| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone,
First of all, I apologize if this comes across as rambling. I had a sleepless night, and thoughts just kept rummaging around in my head, so this is just as much to get my own thoughts straight, and hopefully to liven up your day a little, with either some introspection, some discussion, or some outrage. Take your pick. ;-)
My name's Kim Frandsen, and I've been playing Pathfinder since the inception of it, and RPGs since I was 13 (now clocking in at 38, much to my chagrin). I'm also both a freelancer and an editor for the current version of Pathfinder (for anyone curious, have a look at my profile, my own works are up there.)
But this is not about me - This is about the (hopefully) bright future of Pathfinder. There's been a lot of talk about how the game might change, and what the new mechanics might be, but apart from the glimpses, we get through the podcasts and so on, we won't know for certain what we have until the Playtest version is available in August.
So what is this thread about I hear you ask?
Well, it's about the general principles of what I hope (and want) to see in a game, both as a player, a GM, and someone who's written for Pathfinder (and plan to do so in the future).
Any game in my view should boil down to 3 principles: Fast, Fun, and Furious - though these are not as straightforward as they sound, so I'm going to break them all down.
FAST:
By fast, I don't mean that it should be over with quickly. What I mean is that it should be fast to get to the action. I.e. character creation should be quick, balanced against the choices you have available. Some games go overboard in either direction, making for characters that feel same-y, or they dig so far into the rules and options just during character creation that it takes you several hours just to get started. Neither is what Pathfinder should be looking at, and I'm hoping this is part of what the Playtest will achieve, a balance of options, speed, and manageability.
Fast also applies once the game itself has started, and I think we're seeing steps in the right direction here, with the action economy being changed. Combats, on higher levels, tended to slow down the flow of the game, and while that is fine for the fight with the BBEG, it should not apply when you're just fighting a bunch of random lackeys.
Equally, for the GM, the move towards simplified monster creation is a smart one. Having done this on quite a number of occasions (to quote Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter: See my published works), I've found that comparing Starfinder (I know, I know, different system, but it IS at least similar) to Pathfinder, I can make 3 or so creatures for Starfinder in the same time that I can do 1 for Pathfinder. Even when converting creatures directly over, it's something like a 2 for 1 scale. If PF 2 goes that way with their monster creation, it'll make things much easier for the GM, though I do hope for a few more (or better codification) of monster abilities, as some are clearly more powerful than others, at least in their current incarnation.
FUN:
While saying that a game should be fun seems like a rather obvious notion, you'll note that not all games are actually FUN. What they are, and should be, is engaging. They should make you WANT to lose hours and hours playing them with your friends, they should make you WANT to keep going just that one hour more, and they should make you WANT to come back to the gaming table for one more go.
Various games accomplish this in many ways, and Pathfinder has historically played towards the power-fantasy of being "a mighty so-and-so, defeating the evil villain". Should it remain that way? Yes, I think so, as it has delivered on a grand scale, epic combats and encounter (in the forms of the various APs), but it should also try to deliver that feel on the lower end. I want villains and monsters to be despicable foes, something for the heroes to overcome.
That said, Pathfinder also left room for you to create heroes that became villains, played the villain yourself, or create villains that you can relate to at least. And that is something it needs to retain. Not every monster or foe should be some dastardly over-the-top villain or cosmic horror. Sometimes, the worst horrors are right in front of you. And those are equally engaging to overcome.
That leads into something else: I believe that the GameMastery Guide was a bit of an overlooked gem, one that's not referenced very often, but even though I consider myself quite experienced, I still referred to it from time to time and suggested it to new GMs. I hope to see part of that incorporated into the GM's section of PF 2.
FURIOUS:
This one is probably the hardest to explain. Normally, I'd say bloody. But let's call it visceral instead. And I don't mean gore in this case, but I would like to see a move towards making the fights more epic in scale. Have the heroes take on an "Orc Horde", rather than just a few of them (not necessarily mass combat, though that might be part of it) - that's something that takes too long in the current incarnation of the game. It can be a lot of fun for players to mow down enemy after enemy (even if not everyone is a "murderhobo"), but it shouldn't bog them down.
This leads me to simplification: There's no need for there to be a table or rule for every single possible thing you can ever think of. Some things are best left to GM fiat, BUT those should not include player abilities, spells, and the like. The reason for this is simple: As a player, you like having an idea of what your character can actually do. So when you use "X" ability, it should do "Y", not "Z (at the GM's discretion)", but for the other side of the screen - yeah, break it. Make the opponents and encounters as simple to run as possible, so that the gaming group can get the maximum enjoyment out of it.
Finally, I'd like to see player behavior incentivized as well, as part of this. Each GM and playgroup have their own playstyle - some roleplay every encounter with a shopkeeper, others just want to murder everything in sight, loot their corpses, and burn the dungeon. And either approach is fine, but I'd like to see a way for a GM to encourage his group to continue on their merry way.
This is tricky though, as I'm sure we've all met GMs who wanted to play the game "their way" - so realistically, I might be engaging in wishful thinking here.
Right, those are the sleepy thoughts of a father, who's been up way too early, and who knows he's got a full day of work ahead of him, after 3 hours of sleep. :P
Let me know what you all think. :)
|
It seems like Pathfinder 2 will build on Pathfinder and Starfinder, especially Unchained and, to a degree, on D&D 5e and other, newer systems. I'd expect the playtest, then, to showcase a lot of the "weirder" mechanics.
With that in mind, I think Pathfinder 2 has the potential to include everything we love about what has come before, and pave the way forward for 10 more great years of roleplay.
Personally, there are a few things I'd like to see, but I'm going to keep quiet, just in case they don't come to pass and I get the chance to publish those ideas instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say...
Fixes: Tweaks, few wholesale system changes. Add more options if you want, but leave a path to compatibility to PF1e.
Flexible: Empowering more character concepts in the little decisions, not just the choices of race and class.
The game is already Fun and Furious. The game is even Fast unless you're a spell caster with a lot of spell descriptions to read.
Realize, of course, that automation is essential to play this game and to keeping it quick. PF is well past being a pencil-and-paper game. You're no longer selling game system books. You're selling data sets for Hero Lab.
The only true book content left is that describing the world or a plot.
|
I have long said that the greatest strength of Pathfinder is there is a rule for everything, but the greatest weakness of Pathfinder is there is a rule of everything. For every time the PF rules allowed you to know exactly how to adjudicate a particular situation it seemed like there were three rules standing in the way of you doing something cool. Instead of the rules saying "here is how you can do this amazing thing" they more often than not said "here's why you cannot". I support the 3F model suggested above.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about the game being past pen and paper. I played 3.5 when they released a splat book every month, and PF now without any issues. I don't need any software to do anything. The only reason I even have Herolab is to speed things up, but even if HL fell off tomorrow and got sucked into a black hole it would no impact on game time because I don't use it during the game. I only it to prep.
As for it being fast, that is nice, but I like PF because of the options I have. You're not going to get fast, and have the options because the options are what slow people down.
Well I'm pretty fast. I built high level casters by hand in about 15 minutes, but I don't think that's the norm. No, I didnt use HL, and yes I was in a rush I tend to take longer when I know I have more time.
As for the level of detail regarding "you can do this" in the game, I like it. I will do think some of them can be simplified, and done away with but overall I see it as a good thing.
I would like for some feats such as power attack and combat expertise should just be default options.
Realize, of course, that automation is essential to play this game and to keeping it quick. PF is well past being a pencil-and-paper game. You're no longer selling game system books. You're selling data sets for Hero Lab
I disagree... probably 90% of PF players have never even touched HeroLab. I've never seen anyone use it in my entire PF career.