| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I want to help make the game work, but that is me challenging myself as a designer. It is a challenge because this game is clearly not something I will ever play after the playtest. Why? Well, that is revealed with my first point of feedback.
What is roleplay and what is a roleplaying game?
These fundamentally integral concepts are discussed on pages 5 and 10.
The term "Roleplaying Game" has been used far outside it's logical and original meaning.
The issue I have here, is the rulebook implies that what Pathfinder does is roleplay , the truth of which is beside the point, because the way the book presents the concepts isn't about Pathfinder but is laying a claim to what all rpgs are, and that is the bad part that I feel really needs changed.
Paizo has a certain thing they are going for, a certain kind of play. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming that all roleplaying is the same as what Paizo is going for is bad because Paizo is going for a tiny slice of a massive pie, and telling new people out there that the entire pie is is just like Paizo's targeted slice is doing a disservice to the industry. Not to mention establishing expectations that players will hold when looking at other games claiming to be rpgs.
In fact, the book actually specifies swords and sorcery adventurers as part of what makes an rpg an rpg, which is something Pathfinder does, but not what an rpg does. Rpgs not only can be any genre, but do not even need to be epic nor heroic. Having a bunch of normal contemporary college students trying to survive being hunted by a homicidal maniac is as valid a concept for an rpg as anything Paizo puts out.
I know the book is obviously and rightly focused on what Pathfinder is, but it really should describe itself as a type of rpg with a specific focus on heroic swords and sorcery themes. That would not only be more accurate, but then the writers can either do a better job of describing rpgs in general, or they can leave that to be researched by curious newbies on their own and instead focus on what Pathfinder is, instead of confusing newbies over what an rpg is.
The term Roleplaying game has two words.
Roleplaying is to play a role, or said another way, is to pretend to be someone else.
A game, as the term is generally used, is a fun activity centered around making choices. (hence game theory becoming the study of decision making)
Thus, a roleplaying game, is a game all about making choices from the perspective of a portrayed character.
This is actually the original style of play, though it didn't take long for the poorly named "new school" players to completely subvert this intention, as evidenced by Gygax complaining about people "playing the rules" instead of playing the actual game.
The term "roleplaying game" has expanded in use to the point of being almost pointless, and about as broad in scope as "board game." Almost any game with a character progression system and a story is labeled an rpg these days, though some undefined element seems to come into play, leading to arguments over what does or does not count as an rpg, thus leading to Call of Duty being labeled as "not an rpg" while WTOR "is an rpg" even though both are combat games with set stories that you progress through by succeeding in sessions of combat.
Railroading is thus antithetical to the logical meaning of the term, as railroading is denying meaningful choice to the players, yet is perfectly acceptable to the expanded use of the term.
Personally, I hold that a true rpg is one that fits really close to the actual term and thus focuses on players having lots of agency and are focused on making choices from the perspective of their characters.
I would then consider other games as nominally rpgs when the players create their own characters and get to reflect and show some traits of their characters but are denied significant agency (such as when a pfs scenario dictates that once finished with plot point A, players go to plot point B. Keep in mind, this is about agency not tactics. Choosing what tactics to use is not agency.
Political Correctness
Do we really need a whole section on being politically correct and non-offensive?
Such a section sounds more like a disclaimer to avoid being sued. A valid concern by a company I guess, since it is expensive even when the charges are so ridiculous that a judge overturns them quickly. But really, that stuff needs to be in the fine print at the front.
Telling players to not do stuff that is entirely unrelated to the game is not only insulting to anyone who reads it, but also pointless as those inclined to behave in such a way are going to do so regardless of what you write. So don't waste the space on political correctness. Spend on the game itself.
Minor wording confusion
On page 5, it is mentioned that reaching 1000 xp means gaining a new level.
That is an odd spot for such a specific. Much better to phrase it as "once enough xp is acquired," that way it doesn't give any false impressions and it won't need changed if you alter xp and leveling.
Also, as it is a major change for those familiar with earlier editions, it stands out and draws attention to itself leading one to wonder if it a mistake, which is made worse by the fact that it doesn't go into detail and doesn't even mention where one can confirm whether xp changed or if it was just incorrect.
Formatting discussion
I love that the formatting, the conventions, and the reasoning were all explicitly addressed in their own section. Could do with a bit better presentation and more depth, but even as it is, it is wonderful to see.
Alignment
Much better descriptions than previous editions. I applaud this. It isn't perfect, but way better.
Perception
Perception seems to fail to distinguish two important things, alertness and attention to detail. You can have someone be very good at noticing details that go unnoticed by others and yet be less generally alert than others.
Further, i can speak from personal experience, that who notices whom first does not always react first. One guy who crashed into me admits that he saw me but froze up, and didn't even think, he simply watched it all happen. Meanwhile, I noticed him much later, but reacted quickly and turned things from a flat crash to a side scrape. Noticing first does not equal acting first.
Therefore, I find it an odd default for initiative.
I do like how you make a distinction between precise and imprecise senses. I totally thought I had a lock on that concept. :p