Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PMárk" data-source="post: 7359444" data-attributes="member: 6804619">However, I'm assuming that PF fans could more or less agree on the type of game they'd want to play, that is why they're playing PF. Even in the Strange Aeons AP (or was it Horror Adventures?), the writers flat-out said, that despite the horror/Lovecraftian angle, it is still PF, with all its assumed stuff and distinct playstyle.PF is literally a retooled 3e retroclone... People are generally playing it, because they like to play a 3e style game. Why bother? Because some cleaning up and minor tweaking could make the game better in what it does, without changing it profoundly, and that is enough of a goal.  Again, it's literally a D&D 3.75 for those who didn1t want to play 4e... Why should we pretend that it is a totally independent thing from D&D?Maybe, but maybe that's not the point. The point might be making a specific game, or rather, a specific version of D&D, to a specific audience who like that game's style and its bells and whistles.But you're aware that some people, even in this thread, like things like PCs and monsters/NPCS working the same, or the more minutae simulation and such?Besides, 5e promised that famous modularity and didn1t deliver to this day. PF isn't a generic system, like GURPS, or Savage Worlds.That should be a design goal in general, yes. That's true, even for me, at least as balance and complexity goes. To be honest, PF is the high end of what I want to play in these reagrds, generally, my favirites are simpler games, ilke WoD. I suspect we just disagree on where this middle ground should exactly be. I just don't like directly scene and story-altering narrative elements in general, thus I wouldn't want to see them in PF. Ah, yes, the false presumption of roleplaying evolution... Honestly as I see it, that "evolution" didn't make games better, objectively. It made different kinds of games possible and that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean they are better and in no way I think those "modern design elements" (ie: narrative systems) have to or even should be incorporated into every game today. They are not an upgrade, in my eyes, but a sidegrade. Some people like them, some don't. Shadowrun, for example, went more-or-less with the same system since its inception. It got improved, tweaked, at some parts simplified, but in essence, it remained the same and that is good, IMO. That it has a more rules-light, narrative version, Anarchy is a good thing too. Different people, different tastes. The fact that PF is still the secondbiggest game, after 8 years and that 3.5 is pactically the third biggest, despite not being supported shows that a significant ammount of people like that kind of game, including me. So no, I don't want it to change profoundly, under the false pretense of "making it more modern", but I want it to be better in what it does.</blockquote>

Verification