Pathfinder 1E Pramas on Paizo

[Alan Shutko]

The solution is simple. The three individuals take turns DMing. The group plays Pathfinder for a while, then switches to True20, then to 4e. Problem solved.

The longer I game, the more plausible I find that scenario. I mean, right now I've convinced a bunch of people to play Rules Cyclopedia for a long-running campaign, while we intersperse it with some 4e run by another person, and have a monthly 3.5e game run by someone else.

Nobody balked. Nobody is saying they won't play it. Nobody has ever READ THE RULES BEFORE, but they say "Hey, let's give it a shot." And yet, it's completely against conventional wisdom.

 

[Voss]

Its certainly against my experience. Having options is wonderful and all, but finding players is always important.

I've heard lots of people rave about wonderful Earthdawn is, but I've never actually met people in the area I happen to be in (at any given time) actually willing to play it.

 

[Crothian]

The solution is simple. The three individuals take turns DMing. The group plays Pathfinder for a while, then switches to True20, then to 4e. Problem solved.

Must be nice being able to buy three different sets of books that you'll be using less then half the time.

I'm not saying there are no solutions, I'm just saying it is not necessarily the great thing for gaming people are saying it is.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I note that Chris says one of the things I noted.

Paizo doesn't have to "beat" WoTC.

They just have to do well enough to feed themselves.

I'll be more interested if Paizo's home setting has Freeport written into it like Mythic Eye Games and Paradigm's settings did. The 3.5 companion just came out and it's time to get some game on.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Must be nice being able to buy three different sets of books that you'll be using less then half the time.

Each person at the table has to buy only one book each. Then they share the book. It may not be the most efficient, but it's entirely possible to do.

Besides, better using a book less than half the time than not at all.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Each person at the table has to buy only one book each. Then they share the book. It may not be the most efficient, but it's entirely possible to do.

Besides, better using a book less than half the time than not at all.

Not every gamer group has more than one person willing, able or - sometimes - wanted to DM, though. A tougher situation if players want to play different systems.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Not every gamer group has more than one person willing, able or - sometimes - wanted to DM, though. A tougher situation if players want to play different systems.

I think we're breaking off into a tangent here.

My point is that if three people at a table want a different system, then they can share the DM'ing duties. If only one person wants to DM, then they can either use the DM's system of choice or the group can come to a compromise.

If something as trivial as a game system would cause a group to break up, then I don't think that group is worth playing in. I've been in tons of groups where people aren't playing their system of choice, but they're okay with it. Their key concern is getting together with friends and having a good time.

Now, I realize that not everybody is this way and that game systems may just be that important for some people. Maybe they don't like the complexity of some rules systems, or maybe they just really hate certain mechanics in a system. I can kind of see that. To each their own.

For me, it's the story, fun, and friends that matters most. The key thing, no matter your opinion, is to game with a group where you're having fun.

 

[hong]

If something as trivial as a game system would cause a group to break up, then I don't think that group is worth playing in. I've been in tons of groups where people aren't playing their system of choice, but they're okay with it. Their key concern is getting together with friends and having a good time.

I'm not sure how "wants to play only one ruleset" morphed into "not worth playing in". People can do other things together besides just playing RPGs, right?

 

[hong]

People can do other things together besides just playing RPGs, right?

FNARR FNARR

 

[Dragonhelm]

I'm not sure how "wants to play only one ruleset" morphed into "not worth playing in". People can do other things together besides just playing RPGs, right?

Hehe. I'm not going there.

To make an analogy, let's say a group of friends got together at somebody's house to watch a movie (another great, fun thing people can do together besides playing RPGs). The host shows off his new Blu-Ray player. Suddenly friend #1 is complaining because it's not on HD-DVD and friend #2 is complaining because it isn't in VHS. Because the player isn't everyone's favorite player of choice, the friends break up and don't watch the movie.

Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?

Wanting to play only one rules set is fine. Just find a group that agrees with you and play.

What strikes me as odd, though (and this is just my opinion, nothing more) is when an existing group that has gamed together for a while break up because a couple of new rules systems come out. I can see a player or two wanting to try something new. That's when compromise and sharing the spotlight come into play.

Now, how does this affect us as a community? It's hard to say exactly. From a business perspective, it's good to have some competition. I think both parties will try harder to make a stellar product. I think Paizo will make enough to survive, and I have no doubts on WotC's ability to survive. I don't think any doom and gloom is in order.

As for fracturing the gaming community...I don't get that. We're all gamers, right? So what does it matter what system we use? Plus, why does it have to be a "versus" mentality? We have the capacity to enjoy more than one system. Personally, I like a variety of systems. I'm going to be buying both the Pathfinder and 4e rules. Not everyone has the money to buy both, but if the books are available at the game table through other players, there's no reason why a person can't enjoy both.