|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The only Paizo product I own is the Pathfinder Beginner Box. (Though I've preordered the Playtest rulebook, because I'm excited about the game in a way I haven't been since 3E.)
And...but...well..I'm into math-lite games. Maybe I'm a simpleton, but I just like it to be simple, okay?
I realize that Paizo is focused on getting PF2 right. But just to say: I wish Paizo would release a math-lite "Simply Pathfinder" RPG as well.
When I proposed this for PF1, people just directed me to the Adventure Card Game. But I'm not talking about a card game - I mean a RPG.
Some suggested Pathfinder Microlite - and that is closer to what I'm looking for - but its implementation was a bit clunkly.
The Pathfinder Beginners Box is a good start, and I heard Paizo reps say that there are plans for a PF2 Beginner Box as well.
But what I'd really like to see are these four features to be included either in the PF2 Beginner Box, or as a distinct "Simply Pathfinder" or "Pathfinder Junior" product:
1) Scalable complexity (perhaps three levels: let's call it "Beginner Pathfinder", "Junior Pathfinder", and "Little Pathfinder"). Meaning that there's three benchmarks of simplicity: from the Beginner Box (almost as complex as PF), to a younger kids' version (simplified even more than the Beginner Box), to a young children's version (like WotC's Monster Slayers game).
2) Directly convertible. A system for converting any PF2 character or monster into (or out of) any of these three levels of complexity.
3) Little or no math. The Junior and Little levels would use no math. For example, just use 1d20 for all rolls (maybe with penalties and bonuses turned into 2d20 and take the lowest/highest), or adapt the elegant Tales of Equestria system.
4) Playable at the same table as players who are playing the full PF2! So one player could be playing PF2 with all the bells and whistles, another playing with Beginner-statted character, and a younger player playing according to Junior rules...seamlessly at the same table.
There are examples of super-simple RPGs:
Monster Slayers (super-simple D&D) released as PDFs by WotC. But it's really too simple - the complexity isn't scalable.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/monsterslayers
No Thank You Evil! Has scalable complexity.
Tales of Equestria. No Math! Elegant use of all polyhedrons.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If it helps, I've had a lot of luck running games for my seven-year-old using the Beginner Box and just telling him what bonuses he needs to add when he rolls. It's not too hard to keep track of low-level PCs, and having him do the arithmetic has helped improve his math skills.
In terms of kid-friendly RPGs, Monster Slayers isn't my favorite because it has the PCs just wander in and slaughter some caged creatures in a way that I find to be kind of creepy. I do totally want to check out No Thank You Evil somebody.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Number 4 would be the hardest to achieve. It's possible to make rules-light games like the ones you mention, but they're differently balanced games. Getting the scale of attacks, DCs, hit points etc to match up with the scales in PF2 without maths is going to be
For example, Tales of Equestria is really well-designed, and has an elegant way of making multiple dice matter without math, but the way it does that is by changing the scale. A roll of 4 is likely to be a success, depending on the task being attempted; in any form of D&D a roll of 4 is an embarassing flop.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
With + Level to everything, could be easy, drop a lot of the fiddly choices and modifiers, streamline it even more, yeah, could be really cool. Good time to drop ability scores, just use the modifier.
The math is already streamlined and simplified in PF2. All you add are: Level + Modifier + Item + Spell. Any other circumstance modifiers are a case by case basis, and are usually rare or easy enough to implement that it doesn't fiddle with the math formula too much.
You can simplify it further by removing scores and only using modifiers, but it's not really that big of a deal to begin with if you're already familiar with 3E rules.
This game has always been math heavy, and it's been that way in the beginning, even when THAC0 was a thing (and boy, was it the worst thing in the world). I'd suggest finding a whole other system whose balance isn't around math to better suit your needs.
2 is a bit hard. Easy to go one way (complexity to simplicity) but hard to impossible to go the other way.
I wish they would drop the level progression and make it simpler. Just mod+prof and go.
Pan wrote: I wish they would drop the level progression and make it simpler. Just mod+prof and go. That could be cool, and more bounded like 5th Ed, but with the 4-tiers of success system and big numbers (which the 4-tiered success system really leverages) they are going for, that ship has sailed.
sadie wrote: Number 4 would be the hardest to achieve. It's possible to make rules-light games like the ones you mention, but they're differently balanced games. Getting the scale of attacks, DCs, hit points etc to match up with the scales in PF2 without maths is going to be
For example, Tales of Equestria is really well-designed, and has an elegant way of making multiple dice matter without math, but the way it does that is by changing the scale. A roll of 4 is likely to be a success, depending on the task being attempted; in any form of D&D a roll of 4 is an embarassing flop.
Picture this: Let's say the Simply Pathfinder (SPF) book uses the "Tales of Equestria" rules. Has only four classes. When viewing Golarion through the SPF "rules lens" every NPC in the whole world is either a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, or Rogue.
Characters begin with only one racial power and one class power. (Or something like that...as I say, there'd be three tiers of complexity, ranging from Beginner PF to Junior PF to Little Pathfinder.)
Uses all the polyhedrons, but, as you say, their Difficulty Class is entirely different than PF2. No math.
How would this interface at the same table? Something like this:
The Simply Pathfinder book has SPF stats for all monsters in the PF2 monster manual. And conversions for other kinds of tests (perception, traps, saving throws). Basically there's a chart which converts PF2 DCs into SPF DCs.
When prepping for a game where there are PF2 and SPF players at the same table, the GM makes notes on what monsters and tests are in the module, and writes down the SPF stats alongside the PF2 stats.
The GM narrates the events for everyone ("A red dragon attacks! What do you do?"), but when it comes to dice rolls, the GM is basically GMing two different games at the same time.
When the Simply Pathfinder character does damage (which is always just one die), the GM just looks at a chart which converts SPF damage into PF2 damage. Voila!
Charlie Brooks wrote: If it helps, I've had a lot of luck running games for my seven-year-old using the Beginner Box and just telling him what bonuses he needs to add when he rolls. It's not too hard to keep track of low-level PCs, and having him do the arithmetic has helped improve his math skills. Okay, yeah, maybe the Junior Pathfinder would have a bit of math, but the Little Pathfinder would have none.
Malk_Content wrote: 2 is a bit hard. Easy to go one way (complexity to simplicity) but hard to impossible to go the other way. My main setting is Mystara, and we are very used to translating BECMI D&D-statted characters and monsters into the more complex later editions.
It's not impossible. There are protocols. There were official conversion guides published for converting from BECMI D&D to AD&D 1e and 2e. When a BECMI Fighter is converted to a later edition, it can be restatted as either a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin (or multiclassed warrior). A BECMI Thief can be restatted as a Rogue or Bard. etc. When the Mystara product line made the shift from BECMI D&D to 2e, we found out that some of the famous NPC Fighters were really Rangers or Paladins and some NPC Thieves were really Bards.
There are lots of monsters which first appeared in BECMI D&D (tortles, nightshade, choker, kopru...lots). Their stats and special abilities just had to be expanded when restatting them for later rules editions.
It can be done. There just needs to be a guideline or protocol for converting from a simple tier to a complex tiers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
4e DnD kind of did #4 with DnD essentials. It is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that "simpler" character creation options could be released later PF2 either by a 3PP or even Paizo. That said, it is looking like 2E pathfinder is going to be fundamentally incompatible with your vision of the game.
That is NOTHING like your "junior" and "little" levels however. Pathfinder without the math is just a setting, right? Why not just use No Thankyou Evil and change the fluff? Do you just really want to go through APs or something?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Way wrote: Malk_Content wrote: 2 is a bit hard. Easy to go one way (complexity to simplicity) but hard to impossible to go the other way. My main setting is Mystara, and we are very used to translating BECMI D&D-statted characters and monsters into the more complex later editions.
It's not impossible. There are protocols. There were official conversion guides published for converting from BECMI D&D to AD&D 1e and 2e. When a BECMI Fighter is converted to a later edition, it can be restatted as either a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin (or multiclassed warrior). A BECMI Thief can be restatted as a Rogue or Bard. etc. When the Mystara product line made the shift from BECMI D&D to 2e, we found out that some of the famous NPC Fighters were really Rangers or Paladins and some NPC Thieves were really Bards.
There are lots of monsters which first appeared in BECMI D&D (tortles, nightshade, choker, kopru...lots). Their stats and special abilities just had to be expanded when restatting them for later rules editions.
It can be done. There just needs to be a guideline or protocol for converting from a simple tier to a complex tiers. Thing is you aren't really just straight up converting through a chart. You are having to basically recreate the thing from scratch using the simple one as a guideline. Thats a fine thing to do every now and then, but it is by no means quick and easy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Have you considered just going freeform? I find it generally works far better than most rules-lite RPGs being published.
You want paizo to do a steamlined version of their streamlined rules system and then streamline it two times more for more grades of lesser complexity?
Seriously - take the setting and just roll a d20 for everything
The rules are not that hard, they weren'T even in pf1 if you just stuck to core
Don't underestimate kids, they are actually clever and if you make it interesting for them they are quick learners
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion
|
