Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Intro Set - What Do You Want To See?

[mxyzplk]

Jason Bulmahn and Paizo are working on an introductory Pathfinder game. What do you want to see out of it?

Here's what I want to see!
- A boxed set suitable for distribution anywhere that sells board games. With D&D clearly going non-book, RPG sections in bookstores are going to dry up. I got into RPGs (Star Frontiers and then Red Box D&D) via a "normal" game store (not hobby shop) in small town Texas. Loads of places sell board games, so get into that channel.
- A much simplified ruleset. 3.X has frankly worn on me over time and makes me consider doing some 1e/2e again instead. Goodman Games' new DCC RPG's direction sounds really good (no minis focus, no skill points) except for the "races as classes" part. ("Way they used to do it" isn't good per se, "simpler" is good.) I'd like a Pathfinder Intro game to not stress total compatibility, but like BECMI vs AD&D be a simpler version attractive to the people otherwise going to OSR and Microlite type games because they're sick of the rules wonks and bloat.
- Not be specifically "for kids". I don't want to see simpler plots, more four-color bad guys/adventures, etc. - just a much smaller set of rules to worry about.

I want it to be something I'd possibly choose to run when I want the Paizo Golarion/AP awesomesauce but don't want to spend hours building mid level NPCs and fretting over the details of stealth rules.

You?

 

[darjr]

Something simpler, yes, but compatible. More so than the BECMI <-> AD&D crossover.

Something that could be played for more than a couple of sessions. Even if it only goes to level 3 (or 14 if the classes are simple enough) and then everything after that is a quick overview of what to give characters above that level, like in the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh expert set for levels above those given in the book.

Even if the classes need to be uber simple versions with preassigned feats as class features, I think it'd work, maybe even because of that simplification vs despite it.

Then I could give some one the box and the first book in an adventure path, then they could go on from that, either doing their own thing or continuing the adventure path.

Maybe it means they don't quite need the core book, but it would mean they are a ready made customer for the adventure paths and other supplemental books. And I'll bet the core book will go to many of them anyway.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I just had a look at a few threads over in the 4e forum, one in particular by Mercurius looking at 4e groups possibly switching to Pathfinder. While a majority of posters were negative towards even looking at Pathfinder, I think a good percentage on that thread made reference to a 4e ruleset with 4e Pathfinder modules would be ideal. A lot have trodden the 3.x road and never want to go down it again. In the main, there is considerable mention of 4e being simpler/better to run.

With this in mind, I think the key thing that Jason's got to do is simplify the experience for the GM. I'm not too sure if this is a case of channeling a bit of OD&D or perhaps even making miniatures only an option. But GM prep for an intro set needs to be seriously reduced. Perhaps it is all in the style of stat-blocks and removing any assumed knowledge (such as the range of an Enervation spell etc.) All you need is what's in front of you and with a handful of simplified 3.x rules - you are right to GM the game.

Anyway just a thought.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Even if the classes need to be uber simple versions with preassigned feats as class features, I think it'd work, maybe even because of that simplification vs despite it.

Actually this is an interesting point. I think there is more fun for the beginner in a good (perhaps even spectacular) variety of feats. However, the variety of spells (or possible actions in combat) is the thing that I think needs to be constrained. I think an intro game needs to maintain that magic of crafting a character "just" like what I have in my head. However, in terms of play at the table, you most probably don't want certain players paralyzed by indecision over the myriad of options at their disposal. You most likely want them focused on a small handful of options during play - where as you want them spending hours reading over all the magical character options between game sessions.

And just to add: an intro set would be perfect if it was filled with art and diagrams on every page. Turning the artwork up to 11 is the key to giving new(er) players the feel of the fantasy world they will be playing in. Anything that helps them tap into their own fantasy experiences and bring it to the table. Art and diagrams everywhere would be tremendously important: a true cornerstone of the entire project.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[GreyLord]

KISS

Keep it Simple 'Stud'*

I'm not attracted to play Pathfinder currently due to bad experiences with it in the past (past actually being pretty recently)...more with players than the system. To draw me into buying it would probably require a few things...

1. Obviously, first is the phrase above. Keep it simple. For an intro/basic set, I want something that doesn't boggle the mind. I want a set that you don't have to know what 20+ skills do, what 20+ feats are available and who can or cannot choose them...what the prerequisite for this class or that feat is. Give me something straight up. Give me something I can start playing within 5 minutes of picking it up.

2. Options. With that said, I ALSO WANT options. I want to actually be able to create a character. I want to be able to tailor that character to be MY character that is different then Cloe's character right beside me, even if they are the same race or class. I want this character creation to be quick and easy once I understand the rules. I want to be able to buy my own equipment, and do my own thing. Perhaps you only need 4-6 classes, maybe a few races, something to make me feel like I actually have some say in how the character is made.

3. A Full game. Make it a game that can be played by itself. I'm talking a full fledged RPG. It doesn't have to go up 20 levels, but something akin to the best Basic D&D sets that have been made...where they are a self contained game in and of themselves. If you never want to go any further...you don't have to. The best sets for Intro/Basic for D&D were the Original Red Box Basic D&D, and the 3.5 Basic Black Dragon Box (specifically the Black Dragon cover...the Blue Dragon cover stunk). These were full games in and of themselves. They only allowed you to go up to 3rd level, but they had simplicity with limited skills, feats, yet also had choices for classes, equipment lists, monster lists, etc. You could create your own adventures and game with those sets for as long as you want, while you kept creating new and different characters once you tired of the other ones.

The most recent D&D 4e starter set was soooo close...and yet so far. If they had included an equipment list, and abridged character creation rules, it too would have been one of the idea starter/basic sets. Make this Pathfinder set one of the ideal ones.

4. Publicity. The final area which I think the new D&D 4e starter set is getting, and the original Red Box set did...is get saturation.

It might seem silly to saturate the market with a set till they can't/won't take anymore and sell it at rebate...but you know what...that's the best type.

Once these things go on sale, that means the kids that can't afford the original costs can actually spend their weekly allowance and maybe see what this thing is all about. It means that anyone who shops at a toy store, or Department store/Walmart will have seen it and at least had a choice to decide to get it or not. Hopefully people will at least know what it is.

This actually can be a RISKY move for a smaller company. It might not even be feasible, as one may lose money. The idea is you lose money to make money later on as they buy the other stuff...but that's useless if you go broke trying to get to that point.

In that light, even if you don't get saturation, perhaps something that garners enough publicity so that people even know what Pathfinder is. Just about everyone in the Western World has heard of D&D. Pathfinder does well amongst a small niche group of Roleplayers...but the man on the street has no idea what it is. At least a majority probably would give you a puzzled look, a few might say it's a movie, most won't have a clue. Get it to the point where I have options on WHO I can play with. I don't want to game with the only pathfinder gaming group in town who I may or may not get along with. I want to play with my buddies on my sports team...old doddling fools that we are. I want to play with the guys from my community groups and such.

Finally, since I don't pay much attention to the Pathfinder scene...this publicity will be vitally important...so that I will even know it exists and can see if there's anything in it for me. If the idea is to truly introduce or to get people to play Pathfinder, there has to be something to get us to know about the game, and attract us to it.

I'd say those are the key elements that it would need. Specifics, that's harder to say. You have to make it stand out from 3.5 (a big problem with pathfinder is many see it simply as a houseruled 3.5...and they already have 3.5 so why get Pathfinder). You have to make it attractive to fans of older editions, and perhaps do something to attract the new fans of the newer edition. I'll leave how to do that best to those designing it, but the above four items are what I see as absolutely essential for it to be a success at bringing in new blood to the fold.


*= replaced an offensive term for what is probably a much less and better term to be used!

 

[Walking Dad]

Here's what I want to see!

- A boxed set suitable for distribution anywhere that sells board games. For the same reasons as the OP. It also should include dice, an adventure with map and tokens (it shall be sold to former board gamers, right?) and pre-made character sheets.
- A not much simplified ruleset. People dislike Wizards 'Red Box' to be incompatible with their game line. But less rules bloat in the quickstart rules and specific things in the adventure books at the places the DM needs them (holding breath by stink gas trap, for example)
- Not be specifically "for kids". I don't want to see simpler plots, more four-color bad guys/adventures, etc. -
- Options. If pre-made characters, let the player choose between three feats or a very limited spell section. Making a charcter your own is an important part of Role Playing.

 

[mxyzplk]

Here's what I want to see!


- A not much simplified ruleset. People dislike Wizards 'Red Box' to be incompatible with their game line. But less rules bloat in the quickstart rules and specific things in the adventure books at the places the DM needs them (holding breath by stink gas trap, for example)

I agree with everyone on the "make it a full game with enough to really play (chars, monsters, equipment) not just three levels" but the simplification factor is important.

What the Intro game should NOT be is something that all existing Pathfinder customers buy. That's a waste of time and effort. Heck, we Paizo faithful will buy *whatever* it is that Paizo puts out this week.

The gap, what a product like this should address, is the new player, the OSR player, the alienated 4e player, the player that wants less rules. Even doing "feats as class powers," when combined with the large number of class powers in Pathfinder, kinda makes for a big ass character sheet.

Because BECMI and AD&D were compatible enough. Why do I say that? Because millions of Red Box buyers went on to play AD&D. Quod erat demonstrandum. And "let's take the same complex rules and try to bundle them a little more simply" has been tried in the form of D&D Essentials and seems to have been a failure, as I think the collapse of D&D as a book-based tabletop RPG demonstrates.

Follow the successful example, not the unsuccessful one!

That having been said, I do think DM prep time and run complexity are the two biggest enemies, not necessarily PC complexity, though obviously those are linked for NPCs.

Simplify, but NOT by immersion-breaking "minions/elites" kinds of constructs. The original Red Box was very clever about getting you into the world of immersion before even breaking out many rules, with the solo adventure and that bastard Bargle wasting the hot Elmore-drawn cleric you were with. It sent a very clear message to my young brain that this isn't a board game, the motivation isn't "power leveling," the motivation is hunting that guy down and making him pay. And that's what launches decades of success.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Pathfinder is kinda like AD&D in some ways.

I think what is needed is something a lot more like B/X, or BECMI perhaps. Basic D&D, anyway.

The key thing here is that NEW players, WITHOUT GMs to show them the ropes, should be able to pick up this book, these books, this box set, these box sets - whichever - and, very soon indeed, *start playing*. Not necessarily talking gearheads here, fans of mathematics, engineers-in-the-making, IT types, etc. Just, y'know, people. Oh sure, people willing to try something a little different, and yes, to use their minds. But, most importantly, use them in *creative*, *ingenious* ways. Slogging through hundreds of pages of dull, intricate, sometimes counter-intuitive rules? Not appealing to most people - this might come as a surprise to some, but it's true.

Straight into the action. Straight into the roleplaying, the exploration, the creative problem-solving. None of this "Uh, how does this rule work again?" kind of crap. It just gets in the way, and will quite possibly turn folks off RPGs for life.

So yeah, definitely KISS and make up [the numbers that should already be there].

I like the idea of a modular RPG. So, a basic core, easily extensible to the advanced version (i.e., Pathfinder Fantasy RPG). And likewise, it should be a trivial matter to work "backwards", as it were. Or "downwards", perhaps, in terms of complexity.

Some would be perfectly happy sticking with the basic game. And why not! Nothing wrong with fast-paced combat, a sleek, streamlined system, a more disciplined yet compelling approach to magic and magic items, and so forth. Even so, I can't see Pathfinder faltering, losing sales to its svelte sister. So to speak. Maybe other games will be "endangered", and that will be for the company/ies concerned to sort out... if they can.

Quite excited at the prospect of this new game. And hey, if it's basically 5 levels a box of more or less standard PFRPG, well. Never mind. It will still be very interesting to see how it goes. It's just that *I* wouldn't be buying in that scenario, not even for others. Doesn't mean that applies to anyone else, though!

 

[Treebore]

Yes, at this point I think if people are not playing PAthfinder it is either because they are playing 4E, or something else, Why? The reason I usually hear is because the "other" RPG is simpler.

So like I told Jason when I talked to him at Neon Con, I think this should not only be a intro game, I think it should a complete but much simplified game.

Like I said at the time, I am not the only one who loves Paizo and their products, but doesn't play Pathfinder. Or 4E for that matter. It will not be that hard to simplify 3E a great deal, look at Microlite as a possible example. Plus do so while still maintaining a high degree of compatibility.

Jason is obviously a very sharp guy, especially with game design, so I hope he steps back and see's how to do this. Then I hope they do it.

 

[Mr Baron]

Pathfinder lite

I would love to see a Pathfinder lite system, that plays a bit faster, with a faster set up and that has less rules....Sorta a step back and one step closer to OSR.