Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5502545" data-attributes="member: 43283">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  (<a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility" target="_blank">http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility</a>) Section 5 first parapgraph reads: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...<a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pictureOfPathfinderBasic" target="_blank">http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pictureOfPathfinderBasic</a>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:<a href="http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Dark Dungeons</a>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.</blockquote>

Verification