Pathfinder OGL/3.5 RPG system from Paizo

[Psion]

In that case, congratulations, you've just become a statistical outlier

Yeah. It's statistics. Internet statistics. That makes it better.

 

[Eridanis]

Sunderstone, dmcoy - Don't belittle the playing preferences of others on this board. Continued posts like those will result in a vacation from here.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Sunderstone, dmcoy - Don't belittle the playing preferences of others on this board. Continued posts like those will result in a vacation from here.

Does my editted post made mods happy? (trying to be the skittles of ENWorld)

 

[BryonD]

Thats what the good folks at WotC told us when they announced 4E. Your game is broken, even if it works for you. You need to move on to our upcoming shiny 4E. You will like 4E because we say it'll be better.


umm.... no.

I think you may have misunderstood my emphasis.
I think it is without question that "many" people had issues with 3E and "many" people will like 4E.

I don't think it is at all clear that more people had issues with 3E than liked it. (I really quite doubt that).
I don't think it is at all clear that 4E will be embraced 2 years in by as many people as 3E was two years in. (Again, I personally doubt it).

I don't consider 3E at all broken. There are some points that could have used a fix up. But 4e's "solution" to a draft in the basement was to tear down the house and move us into a tiny shack - with no basement at all.

 

[Psion]

Even people that identify problems don't always complain. I don't think I complained that much on the web, for example, though I remember that at least since the times of Arcana Evolved, I developed a deep hatred for the Grapple rules (and not because they were complicated, but because of the incredible bad balance issues it created with larger monsters vs NPCs), and I dreaded adventure (or rater: NPC) preparation...

But if Psion is saying there are no problems for him, and he never complained, yes, he's probably a statistical outlier.

Well, a quick search will reveal that I have my share of complaints. But I am not fool enough to think that just because lots of people are grousing about something means it's a problem that most real tables are experiencing. Call to mind, if you will, the days of yore when the boards were filled with dread over how overpowered the Monk and Mystic Theurge are.

I once had a player convinced that sneak attack was overpowered and HAD TO GO. Now most of us would agree that sneak attack isn't ALL THAT under normal circumstances. This sort of thinking is endemic of the sort of thinking that drives a lot of internet complaints: the perception that if any character but my own does something cool/powerful/decisive, its worthy of jealousy, regardless of the fact that my favorite class does stuff just as important. In short: to many players, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Further, I see many supposed problems that people complain about and 4e aims to patch over to be characteristic of particular gaming styles and expectations... the whole 15 minute day thing comes to mind here.

Finally, I think that many problems that people complain about can be addressed by effective GMing, and fixing these sorts of things will be temporary at best if you just rely on rules fixes being a tweak to your problems.

Which is all not to say I don't see potential for improvement and very real issues that make GMing more challenging than it could be. But I also see lots of complaints that to me stem more from the attitude of the players/GMs than the rules.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

In that case, congratulations, you've just become a statistical outlier

Hmmmm, could we get some numbers with this hyperbole, please?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, a quick search will reveal that I have my share of complaints. But I am not fool enough to think that just because lots of people are grousing about something means it's a problem that most real tables are experiencing. Call to mind, if you will, the days of yore when the boards were filled with dread over how overpowered the Monk and Mystic Theurge are.

I remember that. Especially because I thought the Mystic Theurge as overpowered and still feel stupid about it.
I think there is a typical symptom: What looks overpowered or underpowered on paper sometimes just isn't.

But if after actually using the rules you stumble upon issues, then there is one. Maybe it's only for you, but if you find enough posters (with experience, not just avid rule-book readers, actual "users") wondering, complaining or ranting on the same topics, you know there is really something wrong there.

If you look back, the primary reason why monks looked overpowered was that people didn't really grasp all the details of the rules until a lot later. The Monk class table is full of cool sounding abilities. But you totally miss the fact that he doesn't wear any armor and requires a lot better stats then other character classes to get a comparative AC, and that he doesn't use weapons that could be magically enhanced. And that his two strengths - speed and flurry of blows - are actually at odds with each other, since you can't flurry after a move...
MAD and the beloved Christmas Tree weren't well-known concept that time...

Unfortunately, that also means, that 4E still has a chance to suck, since we haven't played it yet. (Well, except maybe the D&D 4 Light test runs after or during the D&D Experience. But that was first level play. it was a lot of fun, probably more so then 3E 1st level play, but then, 3E was also a lot more fun after 1st level... Which either indicates it's getting better in both cases, or just means there is correlation...)

I once had a player convinced that sneak attack was overpowered and HAD TO GO. Now most of us would agree that sneak attack isn't ALL THAT under normal circumstances. This sort of thinking is endemic of the sort of thinking that drives a lot of internet complaints: the perception that if any character but my own does something cool/powerful/decisive, its worthy of jealousy, regardless of the fact that my favorite class does stuff just as important. In short: to many players, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Further, I see many supposed problems that people complain about and 4e aims to patch over to be characteristic of particular gaming styles and expectations... the whole 15 minute day thing comes to mind here.

Finally, I think that many problems that people complain about can be addressed by effective GMing, and fixing these sorts of things will be temporary at best if you just rely on rules fixes being a tweak to your problems.

On the other hand, I always wonder if it wouldn't be a lot cooler if the rules would allow to concentrate the DMs not on fixing perceived or real problems, but doing other stuff, like creating better maps, more memorable NPCs, cooler plots, clever villains, good background music, baking cake for his players, or whatever else might come to your mind when thinking of "Things I would do as a GM if I had all the time and energy of the world"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmmmm, could we get some numbers with this hyperbole, please?

I have some numbers, look

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 200234, 42, 23, 666, 911, 4711, 64, 1024, 3.142

Does this help you or Firevalkyrie? If you need more, just PM or something...

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I'm planning on keeping an eye on the Pathfinder game.

The thing that strikes me as interesting is that at the end of the day, the Pathfinder project is simply going to be making at least one group of potential adopters unhappy. There really is no way to avoid it. But everyone seems to think that it's "obvious" what problems there are and how to "fix" them.

Like skills for example. Yup, everyone's going to be on the same page.

At the end of the day, here's the problem:
There is absolutely no way that any game can be tested by a group of people, and have it satisfy the needs/desires of _everyone_. WotC couldn't (and can't) do it regardless of how many playtesters it's had, and Pathfinder won't be able to do it despite the fact that it's probably going to be the first game ever to have such a large number of (potential) playtesters.

Keep in mind, that while WotC has "game designers" that are smart folks, and has had a bunch of people to play test their games when they develop them, the number of people that play the game is far and away beyond the number of people that play test(ed) it.

Which is my roundabout way of saying that 3.x/4E/Pathfinder basically amount to a group's house rules for a fantasy game that are published an distributed to a large number of people.

Pathfinder is interesting because finally, all the yelling and screaming internet cranks have a chance to actually influence and direct the revision of their game. Instead of second-guessing, "sunday quarterbacking", "backseat driving", and so forth, folks are being invited to step up to the plate and seriously discuss "problems" within the game and what those solutions are.

Of course, not everyone is going to be happy with the way things turn out but then again they're already unhappy with a set of changes that's being done to begin with (4E). Despite that though, there's going to be a portion of people that got most (if not all) of what they're looking for, and then they'l handwave/houserule the rest just like people have been doing for the past 20 years.

Hopefully those people that get what they want are actually playing the damn thing, instead of forum rats that haven't played a game for years and don't plan on it either.

I do hope that Pathfinder is going to stay the course and focus on fixing actual rule problems instead of playstyle preferences, but only time will tell on that.

Of course, for the cynical people out there that have a wider knowledge of game systems, there's always the possibility of Pathfinder becoming the modern-day version of Fudge. With more rules. Then again, Fudge did lead to the eventual creation Spirit of the Century, so in another 15 years or so Pathfinder could birth something pretty spiffy.