Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Lite?

[Thotas]

I started with 1e, and we played with minis and battle boards from the beginning. It probably gives me a very different experience and perspective, but I've seen plenty of fine roleplaying and character creation with developed personality in my day. Even if that's a contributing element, I can't help but suspect that there's more to your situation. I can't say what that would be, though.

 

[sheadunne]

I don't think I should have said rules bloat; that's a separate problem. I really don't mind all the character options, because in my game it's the responsibility of the players to understand their characters.

What I'm more referring to is all the rules & systems that slow down play, especially during combat. Things like all the movement and positioning rules, individual initiative, etc. The problem really began with 3.0 and the addition of (the requirement for) miniatures. I've looked into E6, and it doesn't totally solve the problem. Yes, it eliminates the issues of higher level play, but there are pacing issues at level 1.

As for the MMO comment, what I meant is that the person isn't necessarily trying to recreate an MMO experience (they may have never even played one), but instead I meant to refer to a similarity of mentality. A mentality where one is more concerned with numbers, mechanics, min-maxing, optimizing, and creating the most combat-capable character they can as opposed to creating an interesting character from a story perspective.

I'm also not passing judgment on those who like to play that way; there are obviously a lot who do. It's just not the experience I want to have at my gaming table. More and more, though, I think this is a mentality that is hardwired into Pathfinder. If you look at just the core book at the number of words devoted to combat mechanics as opposed to things like roleplay, social encounters, character development (as in personality not combat effectiveness), it's obvious what the game focuses on. You can't really blame the players for picking up on that.

I agree. Every edition of D&D focuses on combat, although in 1e/2e one could argue the focus was on treasure acquirement. Anyway, in the later version of D&D combat is front and center, which is easy to see simply based on a characters abilities as she levels. Most of the abilities are combat focused.

I think there are several good systems out there that maintain the feel of PF but are less combat heavy, savage worlds for instance. Combat is still available but the system isn't geared as much toward it as in PF. As much as I hate to suggest someone look for another game, often times it is the best solution, as long as the players want that type of game, which isn't always the case. Stripping combat out of PF or even reducing it, is pretty difficult since class abilities focus on it.

As a side note, min-maxing, mechanics, optimizing, have zero impact on a player's ability to role-play and make interesting character choices. A player who is interested in talking about those things is not indicative of a player who doesn't like other things as well. Even switching system, players who like talking about mechanics will continue to talk about mechanics. This has been the case since 1974. What I'm hearing from you is, you want to play with different players. This isn't a bad thing, I have several groups with different play-styles, all of whom are friends. I don't try to force players to play my way when I run games, I simply put together players who enjoy gaming that way. And vice versa when I play. That option isn't always available to some gamers, so I hate to suggest it is a better way or the only way to game. It works for me since I usually have two different objectives when I game. When I play I like to optimize my characters. When I run a game I like to focus exclusively on story. I always tend not to run PF or D&D when I run games because of that. I focus on other systems which are equally as enjoyable to me.

Good luck!

 

[airwalkrr]

I believe a quick way to get a simpler game for both Pathfinder and 3e is to simply eliminate skills, feats, and prestige classes from the game. "NO! UNACCEPTABLE!" Whatever. If you like an old-school style game, that will make things a lot easier on you. Skills you simply handle as ability checks and give everyone a +1/2 levels on ability checks. Feats you only get rid of level-based feats. You don't need them. Fighter and wizard bonus feats and the like are fine. Prestige classes you never needed anyway.

The real problem lies in finding people to play these games. I am having enough difficulty just trying to get my group to play vanilla Pathfinder (core rulebook only) because they are so attached to all the other options. One player in particular feels like he's done it all and limiting him to the core rulebook only is really cramping his style. But I don't want complication.

You can't have your cake and eat it too though, at least not to my knowledge. The fact of the matter is, the more you allow players to customize their characters, the more time you will have to spend at the table adjudicating rules and the less time you will have to spend roleplaying. So pick one or the other or something in the middle. For me, archetypes, extra classes, extra feats, and all that other jazz is just some needless complication for the most part. Every new degree of customization essentially introduces a new rule to the game. New rules can interact with old rules in funny ways sometimes. That's just the way it is.

 

[gamerprinter]

What I'm more referring to is all the rules & systems that slow down play, especially during combat. Things like all the movement and positioning rules, individual initiative, etc. The problem really began with 3.0 and the addition of (the requirement for) miniatures. I've looked into E6, and it doesn't totally solve the problem. Yes, it eliminates the issues of higher level play, but there are pacing issues at level 1.

Honestly things like use of miniatures, positioning and movement can almost be hand-waved aside. Having played many years of D&D, one can play PF the same way, with only rough positioning, knowing where the opponent is, where the terrain hazards are and then playing combat a bit statically. But then all the special movements, feats and such that improve combat have to go out the window. But this really only happens in combat, and there are minimal opportunities for roleplay in most combat situations. So excise the rules in social situations, and including them in combat only, I don't find it should be too much of a problem.

As for the MMO comment, what I meant is that the person isn't necessarily trying to recreate an MMO experience (they may have never even played one), but instead I meant to refer to a similarity of mentality. A mentality where one is more concerned with numbers, mechanics, min-maxing, optimizing, and creating the most combat-capable character they can as opposed to creating an interesting character from a story perspective.

That is a player issue, not a system issue. I know plenty of players who game the numbers, as those who rely heavily on roleplaying vs. roll playing. If you place a numbers gaming player into a 2e game, he's going to find some way to game the system, even if 2e is less gamable than 3x+. I grant you that for 3x/PF there are more combinations of abilities that play on the math of the game, making it easier for a 'number crunching' player to try to game it. Again this is a player issue and not really Pathfinder's fault. Find different players - I've gotten rid of all the system-gamers from our gaming group. Do the same and the problem will go away. If you can't get rid of a particular player, because he's your friend - then you'll have to learn to live with it.

I'm also not passing judgment on those who like to play that way; there are obviously a lot who do. It's just not the experience I want to have at my gaming table. More and more, though, I think this is a mentality that is hardwired into Pathfinder.

Again, no, it's hardwired into certain players and made that way since 3x - get rid of those players and you've gotten rid of the problem.

If you look at just the core book at the number of words devoted to combat mechanics as opposed to things like roleplay, social encounters, character development (as in personality not combat effectiveness), it's obvious what the game focuses on. You can't really blame the players for picking up on that.

Really while social situations can be enhanced with skill use, feat use, subsystem use, you can invariably run social situations without using any mechanics at all. I really don't need a Pathfinder mechanic to role play. If you're group is weak on playing social situations, then specific rules to help emulate social situations can help - and then looking at the unbalanced rules of combat mechanics vs. social mechanics. But if your players are good roleplayers, those role playing mechanic bits like skill use is completely unnecessary. Don't ask your player to make a skill check ever, ask if he has the skill and then let the player talk it out with the NPC. If you never ask for a skill check, a skill check will never be rolled - and that fiddly mechanical bit will never get in the way. It is the job of you the GM to set the tone of which social mechanics should be included or not. IT IS NOT A SYSTEM ISSUE - all are player and game master issues only.

It's like the inclusion of subsystem Romance point rules for Jade Regent - does anybody really need that kind of subsystem (or any subsystem) to run social situations? Answer: no. This is strictly for groups who are over-number-concerned, which aren't all/most gamers. For those optimizers, the Romance rules can help invoke social situations. For those gamers who have no problem role playing, there is absolutely no need for the Romance rules, hence why most groups playing JR never use it.

The developers including the option, gives more tools to the GM that needs it. But all subsystems are OPTIONAL. You don't have to play them, just because it's included. To put the blame on the system, suggests that you as a GM cannot customize the game for your group - and that has never been true in any D&D/PF game. The problem is in your hands only - not the system.

 

[timASW]

I've been playing pathfinder for at least 6 months without a grid or mini's and we havent had to remove anything. Things like AoO's just come up less often and are reserved for times when they really matter.

 

[craftyrat]

Our group plays Pathfinder without feats, archetypes, rogue talents/rage powers/etc, and 5 foot steps. We limit attacks of opportunity to 2 situations: engaging a creature with reach, and moving away from a creature you had engaged in melee (or had engaged you). We took the conditions and collapsed most of them into 3 new easy to remember conditions. We got rid of skills and replaced them with a narrative description of your character's background and talents. When a character wants to do something the GM decides on the spot what kind of action it is. Area of effect spells cannot be aimed to the nearest inch (if you fireball someone in melee combat, you will get everyone in that combat). We replaced basic +n magic items with inherent bonuses. We did have to make a few specific class rules (ie to the fighter, a few bonuses to replace the bonus feats).

You could argue at this point we aren't playing Pathfinder anymore, but we can play pf modules with minimal alteration. Combat goes quicker, and characters are more about their story than a collection of skills and powers. It greatly helps (is necessary) that we have played together for a long time, and are very comfortable with each other, and our GMs.

 

[Evenglare]

I know you guys are playing pathfinder and all but I can not recommend 13th age enough. It eliminates your issues with the battle grid and focuses as much on character development within the fiction of the game as much as it does with combat and rules like that. Again, I can not recommend it enough. It's soooo good.

 

[timASW]

Yeah, I've heard that a lot about 13th age but I've also heard a lot of things that make it seem like something I would strongly dislike.

 

[Mike Myler]

There's no reason you can't limit the scope of the game to the Core Pathfinder rules (Player's Handbook, Bestiary) and as far as 'combat is taking a ridiculous amount of time', I've found that the more your group plays, the faster combat gets. Ease of use comes over time with any given character.
I've got a stable of playtesters and many are new to Pathfinder, but after a few games they've gotten on point and now combat isn't the tangle of rules, minor arguments, etc that it can often degenerate into.

Pathfinder also takes longer, period, because everything has more hit points. Considerably so. The inclusion of CMB/CMD is freaking awesome though, and needed to happen some time ago.

 

[Weather Report]

I second checking out 5th Ed, it has a bit of a Basic/stripped down AD&D/3rd Ed deal.

And the most conversion friendly edition yet, IME.