Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 6346998" data-attributes="member: 12377">I love the idea of &quot;table competition.&quot; The real battle isn't which RPG will win in the market, but which will win the answer to, &quot;hey, what do you like playing?&quot;From its inception, 5e was designed to be broad and inclusive (and I think they succeeded as much as could be expected -- it's kind of an impossible goal). This is good because it increases product compatibility. Wizards can publish an adventure one time, and it can be played by both rules-light Theater-of-the-Mind groups and by groups using a crunch-heavy Tactical Combat Module. It's also good because players can move between those two groups with minimal effort: you might have to learn (or unlearn) a few rules, and maybe it's not exactly your play style, but it's at least doable.Pathfinder was born from a fragmented, polarized community. A lot of people left 3.5 because they didn't like it and don't want to go back, but a lot of other people hated 4e and refused to play it or even acknowledge it as D&amp;D. Paizo picked a side in the edition war -- PF rules are more elaborate and detailed than 3.5, with more CharOp options (especially post-APG), and the huge monster stat blocks in APs aren't well suited to fast, improv-style play.I'm fascinated by the idea of a real &quot;Pathfinder Lite&quot; with simplified rules, much fewer character options, and better caster balance. If Paizo did it right, converting monster stats would be a clear mechanical process, so they could publish 2 versions of each AP without much effort. This would be a recognition that PF isn't for everyone, but without abandoning the hardcore 3e/PF fans (the way Wizards did with the switch to 4e).It's the only move I can see Paizo making to retain &quot;table share&quot; -- broadening the appeal of PF to reach players who got burnt out on 3.5 but still want APs. Of course Wizard could still drop the ball on 5e, and the lack of a product road map is not encouraging. But if they keep nailing it like they have been, I think it will soon be easier to find 5e DMs than PF GMs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 6346998, member: 12377"] I love the idea of "table competition." The real battle isn't which RPG will win in the market, but which will win the answer to, "hey, what do you like playing?" From its inception, 5e was designed to be broad and inclusive (and I think they succeeded as much as could be expected -- it's kind of an impossible goal). This is good because it increases product compatibility. Wizards can publish an adventure one time, and it can be played by both rules-light Theater-of-the-Mind groups and by groups using a crunch-heavy Tactical Combat Module. It's also good because players can move between those two groups with minimal effort: you might have to learn (or unlearn) a few rules, and maybe it's not exactly your play style, but it's at least doable. Pathfinder was born from a fragmented, polarized community. A lot of people left 3.5 because they didn't like it and don't want to go back, but a lot of other people hated 4e and refused to play it or even acknowledge it as D&D. Paizo picked a side in the edition war -- PF rules are more elaborate and detailed than 3.5, with more CharOp options (especially post-APG), and the huge monster stat blocks in APs aren't well suited to fast, improv-style play. I'm fascinated by the idea of a real "Pathfinder Lite" with simplified rules, much fewer character options, and better caster balance. If Paizo did it right, converting monster stats would be a clear mechanical process, so they could publish 2 versions of each AP without much effort. This would be a recognition that PF isn't for everyone, but without abandoning the hardcore 3e/PF fans (the way Wizards did with the switch to 4e). It's the only move I can see Paizo making to retain "table share" -- broadening the appeal of PF to reach players who got burnt out on 3.5 but still want APs. Of course Wizard could still drop the ball on 5e, and the lack of a product road map is not encouraging. But if they keep nailing it like they have been, I think it will soon be easier to find 5e DMs than PF GMs. [/QUOTE]

Verification