Anyone interested in cooking up a simplified PFRPG?

[Aus_Snow]

What it says on the tin.

Not looking to make money, or even publish, per se. No, in theory anyway, I'd be hoping to create / co-create / assist with (- ?) something that might end up being used by some GMs here and there - most likely GMs who already have the Pathfinder core book(s), I guess. A totally not-for-profit hobbyist experiment, if you like. Or, more simply, a house rules document.

And I don't mean levels 1-5, or even e6/e8/e10/etc. More like... Basic D&D is to AD&D? A bit more so / less so; who knows. Just, you know, not like Microlite20 (MicrolitePF?), suffice it to say.

I know there are some folks out there who will be interested in something vaguely along these lines. I do wonder, naturally enough, it this will be an exercise in herding cats - myself included, btw. Even so, perhaps there's enough common ground, that it could work.

What do you think?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm working on something similar, though I'm simplifying it in some areas (feats, multiclassing) and making it more complicated in others (class features, magic).

Be happy to compare notes with you.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sure! In fact, if anyone feels like posting anything along these lines, feel free. Even just bits and pieces, or whatever - it's all good.

No particular plans, at the moment, so I'm basically just interested in hearing about what other gamers on ENWorld might think about this general concept. I'm not fixated on the idea of doing it myself, for example, though I might. Likewise, if I ended up part of one of these projects - assuming there'd be more than one, ever; seems very likely - I wouldn't necessarily care how much "control" (or "say" IOW) I'd have.

More curious than anything else, essentially. All thoughts, ideas, perspectives, plans, contributions, advice, etc., etc., will be welcomed - and not just by me, I imagine.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Howdy,

While the idea is somewhat interesting, the problem I have is seeing how the scope would be determined.

For example, way back in Alpha, a simplified skill system was floated, which resembled Star Wars Saga and 4E; the outcry was so great, you'd think they were personally abusing gamers and posting pictures of it.

So when thinking about a "simpler" version, I personally gotta ask... what's simplified and who's going to be making that decision? Without a really clear objective, anyone that shows up is going to have their own idea of what needs to be simplified and what should be left complicated "because beginners need the structure to help them" or "it's really not that complicated".

Action types? CMB/CMD? Skills? Miniature-based? Attacks of Opportunity? Level range? Multiple actions (including attacks) in a round? Randomly rolled stats (like HP) and weapon damage vs fixed values? Attributes in the 3-18+ ranges vs just the bonus that most people care about?

I can think of an _awful_ lot of ways of simplifying down the game. Pathfinder's insistence on keeping "backwards compatibility" both helps and hinders this. The help is because an awful lot of the things that can be done are things that _can_ be done to d20-based games period. The hinderance is that Pathfinder did go ahead and make a bunch of changes so you've got to try and account for those, as well as the fact that a major source of popularity for Pathfinder is that it's 3.6 with all the bells and whistles turned on.

I almost think it'd be an easier project to grab the simplified rule-base you prefer overall and then add on the relevant Pathfinder bits and bobs from there. Basically, it's a lot easier to _add_ complexity than it is to trim it out.

I say this from the perspective of working on an SRD myself, where the SRD is relying to a large degree on an already done SRD. It's freaking tough, going through and making sure your references are correct, wording is consistent, and that you haven't left bits out. The mechanical considerations are a whole different story, trying to figure out which ones are really going to deliver what you want, deciding just which portion of your audience you're willing to lose because you've picked B over A, and then trying to figure out if your mechanics are going to interact all funky with something else in the core.

Figuring out what's going to be in the core is another tricky issue. You don't want to gimp it, but the more stuff you add in the more complex things become. And you bump up against a fundamental problem too, which is bringing non-core stuff into a core game. With more than a decade of material kicking around (3.0 and 3.5), it's pretty much a given that someone (either a player in the game or someone providing feedback on a draft of the rules) is going to point to a non-core source and declare the game a failure because they can break it. But of course, tapping into all that material is part of the draw of relying on a 3.x-based game in the first place.

I'd say that having a really clear idea of the goals and the audience are critical. Would this game be targetted at people that _like_ Pathfinder? Is it for people that like Pathfinder but have a bunch of non-gamers that they want to try running an rpg for and they want a system with a low barrier of entry for new folks? Is it other gamers that play rpgs but not D&D-style or based games and they want to try and get their dungeon on with a group that's experienced enough with rpgs but not willing to invest much effort in this game? Is it targetted at people that like D&D/Pathfinder but want a rules-lighter approach to it? What is it explicitly about Pathfinder that you're trying to tap into that you won't get from something else?

As a practical thing, I'm also slightly hesitant about Pathfinder in terms of the licensing and all. Which a significant portion of Pathfinder is under OGL, there's obviously bits that aren't. That would include the name "Pathfinder". Under the Pathfinder Compatibility License (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility) Section 5 first parapgraph reads:

"In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder."

There may or may not be a way of dealing with this, I'm not sure; I'm not a lawyer, so I personally prefer not to mess around with anything that isn't 100% clear. While tapping into Pathfinder's content (through the material released under the OGL, not the Pathfinder Compatibility License) to create a simplified version of the rules is certainly possible, I don't see a way of actually achieving what you're referring to legally. This particular project might face further problems, as I seem to recall dimly that Paizo has made some noise about doing this sort of project themselves as a pay product. I don't know any details though. However, here's a link...

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard.../pathfinderRPG/paizo/pictureOfPathfinderBasic

Depending on what you're after, waiting for that to come out, trying to chop out bits from the Pathfinder reference document, or going with something like Dark Dungeons (a retro-clone of BECMI rules with the optional RC/BECMI rules active by default) and modifying that to suit your needs might be the way to go.

You can find Dark Dungeons here:

Dark Dungeons

Sorry to be such a downer, but as a confirmed hobbyist/hacker/homebrewer, I wouldn't say the task is insurrmountable, I'm just tossing out some stuff that folks might want to consider before taking on what I would consider to be an involved project.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Well, here's my outline:

• Combine Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide with AD&D 2e Player's Option.
• Simplified skill system. Extremely limited feats.
• Simplified combat.
• No Prestige Classes. Everything is built into base classes.
• Racial classes as in OD&D.
• Simple, flexible multiclassing rules.
• At-will magic that scales with level.
• Spell point system with augmentable spells.
• Ritual magic system like 4e or Unearthed Arcana.

The customization for racial classes and base classes is the most complicated part, but it's basically not more than mixing and matching class archetypes and alternate racial features.

I'm fooling around with some other ideas:

• Bloodlines and templates as class options.
• Combining Savage Species monster progressions with slow-progression racial classes for powerful monster PCs. No level adjustment.
• Different ability score progressions for humans and non-humans.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

So when thinking about a "simpler" version, I personally gotta ask... what's simplified and who's going to be making that decision? Without a really clear objective, anyone that shows up is going to have their own idea of what needs to be simplified and what should be left complicated "because beginners need the structure to help them" or "it's really not that complicated".

My design goals are fairly simple. I want to re-create the version of D&D I liked best using a cleaner and more organized core ruleset, and incorporate a few things from other versions that I think are nifty. My audience at this point is me, and my gaming group. If I can incorporate what I'm doing right now into a product in the future, that'll be a nice bonus.

If I somehow manage to reach the other three people who liked Player's Option, I'll be ahead of the game.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Everyone,

You may also be interested in this.

This is the major project Jason Bulmahn has been working on for the last year or so I think. I believe the aim of this is to have it as a true introductory game where you can play with the simplified ruleset if desired and then upgrade to regular Pathfinder as required. The numbers and mathematics are the same and nothing in one set of rules contradicts the other. It is not a case of "here's levels 1 to 3", upgrade when you finish.

In your cases, I think this is a pretty good idea to follow. You still have skills and feats and saves and the core mechanic. You just make it easier to manage on the fly.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Aus_Snow]

While the idea is somewhat interesting, the problem I have is seeing how the scope would be determined.

By people posting ideas, and doing whatever they (separately and/or collectively) felt like doing with them. A sharing of ideas, to whatever extent people are happy (and comfortable) doing so, with the end result(s) as yet undetermined.

Vague? Well, yeah. Brainstorming, freestyle collaboration / ideas pooling, and the like often tend to be, at least at first, I would say.

Like I said, no grand plan / money-making venture here. Nor a "challenge" (hah!) to Pathfinder Basic, that being a different kind of beast, besides.

Not even really trying to drum up interest, as it were. Simply seeing how much of that exists already, and whether anyone's done anything about that as yet, be it in thought or in deed, and/or what they might like to do.

So when thinking about a "simpler" version, I personally gotta ask... what's simplified and who's going to be making that decision? Without a really clear objective, anyone that shows up is going to have their own idea of what needs to be simplified and what should be left complicated "because beginners need the structure to help them" or "it's really not that complicated".

See above. That's as it should be. Except, well, I'd rather that those who are simply opposed to the idea in general... find a another thread/blog/soapbox/other, to express such sentiments or beliefs. You're right - they've been expressed before, on ENWorld as well as elsewhere, and I don't see how they'd be any use to anyone who is keen on doing their own thing with it and/or contributing to some gestalt creation.

I can think of an _awful_ lot of ways of simplifying down the game.

You are, of course, most welcome to post any or all of them here. Or, yeah, wherever you prefer! But if it was somewhere else, and it was relevant to this thread at all - oh, and if you'd have nothing to lose by doing so - posting a link here would be most appreciated.

The mechanical considerations are a whole different story, trying to figure out which ones are really going to deliver what you want, deciding just which portion of your audience you're willing to lose because you've picked B over A

Eh. It ain't for sale. And I'm sure there will be more than one take on this - even if not all of them get posted or linked to here (again, pretty likely in both cases).

Is it targetted at people that like D&D/Pathfinder but want a rules-lighter approach to it? What is it explicitly about Pathfinder that you're trying to tap into that you won't get from something else?

From my perspective, that would be the one, yes. And I've heard others at ENWorld put across that exact PoV. As for "What is it about Pathfinder" - well, fair enough question. I suppose the angle here is that there might be sufficient gamers who like some of the specific changes from 3.5 to 3.pf, and yet are interested in using / creating a simpler, more streamlined version of it.

Never said that I believe there would necessarily be a huge amount of gamers who'd fit that profile!

While tapping into Pathfinder's content (through the material released under the OGL, not the Pathfinder Compatibility License) to create a simplified version of the rules is certainly possible, I don't see a way of actually achieving what you're referring to legally.

Just using OGL, is what I was thinking. And no "product" to speak of, anyhow. A nice, neat, printable PDF, for free? Perhaps. But that is all.

Sorry to be such a downer, but as a confirmed hobbyist/hacker/homebrewer, I wouldn't say the task is insurrmountable, I'm just tossing out some stuff that folks might want to consider before taking on what I would consider to be an involved project.

No worries at all. Input is welcome. I'll take what you've said into consideration, as I'm sure others will. Let each make his or her own mind up about the possibilities/legalities/wisdom, and so on.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Hmmm... Well, that being the case...

My ideas:

Simplified skills, like what you see in Fantasy Concepts or the Alpha release of Pathfinder Beta... err... you know what I mean.

Drop iterative attacks. Maybe allow for a second attack to be possible through spending a feat (I think Star Wars Saga did this). To make up for the lack of iterative attacks, a character's BaB is added as a damage bonus. Yes, that means a Fighter that's level 11 with an 18 Str and a longsword will do 1d8+15 points of damage, before adding in anything like Power Attack or whatever. I'm quite comfortable with that.

Shift Saving Throws over to Defenses. Meaning, players don't make a Saving Throw; instead an attack is rolled against their Defense. Sorta what you see in 4e, but initially put out there in the Players Roll All the Dice thing from UA.

Change feats from allowing a character to do something, to providing a bonus when doing something. Improvised Weapon? Stuff that, anyone can use an improvised weapon without penalty; pick up the feat and you get a _bonus_ to smashing that drunk dude with an ale tankard. [This is probably the biggest "WTF?!?!" in terms of re-design and mostly likely to not be adopted by anyone other than myself]

Switch from a 3-19+ attribute scale and simply go with the bonuses. Other than slicing things even thinner and bragging about how one character is incrementally better than another, nobody cares about 18 vs 19. They care that it's a +4 bonus.

Toss AoO. If a player wants to do something like that, a GM can decide on the fly how to handle it, but yank it from the rules; that way folks running/playing the game don't have to worry about it. It's always easier to add complexity, so those that fiend for it can insert the rules from the "advanced" game.

Fixed hit points. The amount that's gained can vary depending on class if you want (i.e. casters get 4, Fighters get 8), but remove the random element.

Fixed weapon damage. Take the average of the damage, that's the weapon base. If you feel that's too low, add a couple of feats to the game; the first one will add half again the base damage of the weapon, the second one doubles it. For example, longsword goes and becomes 4 point base damage. Don't like it, add the feats. With the one feat, the damage increases to 6 points base damage. Depending on how you word the 2nd feat and how worried you are about weapon damage, the 2nd feat will either change the base damage to 8 (double the original starting base damage) or the base damage will be changed to 12 (double the augmented base damage of 6). Fixed damage can be brutal, but it's much faster and you can tweak the values if need be.

Simplify action types. Full round, move, and free. It might seem arbitrary to people, but again we're looking for simplicity. If you want to "count" how the actions work: 2 free actions= 1 move action. 2 move actions = 1 full round. Attacking is considered a "move" action. Assuming you've gone with the "no multiple attacks unless you have a feat", the 2nd attack from the feat would be using the 2nd move action. Simple yes, "realistic" probably not, much quicker I'd say.

That's what I've got off the top of my head. I might poke back later if I feel praticularly moved.

 

[mrswing]

Some very nice ideas there.

As for actions: get rid of all types, allow everyone 1 action per round. That's it. If absolutely necessary, a feat might allow for two (at LVL 10) and 3 (at LVL 20)?

Simplify monsters and NPCs so their stat blocks cover whatever is necessary for the encounter but nothing more. How many ranks do cloakers need in dungeoneering? (exactly 0 in almost every encounter). Why should an NPC have every feat and skill statted out perfectly if they're never going to need/use them?
I'm not saying the rules should change for them, just that the stat block should become far simpler. So when creating a high level NPC wizard or cleric, the GM shouldn't pick every single spell they have, but focus on the abilities they will bring to bear in the encounter. Same thing for big and potentially complex monsters.