Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Basic: What should it be?

[Reynard]

While I have decided that D&D 4E is not for me, I commend WotC for creating the new Red Box and Essentials line as an attempt to draw a new generation of gamers to the game in the same way I was drawn in by the Red Box of 1983 (my brothers and I were not introduced by an existing group; we received the Red Box as a gift and explored it ourselves). Of course, I'd rather the game that creates a whole new generation of tabletop RPGers *not* be 4E, and that means it is incumbent upon Paizo (sorry guys!) to see WotC's move and up the ante.

So, what should "Pathfinder Basic" look like -- not just the game but the line? What strategy should it take? What should it include? Exclude? How should it relate to the "main" Pathfinder game?

For my part, I think Pathfinder Basic should also be a 3 level boxed set with trimmed down options and distilling the "essence" of Pathfinder (or, as I like to call it, D&D). But here's the thing: those 3 levels in Pathfinder (at medium progression) promise a whole lot more play time before the inevitable leap to the "main" game. That means there's an opportunity to produce a few modules in different styles and sub-genres for Pathfinder Basic, and perhaps even an "Expansion Set" going up to 5th or 6th level with new monsters, treasures, options, etc... I don't advocate a full on second game line like BECM D&D (versus AD&D), but perhaps half a years worth of adventuring that doesn't just give the kids a taste, but gets them truly hooked so they are begging for PFRPG, Bestiary, Gamemastery and the APG for Christmas (protip: release Basic in May and the Basic Expansion in late September or October, with modules sprinkled throughout).

What are others' thoughts? Do you think Pathfinder even needs a "Basic Set"?

 

[gamerprinter]

Best answer, no.

No.

Though I had some friends with the original red box and did play with them, I only really got into the game at the start of AD&D 1e - so I'm not a 'box' guy at all. Its always been PH, DMG, MM, FF, etc. - never a one box of all the rules.

If you want PF Basic - buy the Core, and the Bestiary, that's it, it already exists.

If you're asking about an entry level, watered down version of the game that's easier to grasp - that would be spreading out Paizo money in directions that neither I nor Paizo wants to go. YMMV.

GP

 

[Reynard]

If you're asking about an entry level, watered down version of the game that's easier to grasp - that would be spreading out Paizo money in directions that neither I nor Paizo wants to go. YMMV.

GP

While I certainly won't argue with you about which direction you'd like to go, are you sure Paizo has no interest in attracting players beyond 3.5E stalwarts and existing AP fans? Because that's what I am talking about. Pathfinder seems toi be doing pretty well, but it's early yet. A strategy designed to draw new players -- not just new to Pathfinder, but new to tabletop role-playing in general -- to PFRPG isn't just a good idea, it is absolutely essential to Paizo's long term survival. I may *want* to live (and game!) forever, but one day I'm going to take the big old dirt nap. If Paizo loses me without replacing me, it's over for them. And it's all well and good if I introduce my kids and their friends to Pathfinder, but if there isn't a product out there that empowers those kids to take command of their own gaming destiny, Paizo withers and dies.

A "Pathfinder Basic" isn't an option for Paizo, IMO, it is a necessity.

 

[gamerprinter]

Why a necessity?

I don't meant to suggest this is what you are implying, but are the only players of D&D today, those who started at the 'red box' when things were simple back in 1974-79, so that all the customers over the last 30+ years were those same guys? Of course not, millions have joined the game since, yet it has always been more complex since the beginning and with each new iteration.

What I am implying is that those millions who've joined the game since the beginning didn't need a 'red box' or an intro set to get into the game - they jumped in at whatever its current complexity was.

If the only way to get 'new blood' is creating a red box, then the hobby would be much smaller than it is today.

I've got the opinion that many of the brand new 4e players didn't need a red box to join the game either. (I'm talking brand new to RPGs here.)

So I don't see a 'baby step' version as necessary at all - and my opinion is the same with 4e's red box. I am sure it might attract some new blood, but highly unlikely to drive millions to join.

While a 'red box' PF version could attract new business, I don't see it as a necessity, and believe that the community will grow with its current level of complexity and not suffer because of it - in my honest opinion.

GP

PS: you are implying that the 4e's red box is a tremendous success and Paizo needs to review their line to reflect that, but I don't think there's any success to measure yet, it just came out. Paizo doesn't need to play 'copycat' for WotC's marketing ideas, they've got their own ideas, and so far its only spelled success.

 

[IronWolf]

While I have decided that D&D 4E is not for me, I commend WotC for creating the new Red Box and Essentials line as an attempt to draw a new generation of gamers to the game in the same way I was drawn in by the Red Box of 1983 (my brothers and I were not introduced by an existing group; we received the Red Box as a gift and explored it ourselves). Of course, I'd rather the game that creates a whole new generation of tabletop RPGers *not* be 4E, and that means it is incumbent upon Paizo (sorry guys!) to see WotC's move and up the ante.

I agree. I am not a 4e player and not likely to be one, but the Red Box set is a good move by WotC. I am not certain they have done the best implementation, but a game in a box is a good thing.

I started gaming as well through the Moldvay boxed set. It provided me many, many hours of enjoyment before I eventually moved to Advanced D&D.

So, what should "Pathfinder Basic" look like -- not just the game but the line? What strategy should it take? What should it include? Exclude? How should it relate to the "main" Pathfinder game?

I would suggest treating it like a gateway to the bigger game. I would cover at least the first three levels, possibly even up to four or five out of the gate. I would probably say use the slow level of XP progression, the intent being as you said make sure the box set will be more than a good afternoon of gaming, but try to get a good three to four months of gaming out of it before one would need to seek out the core ruleset.

I wouldn't want to see it a separate game like the old box sets were, but at the same time the ruleset needs trimmed a bit to keep from being intimidating.

In order to do this and fit into the page count one would likely need to first go through and remove anything that was above level for the box set (i.e. cut feats that you'll never qualify for due to level dependent requirements, drop the higher level spells from print, etc.).

Then look at what you have left, you'll likely need to cut some more to keep it manageable. Maybe make a further reduction to the spell lists, cut the feats down to the basic, "popular" feats. Drop the classes playable to maybe just fighter, rogue, wizard/sorcerer and cleric. Possibly even drop the equipment lists and descriptions down to the bare basics to further keep size down.

Essentially, you are looking to provide the bare basics to play the game. Those that get hooked can open their options by picking up the mainstream rulesets later.

Then inside the box set include a good starter adventure, some dungeon tile type things and some minis and a set of dice. Keep the margins very lean on this product and sell for as cheap as you can without outright losing money on it. Oh, and throw in a coupon for buying the Core Rulebook for a certain percentage off, even something like 10% off.

Like you said, this set would be to get new players into gaming with this system. And hopefully to provide an accurate to current core ruleset with reduced options to minimize learning hurdles for those people that don't have someone to show them the ropes.

Do you think Pathfinder even needs a "Basic Set"?

I definitely think they need a "Basic Set". For one it makes a great gift at a lesser cost than buying the full blown core books. It makes a product that Paizo can try to make sure is stocked at the big bookstores and for stores that might only want to dedicate a certain amount of space to Paizo in the store. It makes it easier for folks new to the game to pick it up without having someone teach them how to play.

And Paizo needs to introduce people new to RPGs right into their system. While I think Pathfinder is great and many others do too, a lot of us have been playing for awhile. And while we are likely to bring new players to the game a boxed set would allow them to bring fresh RPG players to the game cold. I think a boxed set is a great way to lower the entry point.

 

[IronWolf]

I don't meant to suggest this is what you are implying, but are the only players of D&D today, those who started at the 'red box' when things were simple back in 1974-79, so that all the customers over the last 30+ years were those same guys? Of course not, millions have joined the game since, yet it has always been more complex since the beginning and with each new iteration.

Box sets have been around for a long time though. I appears fairly regularly from 77 to 83. And then some scattered from about 89 to the late 90's. So the D&D game has seen boxed sets for a fair amount of time. Even 3.5 had a boxed Basic Set as well.

What I am implying is that those millions who've joined the game since the beginning didn't need a 'red box' or an intro set to get into the game - they jumped in at whatever its current complexity was.

If the only way to get 'new blood' is creating a red box, then the hobby would be much smaller than it is today.

Of course lots of folks have joined the game without using a boxed set first. It is certainly possible. But lowering the hurdle to entry is not a bad thing.

A boxed set that has what you need to get up and running makes an excellent gift, an excellent thing for a ten or twelve year old to beg for. It is the whole game in a box. Sure you can give someone a Core Rulebook, but now I need to get some dice, possibly a mini or two and such. A box set can include this, so a person is ready to play right away.

PS: you are implying that the 4e's red box is a tremendous success and Paizo needs to review their line to reflect that, but I don't think there's any success to measure yet, it just came out. Paizo doesn't need to play 'copycat' for WotC's marketing ideas, they've got their own ideas, and so far its only spelled success.

Paizo has brief mentions of considering a Basic Set on various boards already.

 

[pawsplay]

If the only way to get 'new blood' is creating a red box, then the hobby would be much smaller than it is today.

It is smaller.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well if the economy didn't suck so much as it does now, I think it would be bigger than five years ago - but how do you measure that? Is it smaller than it was in the 1970's?

I think it was bigger throughout 3e than ever before, and with the down turned economy significantly less. 3e didn't have a boxed intro set and 3e soared in sales.

I feel its bad to use 'today' as a comparison, because the economy is worse now than anything since the Great Depression. If the economy was in better shape, I would think so would be the RPG industry. Its smaller now because there are less dollars to make it bigger.

I don't think its due to the lack of a boxed set, that its smaller.

GP

 

[gamerprinter]

Box sets have been around for a long time though. I appears fairly regularly from 77 to 83. And then some scattered from about 89 to the late 90's. So the D&D game has seen boxed sets for a fair amount of time. Even 3.5 had a boxed Basic Set as well.

I do want to specify, that I mean 'box starter sets', not box sets in general - I've bought many setting box sets in 2e days: gray box FR, Menzobarrenzon, Birthright, Ravenloft - a couple actually...

Now I'm not saying that a box starter set isn't a good idea, just the OP's point that its some necessity that will kill PF if they don't make a box starter set is going off a bit on the deep end.

And to claim the new 4e red box is an overwhelming success - I say again, it just came out, there's no measureable success. To say that current 4e users are buying it is no measuring stick either - what matters especially in this discussion is how many new players who've never played an RPG will use the red box to enter into the industry. That's the only measure of success to go by. If 4e starts producing something else than hardbacks, their customers will buy whatever else they offer - those aren't new customers gained just existing ones staying 'existing'.

Honestly, I hope Essentials does broaden the user base, and Paizo doing so as well would be smart - but not a death knell if they do not - only time will tell.

GP

PS: I was still playing 2e up to 2006, so I missed the whole 3e to 3.5 fiasco, and had no knowledge of a 3.5 box starter set, that was before my time with that edition.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, a little hyperbole on my part. But my point is that Paizo can do something - create a Basic game- to ensure that Pathfinder makes inroads and established itself among new gamers, not just "legacy" gamers.