the group doesn't like something just don't use it, but don't try to claim they shouldn't be created at all.
If you ban base book stuff without a good reason two things can happen.
1. You appear to be the fun police.
2. People will ask: Why are we even playing this game then?
I'd assume that any restrictions to a campaign, regardless of the source, would have a reason. As for the Fun Police, I'd feel that way FAR more if a supplement was restricted "Just Cuz". Some of the restrictions I've seen over the years were for REALLY dumb reasons: mostly due to DM ignorance and prejudice as opposed to actual reasons for story and campaign.
I'd assume that any restrictions to a campaign, regardless of the source, would have a reason. As for the Fun Police, I'd feel that way FAR more if a supplement was restricted "Just Cuz". Some of the restrictions I've seen over the years were for REALLY dumb reasons: mostly due to DM ignorance and prejudice as opposed to actual reasons for story and campaign.
I don't blanket ban sources. But I do tell my players that "X will be treated as homebrew". I look it over and then decide if I allow it. Sometimes I nerf or buff the material. But I hardcore no-life these kind of games, I'm so full of myself that I believe that I know better than people who design these games for a living.
Many GMs don't have this luxury. So the they blanket ban if they run into problems. If the core rules are busted then they just switch games.
PF core rules are not busted. They have problems. That's not the same thing as being dysfunctional.
I'd assume that any restrictions to a campaign, regardless of the source, would have a reason. As for the Fun Police, I'd feel that way FAR more if a supplement was restricted "Just Cuz". Some of the restrictions I've seen over the years were for REALLY dumb reasons: mostly due to DM ignorance and prejudice as opposed to actual reasons for story and campaign.I don't blanket ban sources. But I do tell my players that "X will be treated as homebrew". I look it over and then decide if I allow it. Sometimes I nerf or buff the material. But I hardcore no-life these kind of games, I'm so full of myself that I believe that I know better than people who design these games for a living.
I wouldn't say you're full of yourself. I think you know the sort of game you want to run and certain options run counter to that. I don't have problems with people who ban things but I'd prefer a legitimate reason other than "Because I say so" or "I don't have the time to even bother to look at it.." because a Player DID take the time to look at it and weight it against other options. And, like always, a DM can dictate how/what options do at any time, not just at the very beginning. Sure it's a tad more jarring but I'd prefer THAT happen at the table for everyone to see vs. just some compliance-order without any further discussion. In these situations I usually pull the player aside or when there's down time or even via text or e-mail and say "Look, XYZ sort of made the game a bit unbalanced or whatever, can we change this a certain way or have you pick a different option? If this completely invalidates you're concept then we can work with something else."
Many GMs don't have this luxury. So the they blanket ban if they run into problems. If the core rules are busted then they just switch games.
Looking over a class or a few feats doesn't take long. Measure the class with other similar classes and quickly weigh the differences. If you have a class that has a full BAB, 3 good saves, d12 HD, 6 + Int. modifier skills, 20 class skills, bonus feats and spells then something is WAAY off. But if it looks reasonable or at least appears like most of the other classes, play it out and adjust on the fly.
PF core rules are not busted. They have problems. That's not the same thing as being dysfunctional.
Busted is a subjective term. I think they're busted at the systemic level: The majority of feats are bad, the action economy does a huge disservice to weapon-based classes, descending attack bonuses on iterative attacks make you're last attacks "wish-for-Crits", and rolling to confirm crits for nat 20's is moronic. There's quite a few others that irritate me but those are the big ones from my perspective.
In my mind, I wish that the rules would be written like a technical manual, not like a novel or a law. That means that every rule should be short, to the point and unambiguous.
In actuality, the rules seem to revel in their ambiguity. An for example the poorly defined "attack action" vs "attack as a standard action." Also the "hands of effort" stuff.
I've seen the hands debacle quite a few times around the forum, with regards to wielding and holding and what not, but I've never actually seen a succinct explanation of the problem.
So, all the rules are optional and don't need to be used, so bloat can't be a problem, but you'd better have a good rational reason for not using any particular option or source a player wants to use.
I love how the argument goes in circles.
My question about this is "What is a "good" reason?" A reason that makes sense to the GM? One that doesn't make the player angry? One that makes sense when one of the parties comes on the forums to tattle?
As for being "fun police" .. that just makes me laugh, honestly. I don't believe in the notion that a character idea is sacrosanct and that by denying someone access to a rule, item, or whatever that I've done some severe psychological damage to them. If someone wants to pout because they don't like the reason that I've removed something from the game, they are welcome to GM (put that money where that mouth is) or sit out of this one if their convictions are such that they just cannot play without it.
Conversation on the topic is great. But there comes a point where I'll just go find something else to do rather than engage in hours of "Explain to my why you won't use this rule that you removed!" I explained it. You didn't like it. If that makes me the fun police, I'm willing to be that.
The more rules and items that come out, the more chance you run that the table you go to may not use them. Might not have the book, might not want X in their games, may think Y is broken. Expect table variance and be willing to bend and adapt.
/end soapbox
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only ban Leadership.
I used to also ban summoners, but I've stopped that entirely.
I've seen the hands debacle quite a few times around the forum, with regards to wielding and holding and what not, but I've never actually seen a succinct explanation of the problem.In my mind, I wish that the rules would be written like a technical manual, not like a novel or a law. That means that every rule should be short, to the point and unambiguous.
In actuality, the rules seem to revel in their ambiguity. An for example the poorly defined "attack action" vs "attack as a standard action." Also the "hands of effort" stuff.
The jist of it is that the Pathfinder rules use a bastardized combination of physical hands and "metaphysical" hands when dealing with two weapon fighting. Two handed weapons count as using both the primary hand and off hand despite the rules never saying this is the case because you physically hold two handed weapons in two hands. Weapons like armor spikes are wielded in 1 hand when two weapon fighting, because despite not holding them in any hands at all, they are held in 1 hand because "hand" is more of a conceptual thing, and the rules never say that "primary" and "off" hands refer to actual physical hands. Oh, and using hands for things like claws alongside TWF with things that only use "metaphysical" hands like unarmed strikes is fine, because...? You can't actually get that interpretation from the rules as written without assigning multiple definitions to words and alternating their meaning when it suits you (which should mean that it's an incorrect interpretation, which is why the "rule" is pretty heavily criticized).
Well, I wouldn't want to point fingers.I don't even really care about "good reasons" and what they are.
I can live with arguments that everything needs to be allowed, though I don't actually agree with them.
I can live with arguments that more and more rules options are fine because you can always just not use them, though I don't actually agree with that either.I just find it really amusing to find both arguments in the same thread, because they contradict each other.
(Emphasis mine)
I think you meant "being made by the same person (in the same thread)". There's nothing weird about two different people in the same thread making contradictory arguments:)
Of course not, that would create finger pointing bloat. But don't worry about it, because you can always ban finger pointing. Well, except for the finger pointing that you shouldn't ban.
When I build a character, using just these two pages takes an extremely long time.
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Feats.aspx
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Spells.aspx
The bloat is real. Just because people can choose to be self-selective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think the whole "because I don't want to lose my friends I have to allow everything" is a corner case bordering on myth. While there may be a crazy case where friends have blackmailed their DM, I don't think it happens enough to justify it as an argument. I have never seen a group of friends force someone to DM something they don't want to. I would say they aren't really your friends to begin with. I've had friends moan and give out but that's usually it.
Your misunderstanding is causing you to mischaracterize how this works. In a group I played with, we all got along great. We simply had vastly different RPG preferences. Everyone had to make concessions, GM included. So, it's not about "I don't want to lose friends" and these things are hardly a "corner case bordering on myth."
When I build a character, using just these two pages takes an extremely long time.
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Feats.aspx
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Spells.aspxThe bloat is real. Just because people can choose to be self-selective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This is why I am working on a project for myself and my players, making my own database of feats, traits and so on so that I can sort them according to my needs instead of having to flip through all the books or sort through the web page to hunt for elusive ideas.
That's an example of what one can do about the bloat problem. Another example would be to use spare time to make notes on feats/spells/whatever that you are interested in and where to find them. Keep them in a binder with your characters and ideas so that you have go to information on hand instead of hunting and getting frustrated.
Bloat (also called options) are going to exist in every game. Books sell and give money to the nice people who work on our games so they can live indoors and eat. It isn't going away; we just have to find individual ways of coping with it (in whatever game you choose to play).
|
Personally, I'm ALL for OPTIONS. New material brings new ideas which is great. Unfortunately, in my opinion the new material is rarely if ever balanced and leads to more than power creep it leads to power bloat. I suspect it not because they are actually TRYING for more power. It is probably because the authors of the new books are not experts in all previous books.
From a DM perspective in a home game it's easy to just limit what options people have (or tell players you'll allow things with modifications) but in PFS i can't begin to tell you how difficult it is to keep up with all the options the new books give to players. (I do appreciate the rule that the player needs to be able to provide the resource so the GM can adjudicate stuff, but let's face it. It can easily take an hour or two to get a good grasp on a new class when you own a book. You don't have an hour to study when someone sits down at your PFS table with a class from a new book.)
When I build a character, using just these two pages takes an extremely long time.
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Feats.aspx
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Spells.aspxThe bloat is real. Just because people can choose to be self-selective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Bloat exists, because I look through every book despite knowing I don't have to"?
My question about this is "What is a "good" reason?" A reason that makes sense to the GM? One that doesn't make the player angry? One that makes sense when one of the parties comes on the forums to tattle?So, all the rules are optional and don't need to be used, so bloat can't be a problem, but you'd better have a good rational reason for not using any particular option or source a player wants to use.
I love how the argument goes in circles.
Usually I categorize "good" reasons as something that is based on the campaign. If the DM is looking for a game where everyone is a magic-user then classes like the Fighter and Monk isn't going to fly. If the DM is running a game that has little to no magic, obviously classes like the Wizard and Sorcerer won't fly. Same goes for campaigns where divine magic is rare or in a setting that's Eastern Themed.
Additionally, I'm perfectly fine with bans on things that are questionably broken OR create mechanical issues with the DM or the group.
As for being "fun police" .. that just makes me laugh, honestly. I don't believe in the notion that a character idea is sacrosanct and that by denying someone access to a rule, item, or whatever that I've done some severe psychological damage to them. If someone wants to pout because they don't like the reason that I've removed something from the game, they are welcome to GM (put that money where that mouth is) or sit out of this one if their convictions are such that they just cannot play without it.
Which is why communication is pretty paramount prior to campaigns.
Conversation on the topic is great. But there comes a point where I'll just go find something else to do rather than engage in hours of "Explain to my why you won't use this rule that you removed!" I explained it. You didn't like it. If that makes me the fun police, I'm willing to be that.
The more rules and items that come out, the more chance you run that the table you go to may not use them. Might not have the book, might not want X in their games, may think Y is broken. Expect table variance and be willing to bend and adapt.
/end soapbox
Being willing to bend and adapt certainly applies to DMs too.
"Bloat exists, because I have to cut things out to make it manageable."
To me, that's like arguing a library is bloated since I individually don't have time to read every book in it.
To me, that's like arguing a library is bloated since I individually don't have time to read every book in it.To me, that's a nonsensical comparison because a library is dedicated to a wide variety of fields and topics. A game system isn't.
GURPS disagrees with you. HERO would as well.
Being willing to bend and adapt certainly applies to DMs too.
Which I'm more than willing to do. That said, if you read the house rules document and what is/isn't allowed and persist to try to wrangle me into letting you do something, the only adaptation I'm going to make is to adapt to a different number of players.
I wouldn't go to a PFS game and insist that the rules bend for me. I know they have banned or ruled against certain things, and arguing it is pointless. I extend the same courtesy for any other table and hope that either I find a way to play something else fun, or I find something else to do. Arguing is the antithesis of fun for me.
To me, that's a nonsensical comparison because a library is dedicated to a wide variety of fields and topics. A game system isn't.
*Looks at things like Technology Guide, Ultimate Magic, Horror Adventures, Mythic, Ultimate Intrigue, Ultimate Equipment, Occult Adventures, Ultimate Campaign, Unchained, Golarion book on space adventures, CRB, Ultimate Combat, third-party on thousands of different topics*
.... no there is a wide variety of fields and topics with PF. I mean, yes. The library is a larger entity than a set of Pathfinder books, but I sincerely do not understand an argument of bloat that would apply to Pathfinder but doesn't apply to the library since to me... that's all a set of Pathfinder books are, a library of books on different topics that I can use for this game system.
True, but few would expect all of the options in either system to be available in a given game. Other than bizarre genre-crossing things.
And other than the core book, they're usually nicely segregated into different books.
And that isn't true of Pathfinder?
GURPS disagrees with you. HERO would as well.To me, that's like arguing a library is bloated since I individually don't have time to read every book in it.To me, that's a nonsensical comparison because a library is dedicated to a wide variety of fields and topics. A game system isn't.True, but few would expect all of the options in either system to be available in a given game. Other than bizarre genre-crossing things.
And other than the core book, they're usually nicely segregated into different books.
Sure. We can use a grocery store analogy then? Or just say that the system may or may not be bloated depending on if you/your players feel a need to keep up with the Joneses and have everything. Or know everything.
Me, I have to buy everything. I'm just sure there is a clue to something that I'll miss otherwise. Not everyone feels the same and can get by quite nicely with a more limited selection of books.
If you are suffering from too many choices -- which is kind of a nice thing to suffer from, all things considered -- then you take some of your spare time to cut those down to what you can manage. We all daydream characters (just me?) and can jot down notes and fill those out along the way. That way no one is overwhelmed by these choices .. which is part of what confuses me. Unless you are operating under a time crunch of some kind, you have the time to sort through things.
|
Unless you are operating under a time crunch of some kind, you have the time to sort through things.
Unfortunately, a lot of players and GMs have exactly this problem. Work and other obligations greatly limits their time to sort through all the options for their characters and campaigns. I can't blame them for wanting a simpler system that doesn't demand so much of their limited leisure time.
There being a wide variety of topics does not mean it is dedicated to them in the same way a library is. Pathfinder is dedicated to being a game system.
A library is dedicated to storing books for people to borrow out and return and it does not store things like bikes or exercise equipment. Both library's and Pathfinder sets both are specialized things. Yes, Pathfinder is more specialized, but it does not change the fact that is simply a collection of books each with their own topics and focuses.
You don't have to read through every single book. It's painfully easy to not.
Unless you are operating under a time crunch of some kind, you have the time to sort through things.Unfortunately, a lot of players and GMs have exactly this problem. Work and other obligations greatly limits their time to sort through all the options for their characters and campaigns. I can't blame them for wanting a simpler system that doesn't demand so much of their limited leisure time.
Oddly enough, I too have limited time and other commitments but take the time on the things I like. Too many people are interested in "Sleep" and "friends" and "stuff other than gaming". It's a mystery.
More seriously, while I can understand that people want something simpler, I'd be flummoxed to believe anyone every thought that Pathfinder (based on 3.5) would be it. When the core book was bigger than some text books I've owned, I'd have thought that might be a clue. I'm not sure that there's been a happy middle ground done with rules systems between "bloated" (having more than a few supplements) and rules light, where people talk about it being too free form. It's a hard road to walk, and one that has to measure how much to put out versus a pressing need to eat and live indoors.
|
|
More seriously, while I can understand that people want something simpler, I'd be flummoxed to believe anyone every thought that Pathfinder (based on 3.5) would be it. When the core book was bigger than some text books I've owned, I'd have thought that might be a clue. I'm not sure that there's been a happy middle ground done with rules systems between "bloated" (having more than a few supplements) and rules light, where people talk about it being too free form. It's a hard road to walk, and one that has to measure how much to put out versus a pressing need to eat and live indoors.
Pretty much. I only stick with it because it's the system I started with, the system I can find players with, and the fact that I really don't want to spend the time to learn another system. bugleyman ran a Core Only campaign for us, and it was perfectly fine for me. A different flavor, one that I wouldn't want all the time, but a good change when it was called for.
The f!+% does this have to do with anything?
You said "Bloat exists, because I have to cut things out to make it manageable.".... but you don't have to cut things out since the system's books are additive not subtractive (not sure if that wording makes sense, but whatever my heads spinning). You do not have to read every book. When you decide to not buy or read a book, it's not "I'm cutting this book out" it's "I'm not adding this to the list of books in my collection."
I'll go back to my original answer to the topic.
One man's bloat is another man's options.
The options exist. So the bloat exists.
So library's are bloated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Bloat" seems an incontrovertible fact, to me. Any system with more than just its core rules has bloat to some degree. I don't think that's inherently negative, though. Some people like bloat, some people don't - arguing how much is the "correct" amount is as silly as arguing whether an RPG should have aloof elves or not. Taste isn't a rationally derived thing.