Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7638836" data-attributes="member: 7635">I'll answer the question by referencing another game: Magic the Gathering. Each new set contains 200+ new or reprinted cards, but in each set less than 20 of them are actually &quot;good&quot; for constructing a deck. The remainder is either used for draft play, and some are intentionally bad as traps to teach newer players how to assess the value of a card. In essence, they are traps.Paizo does something similar in Pathfinder, which they learned from WotC during 3e. Sometimes an option is subpar because part of the game was learning those traps and avoiding them. It's part of the metagame. Now, not all options are intentionally bad, some after goofs or just bad design, but others are there to make charops play possible. In other words, Paizo makes traps because some players like finding and avoiding them.The rise of internet guides from red to sky blue were a result of finding traps and avoiding them, but also finding synergies (intended and not) to exploit. And as the game was &quot;solved&quot; from the charbuild standpoint, much like how MTG deck lists must be changed to remain fresh, new options were added to appease the solvers, while changes were made to monsters and adventures to accommodate the solved builds. Nothing illustrates this better than something that happened a few years back; Paizo introduced a &quot;core only&quot; variant to the Pathfinder Society and there were people complaining that the latter scenarios of PFS would be unplayable with just Core Rulebook PC's because those modules were designed for PC's with options for newer rulebooks. I think that best sums up Paizo's predicament and why a 2e was going to need to exist sooner or later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 7638836, member: 7635"] I'll answer the question by referencing another game: Magic the Gathering. Each new set contains 200+ new or reprinted cards, but in each set less than 20 of them are actually "good" for constructing a deck. The remainder is either used for draft play, and some are intentionally bad as traps to teach newer players how to assess the value of a card. In essence, they are traps. Paizo does something similar in Pathfinder, which they learned from WotC during 3e. Sometimes an option is subpar because part of the game was learning those traps and avoiding them. It's part of the metagame. Now, not all options are intentionally bad, some after goofs or just bad design, but others are there to make charops play possible. In other words, Paizo makes traps because some players like finding and avoiding them. The rise of internet guides from red to sky blue were a result of finding traps and avoiding them, but also finding synergies (intended and not) to exploit. And as the game was "solved" from the charbuild standpoint, much like how MTG deck lists must be changed to remain fresh, new options were added to appease the solvers, while changes were made to monsters and adventures to accommodate the solved builds. Nothing illustrates this better than something that happened a few years back; Paizo introduced a "core only" variant to the Pathfinder Society and there were people complaining that the latter scenarios of PFS would be unplayable with just Core Rulebook PC's because those modules were designed for PC's with options for newer rulebooks. I think that best sums up Paizo's predicament and why a 2e was going to need to exist sooner or later. [/QUOTE]

Verification