Anyone interested in cooking up a simplified PFRPG?

[Herremann the Wise]

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)?

I agree that actions should be simplified but I would limit it to a move action and a standard action so gameplay is at least comparable to regular Pathfinder. There is no great loss in removing free and swift actions as well as the 5-foot-step. What is an interesting question though is Attacks of Opportunity. While they are most likely one of the first things that should be removed in a basic game, they form such a fundamental role in regular Pathfinder that they leave behind a pretty big gap in terms of game play and other mechanical expectations. Thoughts?

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.

While I see great value for minor details in terms of ecology in the main Pathfinder game, I think the basic game can be stripped down to a stat block very similar to 4e where all needed information is presented. A "complete" stat block should be a fundamental of the basic game.

Some quick notes and thoughts:
- Attribute Scores should stay as is, they are a fundamental of the game.
- Feats should also stay as is but I think perhaps what you could do is have a feat tree for each class with a couple of branches depending upon what the class specializes in.
- Skills perhaps need the most work in terms of simplification. In fact, I'm entirely unsure how they should be handled so that you are not creating "new rules" that compete against the parent game. Thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I agree that actions should be simplified but I would limit it to a move action and a standard action so gameplay is at least comparable to regular Pathfinder. There is no great loss in removing free and swift actions as well as the 5-foot-step. What is an interesting question though is Attacks of Opportunity. While they are most likely one of the first things that should be removed in a basic game, they form such a fundamental role in regular Pathfinder that they leave behind a pretty big gap in terms of game play and other mechanical expectations. Thoughts?

Simplified Actions:
Yeah, I can see simply having Standard, Move, and Free. I specify "free" because people are going to want to be able to do at least some stuff that would count as a free action. To keep things easy for everyone to keep track of, it should simply be one of each of those types of actions, no trading ("Can I move again in exchange for giving up my Standard Action?") by default but a sidebar or "advanced" note offering it up as an option perhaps.

Attacks of Opportunity:
Yeah, chop those suckers straight out. They form a "fundamental" role in Pathfinder because 3.5 (and by extension Pathfinder) has that strong focus on miniature combat. It's got a focus on _tactical_ combat too, but it's relying on miniatures in order to have tactical combat. AoO are one of those things that give people strongly focused on "game" aspects something to fiddle with.

This means that some you'll probably have to sort through the Feats and Classes, pulling out references to AoO and maybe rejiggering some things as well. Yes, it means a whole series of character builds suddenly can't be done; I'd be fine with that, because we're talking a simplified game here. Someone wants to get into the character building game that so many folks like, they can go back to full-on ("advanced") Pathfinder.

Some quick notes and thoughts:
- Attribute Scores should stay as is, they are a fundamental of the game.
- Feats should also stay as is but I think perhaps what you could do is have a feat tree for each class with a couple of branches depending upon what the class specializes in.
- Skills perhaps need the most work in terms of simplification. In fact, I'm entirely unsure how they should be handled so that you are not creating "new rules" that compete against the parent game. Thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Attribute scores:
I still say, skip the fiddly numbers and just focus on the bonus/penalty. The thing is, you don't actually have to change anything. You just don't bother talking about the 3-19+ attribute range. Go with the Point-Buy method, say "+1 costs 2 points, +2 costs 5 points, +3 costs 10 points, and +4 costs 17 points". Racial attributes simply provide a +1/-1; sure it's not 100% exactly the way Pathfinder does it, but it follows the basic rules and it's close enough. Again, it's a simplified version so the idea is to get up and running as quick as possible with minimum fuss.

Feats:
I still like my idea better, where a feat simply provides a bonus to doing something. What your idea for "feat trees" makes me think of though, is the idea of simply having pre-done builds. Let's face it, character optimisers have already sat down and figured out an awful lot of the combos and what's going to work. So we should leverage it. Just include some explicit character builds as part of the game. So for example, you provide the Fighter class which people can do their normal (though in this case simplified) build; but include in there 2 pre-selected builds. People that want it then have a character already mapped out for them and those that don't can do it the usual way.

Skills:
You're not going to be able to do it without "competing" against the parent game. 3.x skill system sucks and Pathfinder pretty much kept it intact. The closest you're going to be able to get to "not competing" with the parent system is to grab ths skill system initially offered up way back in the Pathfinder Alpha release and tweak it to match the current rule sensibilities.

In general:
One thing that's going to be a bit of a stumbling block is the "simple" vs "complicated" thing. Which is sort of a rehash of the "backwards compatibility" thing that Pathfinder struggled with in its design. In this particular case, it's trying to keep the "simple" game "backwards compatible" with the full-on Pathfinder game.

It's a laudable goal, but it's also trying to serve 2 masters and means that you're going to wind up compromising. The question then has to become, "When making a compromise, which way do you go?" I'd argue for _breaking_ the compatibility. The reason being, that the "complicated" version is already tossing in new ways of doing things. Adding in AoOs isn't just "giving players more options"... it's fundamentally changing the way characters are built and what their focus is.

Breaking the compatibility in favor of going simpler means you're more likely to wind up with a complete game, even if it is slightly different. Trying to keep the compatibility when there's a conflict means you're more likely to wind up with something that feels "incomplete" in my opinion.

I could be wildly off base here as it's been a couple of decades, but I seem to recall there was actually a fair bit of difference between basic D&D and AD&D. Sure, the systems were related and you could see how AD&D went off in whatever particular direction, but... they _were_ seperate games. When 3.0 hit the scene, they dropped the idea of the basic game and dropped the "Advanced" part as well. Whether these were good moves or not is a personal sort of conclusion; however, I do think it's important to consciously decide what you're doing. 4E Essentials I believe is ostensibly an attempt to "simplify" the game, while still leaving it basically compatible with 4E standard. I don't know that Pathfinder has really followed that rigid a math system to allow for such a thing; given Pathfinder's focus on backwards compatibility and how loose 3.x design is in a number of respects, I'd argue it's not.

But that's all just my opinion. Who you're designing the simplified game for is going to influence so many of these sorts of decisions.

 

[Aus_Snow]

--snip--

But that's all just my opinion. Who you're designing the simplified game for is going to influence so many of these sorts of decisions.

I agree with nearly all of your points there (the snipped stuff).

The only thing I might differ notably on is Feats - personally, I think they could do with a relabeling (e.g., Advantages, as in DCA/M&M3), but otherwise benefit from, most of all, a trimming down. A "neatening", as it were.

Regarding who it's designed for, that depends in part on who "you" happens to refer to, in the quoted sentence. And it seemed, a while back, that there was significant interest in a simplified Pathfinder game - basically, with a stripped down, streamlined, sleeker and faster engine. Not sure where all those people went!

So yeah, that doesn't help, in terms of knowing what "the majority" might be interested in. The majority of a niche within a niche... within a niche, that is.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

I've been mentally working this out, too, what a "simplified" version of the game might look like.

I think a game with (virtually) all choices pre-made for the character(s), covering levels one through five, would work, and could remain compatible with the Pathfinder game - compatible enough that when you did up the same character as a 6th level pathfinder character, everything carried over. Particularly if you were clever about names, and such. A chapter at the end of the book about "promoting" characters to 6th level and the "full" rules can explain how to do it.

For instance, let's do "Fighter". Instead of "Bonus Feats" at 1st, 2nd, and 4th, simply give "Weapon Focus" at 1st, and "Weapon Specialization" at 4th. (We can leave the choice of weapons up to the player; that's a small, stylistic choice.) At 2nd level, we'd give, I dunno ... some, other feat (hey, this is back-of-napkin level stuff here, bear with me).

For Wizard, I would avoid giving a choice of spells to prepare (or schools to specialize it, or... ...well, choice, period). Give them Sleep once a day at first level, and add Magic Missile at 2nd, and Flaming Sphere (again, I'm not set on which spells, just that they're *specific* spells) at 3rd, and so on, and so on. Have Wizards focus on "Spells that affect bad guys", and separate Clerics out as "Spells that affect good guys", and you have two very distinct flavors of casters.

You can simplify Ability Scores by assigning just modifiers, instead of actual 3-18 scores (converting those mods to ability scores is the domain of the "promotions" chapter, again). Skills, you just have each class choose N skills (equal to skill points from normal Pathfinder), and have them get a Level + 3 bonus when using the skills chosen (mathematically the same as having max ranks in those skills).

Careful selection of monsters (to avoid sticky spots in the rules, like level or ability score damage, or grappling), some cool magical items, and boom, you're ready to rock.

...

Okay, I've thought about this more than a little.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Warning: Massive wall of text. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "tl:dr" ethos. I'm not desperate enough for approval that I'll butcher my thinking/reasoning due to other folk's attention span. You've been warned.

I agree with nearly all of your points there (the snipped stuff).

w00t! I'm shallow enough that I enjoy finding out someone else is on the same wavelength as I am. I spend way more time thinking about this stuff than... I dunno... Probably some folks that do this for a living. Too bad I can't actually get paid for it.

The only thing I might differ notably on is Feats - personally, I think they could do with a relabeling (e.g., Advantages, as in DCA/M&M3), but otherwise benefit from, most of all, a trimming down. A "neatening", as it were.

Yeah, I can see that. Feats are problematical. They're a major source of complexity in the game, both because of the nature of being exceptions to the rules, as well as the sheer number of differently balanced ones, the lack of a really coherent balancing system for feats, and on a more subtle track they also imply things about the rules.

The rules implications happen because when a feat is created, it suddenly says "Because I'm explicitly being created, I'm an important exception to the rules. Therefore, even if you didn't realize it before, I'm now highlighting the existance of that rule. Further, even if the rule didn't actually exist before, the fact that you've created a feat which explicitly gives permisson to do something, means you've also created a rule denying everyone else the ability to do whatever it is the feat was created for."

It's a sort of strange little loop you get into.

I kinda go around on the whole thing. With an explicit goal of having a simpler system and then people can "step up" to the more complicated one, I'd dump "Feats".

In their place, I'd have "Achievements". These replace the idea of Feats, although you could bring certain feats over to the Achievement system.

So for example, you could have the Power Attack achievement. It's similarly set up like Power Attack the Feat, but it doesn't change/grow as the character levels. It's a fixed trade of x amount to hit for y amount of damage (say -3 to hit for +5 damage for example).

Instead of screwing around with pre-req feats in order to get the feat you really care about, simply make them level based. Or, depending on how you envision your ...hmmm...

Ok, I'm officially going to refer to my approach as the "Footpath" system. It's my name, you can't have it.

Anyway, continuing my thought...

The way I'm starting to view my Footpath system, there's the tiers that have been talked about in relation to 3.x and it's sort of the thinking behind E6. If you're not familiar with the tiers, here's what I mean (taken from here: [necro, goodness] E6: The Game Inside D&D - RPGnet Forums )

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroes

Now, the names aren't from Ryan Dancey I don't think, but the basic idea is that every roughly 5 levels of D&D, the style changed.

Based on what I've experienced over the years in both 3.x as well as Pathfinder, the game sucks after level 12; this is from my perspective as a dude that doesn't play casters (which D&D and Pathfinder are all about) and therefore sticks with beat'em fighter type characters. I also like things to move quick and hate keeping track of additional rules and stuff; after 12th level the book keeping seems to just exceed the payoff. That book-keeping is also a reason I avoid casters.

So, Achievements would be "tiered". Basic, Trained, Expert, Master (I wish I could figure out a logical nod to BECMI, but my BTEM is the closest that still makes sense in terms of what the words actually mean )

Levels 1-3: Basic
Levels 4-6: Trained
Levels 7-9: Expert
Levels 10-12: Master

Now, what this does is make the whole Achievement thing easy. When you reach a new Tier, you pick a new Achievement. And it is "tier" not level, so a Master level character will have 4 Achievements. Achievements may be taken from your current Tier or any Tier below your current Tier.

It also provides a bit of overlap in terms of the way the game is evolving, by explicitly bumping characters into different tiers; 3 level tiers on top of 5 level game. Evolution. It also brings to the forefront of the player's mind what their character is like in relation to the rest of the world. It also provides a framework for possibly introducing additional rules; such-and-such rule might be considered an optonal one to bring into play at [whatever] tier.

Now, my personal inclination for Footpath would be to _also_ allow for an Achievement to be replaced. If you choose not to replace an Achievement, that's your business. But for those players that want to, then the option is there. Replacing an Achievement is done when a character levels.

The idea is that the system mastery element is downplayed by letting a character replace Achievements and since the design of 3.x is around 13 encounters to level, it'll probably give them enough time to decide if it works for the game they're playing or not.

And yes, allowing Achievements to be replaced at character level using the wording I've given means that at 10th level a character could have 2 Master Achievements (1 new one, 1 Expert replaced with a Master) and 2 Expert Achievements. At 12th level it means a character could have 4 Master Achievements. I'm fine with this. If people want to force characters to keep lower level Achievements, I think it should be done via making them desireable, not gimping a character. If that's a problem, you can add explicit wording indicating that an Achievement can only be replaced with another Achievement of the same tier.

You can also tune things then by giving a specific Achievement to certain character classes, or allowing them additional choices from specific tiers. So for example, the Fighter might get a specific Achievement given to them at level 2, and an additional Basic Achievement of their choice at level 3.

When moving from Footpath (or whatever you call your version of Basic Pathfinder), the Achievement system can be dropped and players can once again revel in the ... whatever it is... that is the current Feat system.

So... Yeah... Achievements. Follows some of the rules as Feats and you could even bring your idea of "cleaned up" Feats over as Achievements. As I've already indicated, I'd do them as basic fixed bonus type things in most cases. If you wanted to get fiddly with them, then the tier of Achievement would be based explicitly on what it's doing. So a basic bonus type Achievement might be a Basic tier, whereas Vital Strike might be an Expert one. For purposes of bring a Feat over to the Achievements system, first look and see how many pre-req feats are required. That's going to provide a base level for it. Then, LOOK AT WHAT THE FEAT ACTUALLY DOES. I'm sick of feats that force you to take a (series of words that ENWorld censors) low level feat, just because they don't want you to have it until a certain level.

Your character shouldn't be gimped and the Feat system gimps it without careful choices and playing the system mastery game, often via the supplement route.

Regarding who it's designed for, that depends in part on who "you" happens to refer to, in the quoted sentence. And it seemed, a while back, that there was significant interest in a simplified Pathfinder game - basically, with a stripped down, streamlined, sleeker and faster engine. Not sure where all those people went!

Well, my continuing to point it out is mainly a function of being aware that while multiple people might contribute to this one idea (Basic Pathfinder) each one is likely oing to be designing it primarily from a "selfish" ("this is what I want") perspective, rather than a broadly appealing/marketable ("this is likely to appeal to new gamers" or "this is likely to appeal to rules-lighter loving fans of Pathfinder").

As for where all those people disappeared to? Well, some of them are just oing to sit here and wait for Paizo's version and then they may or may not tweak it. A bunch of others fall into the category of "I approve of someone else doing the work". It kinda takes a sack that clanks to put yourself out there with explicit design/rules ideas. You're basically claiming to be at least as good as a "real game designer" and opening yourself up to be a target of either folks that are aggressive optimisers, who will shred you for the abuses they're capable of achieving with your rules suggestions, or people that do actually have a better knowledge than you do and have finally been moved to respond by a particularly stupid idea you've got.

And of course there's also the simple disagreement that comes from differing goals, which may or may not be stated as such. Sometimes people confuse goals/playstyles with some sort of immutable fact. That's one reason I try to make it clear where my biases are coming from and why I want to do whatever it is I'm suggesting. I'm not immune from thinking my ideas are better or "right" or "logical conclusions"; I just happen to try to be more up-front about it.

Ideas like this can be nifty, but... Well, there was Fantasy Concepts. Everyone talking about how great Star Wars Saga was, how the next edition of D&D should be like that, how they'd love to run D&D using SWSE... So Flynn actually sat down and found every single OGC rule he could, with the explicit purpose of creating a Sword & Sorcery rpg that used rules which seemed to have been lifted and used for SWSE. His OGC Declaration is impressive.

I also don't know of a single game having been run of it.

Heck, I'm one of the few people I know of that _bought_ it and I haven't run it. In my particular case, S&S isn't a style I happen to be into these days; I like things turned up to 11, not down to 3 like S&S style games usually are.

I bought it because I think it's one of the best rules-bases there is to start with and the whole thing pretty much is OGC. It's one of the core foundations to a project I'm currently working on. Some of the ideas I've posted here already are also taken from that project as well.

My point though is that while here might be folks kicking around online tha think it's a great idea, when it comes to fingers hitting keyboard, there's a heck of a lot fewer of them. The reasosn for that may or may not be "valid" but... it is what it is.

So yeah, that doesn't help, in terms of knowing what "the majority" might be interested in. The majority of a niche within a niche... within a niche, that is.

At this point, I design for myself. The market is so flooded and gamers have such short attention spans while requiring so much of a product, it's not really worth it otherwise. I design with the idea of "I want this to do that" and "I think this would be a great way to introduce this to a particular audience". And by those 2 goals I don't mea, "Someone would be willing to pay for this". I literally mean _I_ would be running the game for this or that audience. If someone else happens to dig it or wants to run it? Groovy. But at this point, I assume everything is a complete waste of time and done strictly for my own personal amusement.

It's the only way to design with "integrity" and remaining true to your vision, regardless of how clear or muddled that design and your goals are in the first place.

I think a game with (virtually) all choices pre-made for the character(s),

For instance, let's do "Fighter". Instead of "Bonus Feats" at 1st, 2nd, and 4th, simply give "Weapon Focus" at 1st, and "Weapon Specialization" at 4th. (We can leave the choice of weapons up to the player; that's a small, stylistic choice.) At 2nd level, we'd give, I dunno ... some, other feat (hey, this is back-of-napkin level stuff here, bear with me).

Yeah, I mentioned something similar in my response to Herremann. I think a _better_ approach would be 2or 3 designs that go with each lass though. That wa you can have someone grab a basically already optimised version, which also means ou can potentially have a game up and running in 15 minutes or less. But presenting it as pre-done build options allows for people that want a more nuanced or even (dare I say it?) "roleplay" approach (meaning a character that has been made explicitly without regard to combat viability) an option to still play as well.

Pre-done builds also act as a touchstone for folks new to the game to see if they're "doing it right" allowing them to look over and see if they've missed critical bits. And of course, someone slightly more experienced can take a pre-done and tweak it to suit their needs as well.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

Yeah, I can see that. Feats are problematical. They're a major source of complexity in the game, both because of the nature of being exceptions to the rules, as well as the sheer number of differently balanced ones, the lack of a really coherent balancing system for feats, and on a more subtle track they also imply things about the rules.

Your character shouldn't be gimped and the Feat system gimps it without careful choices and playing the system mastery game, often via the supplement route.

Yeah, I mentioned something similar in my response to Herremann. I think a _better_ approach would be 2or 3 designs that go with each lass though.

I would suggest (as a though) you may be self-contradicting here.

IF the goal is to promote players into Pathfinder, rather than create a new system, THEN they need to learn Feats. Simply have to; no other option, because Feats are part of Pathfinder.

I'm suggesting that pre-assigning feats (all Feats, Racial, level, and class based) to good (maybe not always optimal, but good) choices does most of the "work" for new players.

We - well, not WE, we, but whoever makes this thing tick - can't teach system mastery in a basic set. (I also don't see requiring system mastery on the level Pathfinder does as big a problem as you, but there, tastes vary.) What we CAN do is give "mastered" (or "mostly mastered") builds, so that players have a solid base to build on.

I wouldn't be opposed to several "fighter builds" to choose from, but new players shouldn't choose level-by-level, but instead during character creation. Level-by-level choices will make for wrong choices. Also, remember - with 10-ish classes (the Pathfinder core classes, maybe minus Sorcerer, Monk and Bard...) there are "other builds" to pick from. "Barbarian" (and even "Ranger" and "Paladin") are other "fighter builds".

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I would suggest (as a though) you may be self-contradicting here.

IF the goal is to promote players into Pathfinder, rather than create a new system, THEN they need to learn Feats. Simply have to; no other option, because Feats are part of Pathfinder.

And here's where we bump up against what I was referring to earlier... what the goal is.

I think you're assuming that my goal was to promote players into Pathfinder.

It's not.

It's to create a simpler version of the Pathfinder rules. As I said in a previous post, that means that given the choice between a simpler system and "fidelity" (following the normal Pathfinder rules) I will pick simpler just about every time.

When looking at the rules, you've got several.... let's call 'em choke points. Chunks that pop up and represent a required investment of time and skill/system mastery. Feats are one of those choke points, which is a subset of the overall problem of the character building minigame.

The character building minigame is something that a lot of 3.x people absolutely love; conversely they hated that 4E (initially) took that away from them.

But if you're looking at doing a simpler system, Feats are definitely something to eyeball. They affect character building, character progression, monster/NPC capability, combat... they're worked in and through the system like a cancer. Rebooting the Feats is something that has a lot of ripples, like throwing a big ol' rock as hard as you can into a small pool. I think the payoff is worth it, but again it depends on what your goal is.

As an aside, when I think about some of this stuff (like feats) I tend to rely on the revamped CR system that was done by Upper_Krust years ago. I'll freely admit though that some folks disagree with his assessments and that it's not really clear exactly how he's derived his numbers in the first place. Nervertheless, I personally have found it to be a consistent and much more accurate approach to dealing with CRs.

I mention this because the revamped CR system gives a basic "CR rating" to a lot of the different things that go into making up a critter (and character). As far as UK's system is concerned, a feat is worth .2 of a CR. In other words, something needs to have 5 feats before it's likely to have a measureable impact.

Now of course, one thing a fair number of people will immediately object to is the fact that not all feats are created equal. Cherry-picking through 3.x (and possibly Pathfinder books by now) you can definitely have a wild range of under and over powered feats.

The Feat system itself is a mess because there's no real consistency in what should be a Feat and what should be a class power or something. Over the years, everyone (including WotC) seems to have taken the easy out of just saying, "Ummmm.... make it a Feat and call it good."

So..... yeah. Feats. They're a choke point in the system. Deciding exactly how you're going to deal with them is going to inform a chunk of the entire game.

If you're wanting a "simpler" system because you want to introduce new players to the game, I'd recommend tossing them unless you're doing a "crippleware" version of the basic rules, where the intent is to force a player to move onto the "full" ruleset. The crippleware approach is a popular idea with many gamers and the approach that most companies are likely to take. Easier to only worry about maintaining a single gameline than 2 different rulesets.

If you're wanting a "simpler" system because you love Pathfinder but find some of the bookeeping overhead too much, you can keep or toss them depending on what the bookeeping problem is in the first place.

If you're wanting a "simpler" system but you love the character building minigame, keep Feats. It's a definite source of system mastery play.

If you're wanting a "simpler" system but you love the tactical miniatures game, you'll probably want to keep feats but may or may not want to tweak them a bit.

I'm suggesting that pre-assigning feats (all Feats, Racial, level, and class based) to good (maybe not always optimal, but good) choices does most of the "work" for new players.

We - well, not WE, we, but whoever makes this thing tick - can't teach system mastery in a basic set. (I also don't see requiring system mastery on the level Pathfinder does as big a problem as you, but there, tastes vary.) What we CAN do is give "mastered" (or "mostly mastered") builds, so that players have a solid base to build on.

Right here, you've got a few different assumptions going on.

One, that "system mastery" is a goal that _should_ be taught in the first place. Not everyone wants it or like it. By expecting this to be a goal, you're basically telling a chunk of people that would be interested in rpgs, "Don't bother joining in, we don't want you." Yes, it's a designed part of 3.x and Pathfinder has certainly kept it. That's catering to the already existing gamer base and a select portion of people that might be interested in playing rpgs.

I for example, loathe system mastery. Some might say that given the amount I've got to say on design of the game, I've engaged in it to at least a certain extent. That may or may not be true (especially depending on whether you think I have accurate points that I'm making or not) but I personally am _not_ interested in system mastery and it's what kept me from playing a lot of 3.x. And it's what keeps me from getting that involved in Pathfinder.

Two, that system mastery can't be taught in a "basic set". That seems to imply that you're looking at a "basic set" as a crippleware and inferior version to the full ruleset. It's a common assumption made by gamers too. The thing is, it doesn't have to be. It just winds up being a different ruleset that's pretty similar in a lot of cases. Look back to the old D&D and AD&D lines. RAW AD&D was pretty different in a number of respects from D&D, even if RAW is only a mantra that became widely popular with D&D players with the advent of 3.x.

Further, one could argue that the BECMI line of D&D books _was_ teaching system mastery, they were just spreading it out. Ryan Dancey has said that the D&D game basically shifts roughly every 5 levels. So what you've got is a few levels of a certain type of play and then the game changes and the player has to learn some additional mastery.

A basic set essentially formalizes this and makes it explicit. The advantage to doing this is you can break things up into chunks that are more easily digestable, instead of the giant info-dump that currently happens. You buy a rulebook and you basically have a group of designers that have puked this mass of rules into your lap and leave you to sort it out.

Three... who is it that's teaching system mastery? It's certainly not the game designers and it's not going to be the people that design a basic version of the game. In order for the system mastery to be "taught" as you seem to be suggesting, you actually have to _teach_ someone by saying, "Do this" or "Don't do this".

3.x and Pathfinder design doesn't do this. It teaches you by allowing you to make sub-optimal characters and then letting the player watch them get butchered. You "learn" by continually being punished for failure.

Now, sometimes within a group you'll have a player or a GM that actually _does_ teach system mastery. They've usually acquired it the hard way, or they happen to be some sort of freaky person that can "see" how this stuff is going to shake out.

Right now, game design is lazy and generally doesn't teach system mastery. The rules are built with deliberate traps for players and later books compound this by having class builds that rely on crappy feats to stall a player and make them search through sourcebooks to try and find the fastest and least painful way to get the bits they need for that really cool PrC.

I personally say, If you like the idea of system mastery as a core design element of 3.x and Pathfinder, fine. Actually freaking teach it. And since the designers aren't going to do it, that means _you_ the GM should be teaching it. Otherwise, you're basically sitting around watching some poor slob stumble around in the dark and getting smacked for making bad choices.

The way system mastery is currently dealt with, it's the equivalent to having a dog and just hauling off and smacking them when they do something wrong; you don't bother giving a reward when they do something right, you don't bother telling them "No" or anything like that. Just smack 'em when they get it wrong. It's cruel and does nasty things to the dog and I can't help but feel it's got some similar effects on gamer's approach to things as well.

I wouldn't be opposed to several "fighter builds" to choose from, but new players shouldn't choose level-by-level, but instead during character creation. Level-by-level choices will make for wrong choices. Also, remember - with 10-ish classes (the Pathfinder core classes, maybe minus Sorcerer, Monk and Bard...) there are "other builds" to pick from. "Barbarian" (and even "Ranger" and "Paladin") are other "fighter builds".

If your goal is to "teach" someone, I don't think this is the best approach. You're basically doing all the work for them with no explanation. Try teaching a kid math that way and see how much they learn.

Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are _not_ other "fighter builds". You can build a number of different kinds of warriors, using those 4 classes to emulate certain things. However, each of the classes have explicit design functions and play differently. If you're providing a class build, you need to provide 2 to 3 builds for _each_ class. That's because what makes for a "good" choice of one class doesn't make for a good one for others.

Yes, this basically means that you'd potentially be presenting say, 10 classes and 30 characters.

As for the level-by-level choice... I'm slightly confused. You're either providing a build or someone is basically doing a level by level choice. If someone follows the build, the work is mostly done for them. If they go level-by-level, they're either going to go complete free range, or they'll take a build that's basically want they want and will tweak it as they go; this is most likely going to be someone that's already experienced in the system in some fashion.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I genuinely apologise if I'm coming across that way, that's not my intent. I have firm opinions on things and I'm going to state them firmly and do my best to support them. If I'm in error, I'm happy to learn from it; if the error is in fact a difference of opinion, I won't change my but I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that your opinion is equally valid.

All of my posts in this thread aren't an attempt to beat someone over the head with my opinion or anything, but to clearly state what I see as a problem and how I'm attempting to resolve it. I recognize that not everyone will see some things as a problem, as well as the fact that their solution to the problem could be different and better. But without really coming out and being explicit and hammering on some of these things, it's easy to miss design issues. And make no mistake... poking at something like a "basic Pathfinder"? It's game design. It might not be as "in-depth" as developing your own completely unique system, or as sexy as having a "designer blog" or whatever... but it's still game design. The fact that it's happening with a system that's as well understood as 3.x is a bonus, as it means that a lot (not all) of the potential design problems have been identified over the years and various approaches taken to possibly resolving them.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

And ummm.... sorry for sort of dominating the conversation here. It seems like someone will post an idea and I sorta start verbally gnawing on them. I'm not trying to drive anyone off or make this a project of mine or something; I've got a number of projects I'm already working on.

I'm just trying to contribute some thoughts myself and I hope that folks are as willing to poke at my ideas (and decide if they don't work for 'em) as I am to poke at theirs.

 

[pawsplay]

Attacks of Opportunity:
Yeah, chop those suckers straight out. They form a "fundamental" role in Pathfinder because 3.5 (and by extension Pathfinder) has that strong focus on miniature combat. It's got a focus on _tactical_ combat too, but it's relying on miniatures in order to have tactical combat. AoO are one of those things that give people strongly focused on "game" aspects something to fiddle with.

In my eyes, AoOs are a generalized, simplified way of handling "free attack" situations. Basic D&D offered a free attack if you disengaged a melee opponent without taking a Fighting Withdrawal action. The AoO rule prevents someone from gaming the system by locking down multiple opponents; you would need Combat Reflexes to do that in 3e. Similarly, unarmed attacks in various editions of D&D generated a "free attack"; AoOs give a simplified language for eliminating them under certain conditions. Mind you, you could always get rid of "free attacks" but miniatures or no-miniatures, you end up with some really odd things happening, like being unable to prevent people from running past you in a narrow hallway.

The main reason I'm bringing this up is that in my experience, once again is simplified, it has to be un-simplified to an extent. Star Wars D6 second edition was not as good a game as the original; it had too many fiddly bits most people didn't want and changed too many things that were simple into things that were complex. So Star Wars (D6) 2e Revised dialed things back. It's still a more complicated game than 1e, but it's generally easier to play. Having not-enough-rules can be as bad as too many, especially for a novice.

More generally, what is the aim of this product? I'll be honest, if you want to write a new game engine inspired by the Pathfinder rules, it doesn't belong on this part of the forum. It's not Pathfinder, and you can't put a Pathfinder-compatible logo on it. I'm not really sure why Pathfinder seems like a really good base for creating a new game, as the use of the Pathfinder conventions as a lingua franca is only likely to appeal to a limited subset of gamers: those to whom Pathfinder feels like D&D "as it should be" and yet want to convert to simpler rules. Just as a for instance, why not start with Castles & Crusades as a base, and then start morphing the game conventions to match 3e and Pathfinder's campaign tropes? Or Dark Dungeons?

 

[ThatGuyThere]

And here's where we bump up against what I was referring to earlier... what the goal is.

I think you're assuming that my goal was to promote players into Pathfinder.

It's not.

Well, then, I'm in agreement with Pawsplay - I'm not sure why this is in the Pathfinder forum.

If you want less rules in your RPG, I'm not sure any 3.X version of D&D is a good place to start. I don't think you can get there from here, without ... well, without essentially making a whole new game, related to the original only in the use of polyhedral dice.