Quote from: Haffrung;1081395...Nothing weird about it. Most RPGs are indistinguishable from one another to a new player. ...

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081405Few new players choose what system they play. It's chosen for them by whoever invited them into a group.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to long time members of the Hobby.

Like I said, it is an interesting effect similar to what I've seen elsewhere, they know of other RPG's - just adamantly Zero Interest.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081432I should have been more clear, I was referring to long time members of the Hobby.

Like I said, it is an interesting effect similar to what I've seen elsewhere, they know of other RPG's - just adamantly Zero Interest.

No that's fair, once I got my group on Savage Worlds, they aren't really interested in trying out new RPGs.

And they weren't interested in Savage Worlds at all until we beat PF and 5e in the ground and I ran them though a campaign.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288I can appreciate how 3.x advanced with the capabilities of nerds so that only tech savvy nerds could play/enjoy it. Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies" and diluted our sacred hobby into a collection of regular people who enjoy it because it's fun.

3.x was able to maintain the stigma in a world where liking nerdy stuff became normal. It could only achieve that through overly complicated design entirely at odds with a class based system.

3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

Well, as a nerd that's why I like Pathfinder (1st Edition) and Hero System.  GURPS is too much even for me.

jg

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288I can appreciate how 3.x advanced with the capabilities of nerds so that only tech savvy nerds could play/enjoy it. Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies" and diluted our sacred hobby into a collection of regular people who enjoy it because it's fun.

3.x was able to maintain the stigma in a world where liking nerdy stuff became normal. It could only achieve that through overly complicated design entirely at odds with a class based system.

3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

I can't speak for every 3.x/PF player out there, but exploring the complex puzzle of character building in those systems can be fun.  Not for being able to perfectly approximate some ideal that exists in the mind's eye, but for figuring out ways to put together all those moving parts into a functional whole.

Quote from: James Gillen;1081516Well, as a nerd that's why I like Pathfinder (1st Edition) and Hero System.  GURPS is too much even for me.

jg

In no realm is GURPS (4e) more complicated than PF.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081542In no realm is GURPS (4e) more complicated than PF.

I have to disagree. I find Gurps more complicated than Pathfinder imo. The only truly annoying part to myself at least about Pathfinder is remembering if modifier A stacks or not with Modifier B. Or does Modifier C stack with everything and so on. Why they did not allow all modifiers to stack with one one another still makes me scratch my head to this day. Otherwise everything is pretty much done for a player character. Roll dice pick class and start playing. Gurps requires a player to build everything from the ground up. Yes they are templates that speed up the process one still has to pick and choose does one want too many options to complete the character imo. Not for myself as I [played both Hero and Gurps someone coming say from D&D more often than not goes back to D&D because of the extra work required to make the character. Once you get the process down it's not that much imo too many especially news people to Gurps and Hero it's simply too much work and math. Even Pathfinder has math it seems to be well hidden in the system if that is the right way to describe it vs very in your face with Gurps.

Quote from: sureshot;1081567I have to disagree. I find Gurps more complicated than Pathfinder imo. The only truly annoying part to myself at least about Pathfinder is remembering if modifier A stacks or not with Modifier B. Or does Modifier C stack with everything and so on. Why they did not allow all modifiers to stack with one one another still makes me scratch my head to this day. Otherwise everything is pretty much done for a player character. Roll dice pick class and start playing. Gurps requires a player to build everything from the ground up. Yes they are templates that speed up the process one still has to pick and choose does one want too many options to complete the character imo. Not for myself as I [played both Hero and Gurps someone coming say from D&D more often than not goes back to D&D because of the extra work required to make the character. Once you get the process down it's not that much imo too many especially news people to Gurps and Hero it's simply too much work and math. Even Pathfinder has math it seems to be well hidden in the system if that is the right way to describe it vs very in your face with Gurps.

You are primarily speaking of player crunch and I was making a more holistic claim.

But even then, I must disagree. Plopping a character together and starting is easy enough, but a GURPS character could just put all points into attributes and start as well. Since you know something about GURPS, you know that that is a terrible idea. Well one does not simply just make a PF character. The best experience in PF is when everyone optimizes equally and your options are across dozen of books while even GURPS options stay more limited even with splat book (less trash to sift through, but that is a whole other problem with PF).

For example, a viable Fighter needs to know the core book, advance player guide, ultimate combat, Weapon Masters Handbook, and the Armor Masters Handbook. He then needs to take variants (but not any variant) to replace base class features to remain viable for the whole campaign (I guess if you play PF from 1-7 levels these issues don't become apparent, but PF also kind of sucks at those levels). And even with all that, he is merely OK at his job, provided that he also mastered the magic item system and prioritized the right items.

"Oh just use the core book" that makes GURPS simpler, but worst balanced book in PF is the CRB.

"One does not simply make a Pathfinder character..."
- Boromir

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081570"Oh just use the core book" that makes GURPS simpler, but worst balanced book in PF is the CRB.

The same was true of 3/3.5e. The system was a LOT stronger if you banned most of the core classes and allowed the splatbook classes.

The cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard on one end and the fighter, monk and paladin at the other end were were the classes at the extreme ends of the PC power curve ranging from "stupidly over-powered" to "can barely do its job." Hells, the NPC Adept class is considered a stronger class than the fighter, monk or paladin.

The best play experience for 3.5e from the groups I've played with and heard stories from were ones where all the PCs were in the "tier 3-4" range. For official 3.5e classes that would include;

Tier 3: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Ranger (Wildshape variant), Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior, Incarnate, Totemist - Good at one thing & useful outside that, or moderately useful at most things.

Tier 4: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium variant)  - Good at one thing but useless at everything else, or mediocre at many things.

One could say the say to a degree about 4E material as well; the core book material was easily the worst of the lot, but was salvageable in that case because the modular powers approach allowed the addition of abilities that fixed a lot of the glaring early problems (ex. the 4E Paladin really needs the additional options from Divine Power to make its Strength-based build fully functional). The material from the PHB2 on was a LOT stronger both in terms of flavor and mechanically. 5e similarly benefits heavily from the additional material from Xanthar's Guide to Everything.

Basically, both 3e, 4E and 5e show that game design is a process that is rarely complete just because you got a book out the door. Often the earliest classes/monsters/etc. are the weakest examples of what the system can do because the creators themselves are still learning elements of it that can only emerge through actual play by more than just their play-testers. All three were stronger products 2-3 years on than they were at launch.

Pathfinder's biggest problem is that they could only use the elements of 3.5e with the weakest design unless they were willing to do their own design work. Their related problem is that there's a huge difference between the level of design work needed for adventures using a system and for actually building a system from the ground up. Paizo has been pretty good with the former (hence all the praise for their adventure paths), but has proven mediocre at best with the latter.

Maybe releasing new edition of the same game to tackle those problems in the core book is a better approach than just making a new game?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081589Maybe releasing new edition of the same game to tackle those problems in the core book is a better approach than just making a new game?

Takling those problems would certainly change things enough that a "new edition" would have been different enough to justify itself if they went that direction.

Quote from: Chris24601;1081586The same was true of 3/3.5e. The system was a LOT stronger if you banned most of the core classes and allowed the splatbook classes...

...the core book material was easily the worst of the lot, but was salvageable in that case because the modular powers approach allowed the addition of abilities that fixed a lot of the glaring early problems ...

Basically, both 3e, 4E and 5e show that game design is a process that is rarely complete just because you got a book out the door. Often the earliest classes/monsters/etc. are the weakest examples of what the system can do because the creators themselves are still learning elements of it that can only emerge through actual play by more than just their play-testers. All three were stronger products 2-3 years on than they were at launch..

Makes one wonder what 4e would have been like if they used what was learned, applied the 5e design philosophy to simplifying the game a bit, and actually fixing the underlying issues with 3.x.

The hobby could have had that 2-3 years on stronger rules set in the core 4e.

Rather than inducing the same effect all over again, by changing things enough that the underlying system has to be re-learned yet again.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081125When you look at the series of missteps WOTC made that led to PF success, is really is quite impressive how they could do so many own goals in a row like that.

WOTC has a long standing rep for marketing screwups. Usually small but costly, sometimes bit, and very costly. Hasbro eventually tightened WOTC's leash quite a bit and they still did their damndest to fuck things up with various product during the 4e era. And not just the RPG, but board games too. Something was seriously off kilter at WOTC during that span in particular.

Quote from: Alathon;1081538I can't speak for every 3.x/PF player out there, but exploring the complex puzzle of character building in those systems can be fun.  Not for being able to perfectly approximate some ideal that exists in the mind's eye, but for figuring out ways to put together all those moving parts into a functional whole.

It's about as much fun for me as putting together a schedule for a unit with 80+ FTEs while every-other asshole is dropping FMLA paperwork on my desk.

Quote from: Haffrung;1081168Games that rarely change from edition tend to be small one or two man shows. Or properties that change hands from small publisher to small publisher.

For a company the size of Paizo, the status quo is slow death. All RPGs relentlessly shed players, and Pathfinder isn't replacing those players at a rate to keep up. I'm guessing all their book lines are selling less than they were two years ago, which was less than they were two years before that. They had to make a move unless they want to shrink into a tiny outfit like Chaosium.

Grognards can still play the old game. Or they can make the switch to the new. But expecting the game to remain essentially unchanged, while Paizo continues to release a dozen APs chapters and a half dozen support books a year, is naive delusion.

In retrospect the best thing for Paizo to have done would be to take their 4ed-era profits and stick them in an index fund. Paizo's ability to consolidate the "people who liked 3.5ed" market took brains, just look at how fragmented the OSR market is compared to PF's dominance. But the "people who liked 3.5ed" market segment would inevitably wither and it was dependent on WotC continuing to be incompetant as a DnD edition that didn't suck would clearly yank the rug out from under them.

Instead Paizo got way too overconfident. The online game was sheer lunacy for example.