|
The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.
What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.
But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.
Maybe 5e recalibrated players' definition of "complex."
-Skeld
I think there’s also been a rash of “rules in 4 pages” kind of games.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The moment has kind of come and gone, but in reply to the people advocating a “database not rulebook” approach, I figured I’d voice the opposing view.
I don’t generally play with electronic devices (at the table, or away from it). If PF moved in that direction, it’s likely I’d stop buying it. I appreciate I’m only one customer, but it’s worth bearing in mind that not everyone prefers electronic solutions over hardcopy.
Perhaps there’s enough people preferring books to mean that (books+online resource) will hold over a purely electronic method of delivery. At least in the medium/long term.
The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.
What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.
But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.
Maybe 5e recalibrated players' definition of "complex."
-Skeld
I think it started earlier. Specifically, with WoD.
Now I like WoD, as I mentioned above, but it was, I think the first game that brought into a hobby a large swath of story and narrative-focused people, who didn't like much combat. It was a part of its success, a large part, it had an appeal to people games like D&D hadn't. Moreso, the writers always emphasized the "golden rule" and "story first". The game also has/had a fairly light ruleset, easy to pick and "not getting in the way of storytelling".
Now, again, I like the middle ground WoD encompasses. However, the whole thing birthed a new generation of gamers and thus, developers, who thought along those lines and asked "how far can we push this approach, how much could we re-define tabletop rpgs?"
And lo and behold, that was the born of the rules-light, truly narrative movement, which, after a while, gained traction and changed the perception of how " crunch-heavy" specific games are, to the point, where even WoD itself is considered rules-heavy in the eyes of some peple.
But that's how people in the rpg crowd are looking at this, I think.
Outside of that, other things also happened, like the internet, and shortened attention spans and computer games and MMO-s, so it's really a combination of a lot of things, but I think on the side of the tabletop culture, this whole perception shift about the heavyness of specific games wriggled out from under WoD's trenchcoat and gone a bit out of hand.
D&D 5e, I think, came to this from another point of view. They realized, that they could sell the most books to the casual crowd and new gamers and nowadays those are demanding easy access and instant experience. In the meantime, 5e could appeal to the rules-light crowd too, but I think that's more of a side effect.
Otherwise, I think it's really interesting, that after 5e, the other really successful games are all medium-to-heavy crunch (judged on the contemporary thinking). PF, Shadowrun, CoC, Warhammer, SW. FATE, for example is, for some reason, nowhere near that.
That's my working theory, at least for now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.
What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.
But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.
I think D&D managed to skate by on the idea of being of middling complexity mainly because it was D&D. It had a legacy of being only moderately complex, a reputation that declined as more options were added to the game.
PF has also added more options over the years, with many of those options being surprisingly fiddly - something core PF was drifting toward compared to D&D with things like rage powers, bard rounds of music, paladin mercies, and so on - but later additions like the alchemist, summoner, and much of the ACG offerings pushed even harder.There are a lot of moving parts to PF characters and a lot of options. I think it's definitely one of the more complex RPGs out there, based on my experiences.
The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.
What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.
But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.
I think D&D managed to skate by on the idea of being of middling complexity mainly because it was D&D. It had a legacy of being only moderately complex, a reputation that declined as more options were added to the game.
PF has also added more options over the years, with many of those options being surprisingly fiddly - something core PF was drifting toward compared to D&D with things like rage powers, bard rounds of music, paladin mercies, and so on - but later additions like the alchemist, summoner, and much of the ACG offerings pushed even harder.
There are a lot of moving parts to PF characters and a lot of options. I think it's definitely one of the more complex RPGs out there, based on my experiences.
And that is also true. The downside of having things is, well, that you have to handle those things.
I might add, this is also why I like it. The 5e approach, that if you aren't playing a spellcaster, you're basically done with you character at level 3 is just a bit too constrained to me and I also like interesting mechanics in classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestion: transition from meat-space product model toward a database model. Physical books have pretty cover art and do look sweet sitting on a shelf, but that's about all anybody likes about them...
While I respect your position (and agree with some of your practical points) I'd hate to see books go - I spend FAR too much time looking at screens in my line of work. I love books and would stop playing Pathfinder if I had to look at a screen in order to do so.
I know that this is only MY opinion - not speaking anyone else...
(but, Books Are Great!:-)
My complexity rating system is:
(1) Rules-light.
I'll invent a rules-light RPG here as an example:
To create the game setting, take turns making statements about the game setting. Everyone must agree with everyone else's statements.
Each character has four stats: Heart, Head, Fist and Grace. Roll a dice for each one, or make up numbers.
When you attempt a task, roll a dice for each point of the most relevant stat. For example, if you shoot at someone and have a Grace of 3, roll 3d6. Each one that gets a 4+ is a 'success'. The more successes, the better!
There are no other rules.
(2) Casual-friendly.
D&D 5e is an example of this. Instead having different bonuses and penalties for conditions like flanking, prone, grappled, flatfooted, blinded, they all give 'Advantage' and 'Disadvantage' on attack rolls.
(3) Heavy.
Pathfinder is an example of this.
(4) Ultra heavy.
Anything that makes Pathfinder seem simple.
Note that you can have depth without complexity, and complexity without depth.
I think there’s also been a rash of “rules in 4 pages” kind of games.
I hate those I could just throw those back they get old so fast I assume some people like them but they are not for me.
My complexity rating system is:
(1) Rules-light.
I'll invent a rules-light RPG here as an example:
To create the game setting, take turns making statements about the game setting. Everyone must agree with everyone else's statements.
Each character has four stats: Heart, Head, Fist and Grace. Roll a dice for each one, or make up numbers.
When you attempt a task, choose the most appropriate task and roll a dice for each point of the most relevant stat. For example, if you shoot at someone and have a Grace of 3, roll 3d6. Each one that gets a 4+ is a 'success'. The more successes, the better!
There are no other rules.(2) Casual-friendly.
D&D 5e is an example of this. Instead having different bonuses and penalties for conditions like flanking, prone, grappled, flatfooted, blinded, they all give 'Advantage' and 'Disadvantage' on attack rolls.(3) Heavy.
Pathfinder is an example of this.(4) Ultra heavy.
Anything that makes Pathfinder seem simple.Note that you can have depth without complexity, and complexity without depth.
Where would you put White wolf Storyteller system 1 1/2?
I guess traveler would be a 5| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe 5e recalibrated players' definition of "complex."
-Skeld
I'd have to agree with this. As someone that made his first Pathfinder character this past weekend in a few years, wow did that feel needlessly complex. 5e's far less complexity seems about right for what I expect from a modern game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess traveler would be a 5
Mongoose Traveller is so rules light, I just ran a game over the weekend with nothing but an outline, a 1 page simple rules summary for the players and a 2 minute verbal explanation. I'd give it about a 1.25 by that chart.
I guess traveler would be a 5Mongoose Traveller is so rules light, I just ran a game over the weekend with nothing but an outline, a 1 page simple rules summary for the players and a 2 minute verbal explanation. I'd give it about a 1.25 by that chart.
Sorry for confusion. Classic traveler.
See right their to each their own I get bored of games that are overly simple. I could actually see myself liking 5e but the options are to limited.
As someone that made his first Pathfinder character this past weekend in a few years, wow did that feel needlessly complex. 5e's far less complexity seems about right for what I expect from a modern game.
Pathfinder is good if you want character creation and levelling up be something you can do to entertain yourself for a few hours.
5e is good if you want someone to be able to create a level 6 character in a few minutes while everyone else is waiting to start playing.
As someone that made his first Pathfinder character this past weekend in a few years, wow did that feel needlessly complex. 5e's far less complexity seems about right for what I expect from a modern game.Pathfinder is good if you want character creation and levelling up be something you can do to entertain yourself for a few hours.
5e is good if you want someone to be able to create a level 6 character in a few minutes while everyone else is waiting to start playing.
I Don't think it takes me a few hours to level a character you might be exaggerating a bit. I will say that 5E did stream line character creation to me it seems because you don't have to look over as many options, and like 2 steps are removed in their as well.
I was thinking about creating a high-level PC from scratch. But you could certainly spend a few hours looking over all the possible feats / spells that are available to you if you wanted.
I was thinking about creating a high-level PC from scratch. But you could certainly spend a few hours looking over all the possible feats / spells that are available to you if you wanted.
Yeah ok I could see if you wanted to be thorough and make a 15+ level wizard (or anyone with a substantial skill list really) it taking a few hours I feel like I would use to much of that time on magic items really. I'm kind of a traditionalist as far as that goes. I prefer starting them at 1 and working them up. Occasionally I'll get a hankering for a level 10 starter but I feel like If I let them start to high level they make weapons instead of characters.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That richness of options (and the importance of them) is one of the main benefits of Pathfinder to me. I'm a stay-at-home mom with PhD in mathematics. I don't have the time to keep up with mathematics research, but Pathfinder gives me something I can sink my intellectual teeth into and enjoy.
Coming out with a new game is never an improvement to the health of the existing game. It may be better (though this is debatable) for the health of the gaming community, but it can't be good for the health of the game, because it's not the game that is mostly being played anymore. Can anyone really claim that DnD 3.0 was healthier after 3.5 came out?
I have no interest in 5th edition, because it doesn't have the options. Also, I feel like just Pathfinder and Starfinder is enough, I cannot continue to work on mastering them if I add in other games.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sometimes spend hours creating a level one character. Of course, most of time is spent looking through hundreds of feats before landing on something like "power attack."
That's like half the fun though. I love the myriad options to building a character. Even if you have a sub-optimal build, it's still fun.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who spends hours creating a high-level PC?
-Skeld
Are you signing your name, or answering your own question?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who spends hours creating a high-level PC?
-Skeld
Edit: I could see taking that much time if you're a game developer...
Confession time:
1. Most corporate meetings I've been in have at best five minutes' worth of content per hour of talking.
2. My assiduous, nigh-indefatigable note-taking during hour after hour of meetings has been commented on.
3. I've spent hours creating high-level PCs...
I could see two books on the horizon that might take the place of a new edition. One could be, say Pathfinder lite a streamlined accuracy bounded version of the game. It would be a single hardcover of significant size that gets little if any support after publication. The other, Paizo finally throws down on an epic hardcover, which also gets little or no support after publication.
Coming out with a new game is never an improvement to the health of the existing game. It may be better (though this is debatable) for the health of the gaming community, but it can't be good for the health of the game,
WEG Star Wars 2e was better than 1e. Same with Vampire the Masquerade, Exalted (which was based on a variant of 3e VtM's engine), and plenty of other systems. The initial version of each of those games we're rough around the edges and the Second Edition polished those edges. I think we can all agree that Pathfinder does have edges that needed polished, hence Unchained.
|
|
Who spends hours creating a high-level PC?
-Skeld
Edit: I could see taking that much time if you're a game developer...
Confession time:
1. Most corporate meetings I've been in have at best five minutes' worth of content per hour of talking.
2. My assiduous, nigh-indefatigable note-taking during hour after hour of meetings has been commented on.
3. I've spent hours creating high-level PCs...
1) For planning meetings and other non-technical stuff, I agree. Technical reviews and briefings I work on or present are too data dense for that rule to apply. Some of them last 3 days.
2) Wierd. I can't remember ever taking notes in a meeting.3) If it takes me more than 20 minutes, it's taken too long. My one exception is picking spells for a Wizard's spellbook. That takes 20 by itself.
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loved the class fixes in the unchained, and would love to see another book in that direction. Fix of some older feats and spells.
The problem I have as someone who started with it for a few years and than went onto doing osr for the last 8 years or so is that getting back into it I got over whelmed fast with all the options. So I limiting things to Core and the APG, with everything else needing my approval.That way I can read over it first, cause there is so many options and choices to learn.
I think I can get a game with a lot of options with the Core, APG and the fixes in Unchained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who spends hours creating a high-level PC?
-Skeld
Edit: I could see taking that much time if you're a game developer...
It takes me a couple of hours to create a level one PC in Pathfinder. I take a fairly organic approach though, it’s definitely not streamlined and efficient (so I sometimes go back and change prior choices).
Also, I don’t generally come up with a character concept then try to build it, rather the process is part build part concept creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once I decide on the character I want to make it takes me about 20 minutes to crank out a first level character.
|
|
Who spends hours creating a high-level PC?
-Skeld
Edit: I could see taking that much time if you're a game developer...
It takes me a couple of hours to create a level one PC in Pathfinder. I take a fairly organic approach though, it’s definitely not streamlined and efficient (so I sometimes go back and change prior choices).
Also, I don’t generally come up with a character concept then try to build it, rather the process is part build part concept creation.
I usually start with a piece of art I like and then dive into questions about it. What class(es) does this character look like they have? What feats? What equipment? Etc.
If folks like taking hours to create a PC, that's great for them. :D
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want to spend hours on sci-fi character creation ?
Here's an Oldie but Goodie
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I start with an idea, like "how do I make Doctor Who for this?"
Which of course leads me to ask myself "does that mean I have to watch Doctor Who to make Doctor Who?"
Eventually I have to figure out what to do with the Dwarven Stargazer Oracle I made with an Italian name and (I assume) is definitely not like Doctor Who.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who spends hours creating a high-level PC?
-Skeld
Edit: I could see taking that much time if you're a game developer...
It takes me a couple of hours to create a level one PC in Pathfinder. I take a fairly organic approach though, it’s definitely not streamlined and efficient (so I sometimes go back and change prior choices).
Also, I don’t generally come up with a character concept then try to build it, rather the process is part build part concept creation.
I usually start with a piece of art I like and then dive into questions about it. What class(es) does this character look like they have? What feats? What equipment? Etc.
If folks like taking hours to create a PC, that's great for them. :D
-Skeld
Sometimes I’ll use a figure for inspiration, but my step one is usually: roll six stats, in order. So it’s hard to commit to anything until I see what that throws up. (I don’t feel honor bound to keep them that order, but so far the only change I’ve ever felt the need for is to swap two).
My complexity rating system is:
(1) Rules-light.
I'll invent a rules-light RPG here as an example:
To create the game setting, take turns making statements about the game setting. Everyone must agree with everyone else's statements.
Each character has four stats: Heart, Head, Fist and Grace. Roll a dice for each one, or make up numbers.
When you attempt a task, roll a dice for each point of the most relevant stat. For example, if you shoot at someone and have a Grace of 3, roll 3d6. Each one that gets a 4+ is a 'success'. The more successes, the better!
There are no other rules.
I'd just like to say, that I don't think the average staple dicepool mechanic (roll X number of dice - where "x" is the level of aptitude - compare it to target number, count successes)is a part of being rules-light. Shadowrun uses the same and it's anything, but.
I think the other things are more important, like the cutting back of attributes to a very few abstract ones, describing the character with keywords (that usually give some flat bonus, like advantage, or reroll, etc.), rather than numerical levels of excellence in different areas. Drastically simplified simulation rules, especially combat.
The collaborative narrative thing is, IMO, separate, but often goes hand-in-hand with those.
Otherwise, more-or-less agree with your assesment.
Where would you put White wolf Storyteller system 1 1/2?
For me, pretty much. It's easy to understand and pick up, everything works along the same lines, but it has a fairly long list of attributes and skills, fairly elaborated combat and overall simulation (but not nearly as elaborated as Shadowrun, for example), lots of powers and ancillatory systems.
It's complex, but in the sense of having a lot of options and depth. In the sense of just understanding it, ease of play, creating character, etc. it's pretty much medium-crunch. With some variation between the games in the WoDverse, for example, Vampire is pretty straigthforward, but Werewolf is surprisingly crunchy, with all the forms, ranks, spirit rules, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rolemaster is at the same sort of level in combat situations,
With the exception of the notoriously clunky initiative system/round breakdown, I have never found Rolemaster too arduous. It was my system of choice in high school.
I recently ran a one shot using RM, house ruling the initiative system.The main issue I had was with the lack of clearly defined effects in Spell Law. It was, contrary to popular belief, too rules light, with a sentence or two of fluff but little or no crunch to guide the GM.
Pathfinder is a great complexity level for me. Deep enough to keep one interested for the long term with rulings on most situations to allow one to adjudicate the game fairly. Love it :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestion: transition from meat-space product model toward a database model. Physical books have pretty cover art and do look sweet sitting on a shelf, but that's about all anybody likes about them...While I respect your position (and agree with some of your practical points) I'd hate to see books go - I spend FAR too much time looking at screens in my line of work. I love books and would stop playing Pathfinder if I had to look at a screen in order to do so.
You look are your character sheet, right?
-- Imagine your tablet or "phablet" laying flat on the table showing your character sheet. Except it's like a boss character sheet that updates evolving conditions affecting your alter-ego on the fly. Because it's an engine.
You're still going to have your dice and your table-tent and your minis and all the rest.
I prefer less options versus more options especially when many options in Pathfinder are sub-par imo. With 5E their are of course less options yet more quality options imo.
In Pathfinder:
Alertness: You get a +2 bonus on Perception and Sense Motive skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.
In 5E
It's called Alert
- + 5 bonus to initiative
- Cannot be surprised while conscious
- Other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being hidden from you.
The first I will probably never take especially if I don't have access to either or skill. The second is not tied to any skill and worth taking for everyone.
More options does not usually mean better imo.
It's not to say 5E is perfect by any means. I disliked that they brought back making certain creatures immune to attacks unless they are targeted by magical weapons etc. I prefer Damage Reduction as one is not obliged to carry magic weapons I wish their were more releases for 5E.
I can get not wanting a new edtion because of having spent money on the previous edition and/or preferring a new edition. The only reason that makes no sense to myself at least is that a new edition will invalidate older material. The older material can still be used. I have, can and will call people out on that in person. Twice once when 3E was released and when Wotc released Star Wars fellow gamers tried to imply that their older material was useless. I pulled copies of my books of my library opened them and showed them lo and behold the older books were still very much usable.
Now I can see a person existing campaign becoming invalidated in that their players may no longer want to play the older editions of a rpg and the DM does not want to switch over to the new edition. Other than that older material suddenly does not magically become useless no matter how many insist that it does imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Naw see apparently if they make a new edition you have to sell all your old stuff its in the rules somewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was so pissed at what they did with 4th edition Forgotten Realms I sold all my 3.5 edition books out of disgust and spite.
And then I used that money to buy Pathfinder. :-)
I should probably note, I'm not trying to incite an edition war, I'm more then happy with the choices and wish 5th edition and it's fans nothing but the best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestion: transition from meat-space product model toward a database model. Physical books have pretty cover art and do look sweet sitting on a shelf, but that's about all anybody likes about them...While I respect your position (and agree with some of your practical points) I'd hate to see books go - I spend FAR too much time looking at screens in my line of work. I love books and would stop playing Pathfinder if I had to look at a screen in order to do so.You look are your character sheet, right?
-- Imagine your tablet or "phablet" laying flat on the table showing your character sheet. Except it's like a boss character sheet that updates evolving conditions affecting your alter-ego on the fly. Because it's an engine.
You're still going to have your dice and your table-tent and your minis and all the rest.
I get you - totally!
I just happen to LIKE books - a lot ...