Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8113376" data-attributes="member: 7026617">The early Adventure Paths were absolutely problematic in some areas.&nbsp; I'm just noting this is a chronic problem with new systems and new editions of older systems.A lot of the misdesign is not the consequence of the lack of the GMG though (though its a fair complaint that it wasn't available for a while); it was because of designing things with the assumption that things from the prior system or 3e D&amp;D applied.&nbsp; I suggest a brand new person to the game would not have made those assumptions (and that some of them were signs of design problems that walked into PF1e from D&amp;D3e rather than being intentional design issues of the latter which were deliberately brought over from the former).&nbsp; As an example, the basic encounter structure is explained in the core book.&nbsp; Most problems that come up with it are because people don't believe them (including sometimes some of the people doing work on APs).I don't.&nbsp; That has been untrue with far more games than not, and its particularly the case with early edition changeovers (as time goes on, its not uncommon for editions to noodle at the margins, but even then its risky--ask anyone playing Shadowrun 4e if their Shadowrun 3e assumptions were helpful).I disagree that it can't handle all of those, and at least one of them (the lower or higher monsters) I'm not sure why this is a problem.&nbsp; It absolutely can handle people who aren't playing perfect (it can't handle people who aren't even trying, but those are not the same thing).So yeah, I think I'm sticking to &quot;hyperbole&quot;, because much of this is simply not true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8113376, member: 7026617"] The early Adventure Paths were absolutely problematic in some areas. I'm just noting this is a chronic problem with new systems and new editions of older systems. A lot of the misdesign is not the consequence of the lack of the GMG though (though its a fair complaint that it wasn't available for a while); it was because of designing things with the assumption that things from the prior system or 3e D&D applied. I suggest a brand new person to the game would not have made those assumptions (and that some of them were signs of design problems that walked into PF1e from D&D3e rather than being intentional design issues of the latter which were deliberately brought over from the former). As an example, the basic encounter structure is explained in the core book. Most problems that come up with it are because people [I]don't believe them[/I] (including sometimes some of the people doing work on APs). I don't. That has been untrue with far more games than not, and its particularly the case with early edition changeovers (as time goes on, its not uncommon for editions to noodle at the margins, but even then its risky--ask anyone playing Shadowrun 4e if their Shadowrun 3e assumptions were helpful). I disagree that it can't handle all of those, and at least one of them (the lower or higher monsters) I'm not sure why this is a problem. It absolutely [I]can[/I] handle people who aren't playing perfect (it can't handle people who aren't even trying, but those are not the same thing). So yeah, I think I'm sticking to "hyperbole", because much of this is simply [I]not true[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification