Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Broken Rules in Pathfinder
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6973141" data-attributes="member: 50895"><p>I've never had a problem with "power creep". I am not alone in wanting options, but the more options that become available, the more power creep comes into existence. Its a problem for those people that feel the need that every game needs to be inclusive of every rule, though nothing necessarily wrong with wanting all the rules in play. For me options means, including what best fits within a given game theme, choosing which options best to include, while also having the choice to optionally exclude that which to me as GM does not fit the current theme. For those playing in Pathfinder Society, while that aspect of PF has it's own built in restrictions, it's meant to be inclusive of every published Pathfinder product, and a reliance on the Golarian setting. I don't play PFS and I never play in Golarian - so neither of those attract me. I never allow all the rules in every game. I state prior to a given campaign arc, which books are allowed, say perhaps: the Core, the APG, UC, and UM. Because I'm a small 3PP, and I do freelance work for other 3PP, I will often allow certain 3PP products to fit in a given campaign arc. Because I never allow every rule, I never get overwhelmed with the "power creep" that exists.</p><p></p><p>I will say, I like the recent article on Game Informer about the upcoming Starfinder RPG. While based on Pathfinder, they've changed the math behind many weapon attacks, and in some cases threw away parts of Pathfinder that don't really fit in the chosen direction of the new game. It's supposed to be very lean in comparison to Pathfinder, which I consider a good way to go. And perhaps if Paizo ever chose to attempt a Pathfinder 2.0, maybe that would be a good test bed for development, as was put in place with Starfinder. (Here's a link to that <strong><a href="http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2016/12/09/top-of-the-table-the-starfinder-interview.aspx" target="_blank">Game Informer article</a></strong> if it interests you.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gamerprinter, post: 6973141, member: 50895"] I've never had a problem with "power creep". I am not alone in wanting options, but the more options that become available, the more power creep comes into existence. Its a problem for those people that feel the need that every game needs to be inclusive of every rule, though nothing necessarily wrong with wanting all the rules in play. For me options means, including what best fits within a given game theme, choosing which options best to include, while also having the choice to optionally exclude that which to me as GM does not fit the current theme. For those playing in Pathfinder Society, while that aspect of PF has it's own built in restrictions, it's meant to be inclusive of every published Pathfinder product, and a reliance on the Golarian setting. I don't play PFS and I never play in Golarian - so neither of those attract me. I never allow all the rules in every game. I state prior to a given campaign arc, which books are allowed, say perhaps: the Core, the APG, UC, and UM. Because I'm a small 3PP, and I do freelance work for other 3PP, I will often allow certain 3PP products to fit in a given campaign arc. Because I never allow every rule, I never get overwhelmed with the "power creep" that exists. I will say, I like the recent article on Game Informer about the upcoming Starfinder RPG. While based on Pathfinder, they've changed the math behind many weapon attacks, and in some cases threw away parts of Pathfinder that don't really fit in the chosen direction of the new game. It's supposed to be very lean in comparison to Pathfinder, which I consider a good way to go. And perhaps if Paizo ever chose to attempt a Pathfinder 2.0, maybe that would be a good test bed for development, as was put in place with Starfinder. (Here's a link to that [B][URL="http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2016/12/09/top-of-the-table-the-starfinder-interview.aspx"]Game Informer article[/URL][/B] if it interests you.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Broken Rules in Pathfinder
Top