| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
19% of fans prefer abstract maps (no grids) and 18% prefer theater of the mind. That's a full fifth of the potential audience that doesn't like using minis.
So why exclude the maybe 40% of gamers who like theater of the mind?
But do they need to loose as much as a third of the potential audience?
Your words.
First, you quote that 18% of people prefer TotM. Then you round that up to one fifth. Then you double that figure. Then you remove almost a quarter of that inflated statistic, ultimately arriving at a number that is still very nearly double the original one.
That is what you get with ToTM. Approximations. Shifting goal-posts. A DM who may or may not remember what they themselves have said.
Second, who's losing any of a "potential audience"? Just because X respondents to a survey say they prefer ToTM doesn't imply that they're not already doing it... it's their preference after all. There may very well be exactly $0 in lost profits related to this topic.
It's sort of like someone saying Starbucks should "do more" for people who like tea because some survey shows 18% of hot-beverage-drinkers prefer tea. Though Starbucks doesn't focus on tea, you can get some at their places, so... really, catering to that market in any way may not actually generate any additional sales, though it might make the tea-drinking minority happier to have a few more varieties to select from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also keep in mind humans arent some sort of infinite resource.
The time it would take multiple devs to think about how to convert tons of rule settings meant for a grid to approximation, without having that one spell/feat/class feature/... break something.
Is actually time you could instead put these same devs to work on improving and poshing other parts of the system that more people actually enjoy using.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never found it especially hard to play PF1 gridless. I guess you have to play a little "looser" with the rules, but that's my preference anyway.
|
You're going to need to pull some numbers up with the whole malark about 1/3 of the TTRPG market declaring grid maps a no-sell.
http://slyflourish.com/2016_dm_survey_results.html
"Of 6,600 respondents on preferred combat type, 63% answered 5' gridded combat, 19% answered abstract maps, and 18% answered theater of the mind."
Solid 1-in-5 D&D players prefer TotM and an equal amount prefer abstract maps that don't rely on grids (and also likely don't rely on moving minis) .
That's your 40%.
Now, this was eighteen months ago. Since then the audience for D&D has grown by like 30%, with a lot of new players coming in (with half of new players since 2014 watching games online), so quite a few might be happy mapless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you can make Pathfinder work fine with abstract maps or without any map at all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I noted above, I do TotM almost exclusively. I would've been part of the 18% in that survey.
I'm totally fine with the rules not going into more detail on how to do that. Indeed, a certain amount of 'laxness' in terms of the movement rules is part of the appeal of doing a Pathfinder game that way. And I strongly doubt I'm alone in feeling that way. Indeed, most people who do TotM and have posted in this thread seem to feel similarly.
So what you have to ask is, of that 37% who prefer to do things in a non-grid based way, how many want additional rules dealing with that? I think you'll find it's a much smaller subset of that number.
Now, the game could be made less friendly to TotM (changing measurements to squares, for example) but they don't seem to be doing that, so I honestly don't think them not focusing on non grid-map users is a big deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be a bit contrarian. "abstract maps" doesn't necessarily follow ToTM style play. I have a gm who uses non grid maps, and you move like a wargame. 1" is 5 feet. He even cut out little balsa measuring sticks for standard movement rates.
Just to be a bit contrarian. "abstract maps" doesn't necessarily follow ToTM style play. I have a gm who uses non grid maps, and you move like a wargame. 1" is 5 feet. He even cut out little balsa measuring sticks for standard movement rates.
Yeah, I've seen some crazy gridless set ups at local game shops. Folks be using laser pointers to judge line of sight and crap.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right.
But do they need to loose as much as a third of the potential audience?Just saying "well.. we can't please everyone so we shouldn't even try" is defeatist and dismissive.
Paizo has some of the best devs in the industry. While they may not be able to find a happy medium that makes everyone happy, they should be able to strike a balance that makes it possible for a not insignificant number of TotM fans to still feel comfortable with the game.
People already play ToTM in Pathfinder 1, and Pathfinder 2 is making that style easier with various decisions like minimizing the prevalence of opportunity attacks. I really don't think Paizo has to worry about "losing" many players whose preferred style is already getting made easier to pull off, let alone a third of them. (Or 20%, or 40%, or whatever percentage you're going with at the moment since you keep changing it.) People who will only accept a game based on TotM probably aren't playing D&D or Pathfinder anyway.
That said, again, I wouldn't mind seeing guidelines for making TotM even easier. Whether that's sidebars in the corebook, or a whole chapter in the eventual PF2 Gamemastery Guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be a bit contrarian. "abstract maps" doesn't necessarily follow ToTM style play. I have a gm who uses non grid maps, and you move like a wargame. 1" is 5 feet. He even cut out little balsa measuring sticks for standard movement rates.Yeah, I've seen some crazy gridless set ups at local game shops. Folks be using laser pointers to judge line of sight and crap.
I have a gm who also uses literal wargaming terrain with that method, builds his own and has started a RPG terrain building club at the waldorf school he teaches at where his students build terrain then play rpgs in it.
My group sort of does both at once? We do theater of the mind, but we use the exact positioning the same as if we used a board and minis. It's just faster considering I don't have minis or grid-paper, and I suck at drawing.
I advocate the presence of a few sidebars about "Theatre of the Mind"-style gaming in the final PF2.0 CRB, if only because it just takes a few guiding principles and a bit of flexibility to make it work. However, my current love is using terrain. Sure, it costs money and requires storage space and display space, which is not easily accessible to new players or young adults who don't yet have their own homes and stable jobs and everything. But once you've crossed those hurdles (and yes, some gamers do actually have a life!) you can start to treat yourself (and your gaming buddies) to some more extravagant props.
Terrain building is a hobby in itself. Here is a half-finished Storval Stairs project, carved with a hobby knife out of layered pieces of insulation foam.
http://gdurl.com/RuIQ
If you've got the cash, Dwarven Forge is beautiful decor to play in. How some folks can claim that using terrain leads to a *lack* of imagination is beyond me. In this extension of Caizarlu's lair, we see a mix between painted figurines and pre-painted plastic. Of course, doing it yourself is better, but you get a wide variety of figures in the big Paizo/Wizkids boxes.
http://gdurl.com/VO67
Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles can be used to represent more than dungeons. Someday I hope to find the time to model my own castle sections, but in the interim, piled-up DF pieces work fine. Here, along with some quick homemade trees, the siege of Sandpoint is underway.
http://gdurl.com/jEne
Entirely homebuilt terrain, like this half-timbered townhouse, takes a lot more time, sure, but once you've got a few pieces like this you can really enhance an encounter setting.
http://gdurl.com/sspx
I like to switch between TotM and regular grid combat, depending on the situation. I think there are advantages to both, and I want my group to be able to do either. I don't think anybody loses anything (imagination or tactics wise) by doing just one though. That said, I see no reason for the developers to put much work into making PF2 TotM friendly. You are already handwaiving most situations, or at least using your judgement to determine what seems best. As Deadmanwalking pointed out, as long as the developers aren't actively working against TotM, it will be fine. And there are no indications that they are doing that.
And as Nox Aeterna pointed out, I would much rather have the developers focus their efforts on making a great game. Yes, TotM folks may be a large minority of gamers. But making the best version of PF2 will satisfy the vast majority of those players. So it's nothing to worry about.
Having played in a variety of styles, I like them all at different times. My current favorite is using the AP maps in Roll20, with the dynamic lighting/LoS feature.
I'm also really interested in getting into the gridless terrain style, as that fixes most of my problems with mats. (Wheldrake, those link are beautiful, btw)
I think my point is - all these styles currently work in PF1. Do they all work in some perfect sense? No. None of them do. What matters is what works for you. And I have a strong feeling that PF2 will manage to be at least as satisfying in these various styles as PF1.