How do people here feel about so-called “Paizo” principles of design?
Namely, they view customization as king, as an inherent good which is necessarily for the hobby. These principles aren’t widespread, because Paizo hasn’t really inspired an entire school of designers in the same way that Storygame principles have, or OSR principles have.
But you can see this in some of how Shadow of the Demon Lord was designed, you can see this in how Paizo designed Starfinder, and of course Pathfinder remains the second best-selling tabletop RPG, so it still definitely has a fanbase which admires these principles.
Paizo principles also involve other ideas, such as the idea that the GM can’t be trusted in terms of challenge design (which is why there are so many DCs for checks, so much nominal “balancing math” for encounters, etc). It looks and feels different in implementation, but those principles actually share philosophical similarities to how GM-less storygames create genres and stories via the mechanics because they want to take those powers a bit out of the GM’s hands, out of the GM’s perhaps “arbitrary” control.
So. They are a set of principles, even if not as influential necessarily among indie designers. How do people feel about those principles?
What do you mean by customization?
What do you mean by customization?
I find that the goal of maximum customization leads to analysis paralysis. For me, three options (or a blank space) is superior to a list of 20 (or 100 or 1000) options.
If you don’t trust the GM to adjudicate things, why are we playing? Is the GM just holding up monster props to be knocked down at specified intervals? I have plenty of board games and computer RPGs if I’m looking for that style of fun.
I find that the goal of maximum customization leads to analysis paralysis. For me, three options (or a blank space) is superior to a list of 20 (or 100 or 1000) options.
If you don’t trust the GM to adjudicate things, why are we playing? Is the GM just holding up monster props to be knocked down at specified intervals? I have plenty of board games and computer RPGs if I’m looking for that style of fun.
I’d add the additional observation that “customization” was fairly well established as an element in the RPG space decades ago. Champions, GURPS, Traveller (after a fashion) Role Master, MechWarrior and almost every early cyberpunk game from CyberPunk 2020 to Space Time and Shadowrun were built on customizing characters.
I might also add that FUDGE and it’s descendants, PDQ, FATE and FAE are actually more truly “infinitely customizable” and we’re not critical of them.
Moreover, I don’t think character customization is a bad thing.
The use of archetypes or playbooks in “story games” isn’t a bad thing either. It’s just a different kind of game. The characters serve as narrative devices rather than ways to interact with challenges.
Pathfinder’s evolution is more influenced by D&D’s roots in Chainmail than story games’ further development toward media emulation engines.
Again, that is not a good or bad thing intrinsically. It’s just a different kind of play.
I’d add the additional observation that “customization” was fairly well established as an element in the RPG space decades ago. Champions, GURPS, Traveller (after a fashion) Role Master, MechWarrior and almost every early cyberpunk game from CyberPunk 2020 to Space Time and Shadowrun were built on customizing characters.
I might also add that FUDGE and it’s descendants, PDQ, FATE and FAE are actually more truly “infinitely customizable” and we’re not critical of them.
Moreover, I don’t think character customization is a bad thing.
The use of archetypes or playbooks in “story games” isn’t a bad thing either. It’s just a different kind of game. The characters serve as narrative devices rather than ways to interact with challenges.
Pathfinder’s evolution is more influenced by D&D’s roots in Chainmail than story games’ further development toward media emulation engines.
Again, that is not a good or bad thing intrinsically. It’s just a different kind of play.
re:customization – whatever you want it to mean, really. The author is dead and all that. I only note it because they’ve stated that “customization is king will always be our guiding principle” in their talks about 2e. They really want to keep the audience member which wants to be able to play the Ifrit Tinkerer, which a lot of other designers are fine with pointing to homebrew.
re:convenience – to say market doesn’t influence things is naive, for sure. but i don’t want to go 180 and say it helps purely marketing, either. they do seem to actually like the game they play, and the fans do tout this principle as a reason they love PF to death.
re:trust – plenty of games are built out of a lack of trust, though. Burning Wheel is noncontroversially somewhat based on lack of trust – it was built in response to GMs who couldn’t handle certain types of play. the proliferation of Moves in PbtA games both serve as a teaching tool and as a guideline for GMs – one more explicit than the DMG would offer in a trad game.
so i think it’s common for folks to want to reduce the power of the GM.
it’s also important to remember that lacking trust isn’t the same as full-on distrust. in other words, it isn’t that i think my GM is a backstabbing lout, it’s more that I’m not sure if he has the tools to create an environment of teenage monster romance…so i might pull out Monsterhearts to help. i’ve heard pathfinder players say they aren’t sure if the GM has tools to really give their crafting goals the proper due – so they’ll pull out Xanathar’s Guide (5e) or some Paizo splatbook.
re:customization elsewhere:
for sure. apologies if i implied paizo originated the concept. i just think they’re the biggest voice for it at the moment. i do agree that customization exists elsewhere in spades.
re:customization – whatever you want it to mean, really. The author is dead and all that. I only note it because they’ve stated that “customization is king will always be our guiding principle” in their talks about 2e. They really want to keep the audience member which wants to be able to play the Ifrit Tinkerer, which a lot of other designers are fine with pointing to homebrew.
re:convenience – to say market doesn’t influence things is naive, for sure. but i don’t want to go 180 and say it helps purely marketing, either. they do seem to actually like the game they play, and the fans do tout this principle as a reason they love PF to death.
re:trust – plenty of games are built out of a lack of trust, though. Burning Wheel is noncontroversially somewhat based on lack of trust – it was built in response to GMs who couldn’t handle certain types of play. the proliferation of Moves in PbtA games both serve as a teaching tool and as a guideline for GMs – one more explicit than the DMG would offer in a trad game.
so i think it’s common for folks to want to reduce the power of the GM.
it’s also important to remember that lacking trust isn’t the same as full-on distrust. in other words, it isn’t that i think my GM is a backstabbing lout, it’s more that I’m not sure if he has the tools to create an environment of teenage monster romance…so i might pull out Monsterhearts to help. i’ve heard pathfinder players say they aren’t sure if the GM has tools to really give their crafting goals the proper due – so they’ll pull out Xanathar’s Guide (5e) or some Paizo splatbook.
re:customization elsewhere:
for sure. apologies if i implied paizo originated the concept. i just think they’re the biggest voice for it at the moment. i do agree that customization exists elsewhere in spades.
Do you have a link to where they are stating those principles?
Do you have a link to where they are stating those principles?
Designers, or community? Since I’m talking about the principles in general.
What they value occurs in all interviews the Paizo staff does about design. The most recent is in the video below (not sure of time, but definitely after the one hour mark). Their blogs also state their positions fairly clearly.
Community can be found in forums, reddit, Discord, and any local game store. The opinions aren’t always going to mirror one another, but “Pathfinder is the game with the most options man” is a frequent memetic sentence that crops up.
youtube.com – Everything You Want to Know about Pathfinder 2.0 Playtest
Designers, or community? Since I’m talking about the principles in general.
What they value occurs in all interviews the Paizo staff does about design. The most recent is in the video below (not sure of time, but definitely after the one hour mark). Their blogs also state their positions fairly clearly.
Community can be found in forums, reddit, Discord, and any local game store. The opinions aren’t always going to mirror one another, but “Pathfinder is the game with the most options man” is a frequent memetic sentence that crops up.
youtube.com – Everything You Want to Know about Pathfinder 2.0 Playtest
Re: customisation. I have found that, in my play, limitations have led to better stories. They seem more concise, directed, and satisfying.
I still see customisation in Story games like AW/DW via custom moves, alternate playbooks, etc.
Re: trust. I mostly play games to have fun, and, if I don’t trust the other GMs or players, that impacts the fun for me. It adds unnecessary stress to a pleasure activity.
Even when I’ve played games that encode trust into the mechanics, I searched out GMs that I trusted. That way, I had more fun.
Re: customisation. I have found that, in my play, limitations have led to better stories. They seem more concise, directed, and satisfying.
I still see customisation in Story games like AW/DW via custom moves, alternate playbooks, etc.
Re: trust. I mostly play games to have fun, and, if I don’t trust the other GMs or players, that impacts the fun for me. It adds unnecessary stress to a pleasure activity.
Even when I’ve played games that encode trust into the mechanics, I searched out GMs that I trusted. That way, I had more fun.
Ant Wu I think you have the GMless design urge backward; the goal (for me and those I know, generally), is to give everyone the fun stuff a GM gets to do – not to curb its power but to embrace it. The rigid frameworks most GMless games operate in are there to handle pacing and spotlight time, which are things a traditional GM handles very well but a table full of GMs get tripped up on sometimes. There’s a good argument that “GMless” is inaccurate and “GMful” is a better bit of jargon.
Ant Wu I think you have the GMless design urge backward; the goal (for me and those I know, generally), is to give everyone the fun stuff a GM gets to do – not to curb its power but to embrace it. The rigid frameworks most GMless games operate in are there to handle pacing and spotlight time, which are things a traditional GM handles very well but a table full of GMs get tripped up on sometimes. There’s a good argument that “GMless” is inaccurate and “GMful” is a better bit of jargon.
I think the framework of “everyone has more GM powers” inevitably curbs the power that “the single GM” would have, wouldn’t it?
It’s a cup half-empty, cup half-full sort of situation. I think both descriptions are quite apt in terms of how the resulting situation looks.
I do admit that viewing it as a “trust curb” is a bit of a pessimistic viewpoint – but I wouldn’t go so far as to say the pessimism is backwards. I’ve very much seen that framework among both players and indie designers.
I’ve seen the GMful direction too, but just in my own personal life, I’ve seen it less.
Maybe I’ll see it more here. 🙂
I think the framework of “everyone has more GM powers” inevitably curbs the power that “the single GM” would have, wouldn’t it?
It’s a cup half-empty, cup half-full sort of situation. I think both descriptions are quite apt in terms of how the resulting situation looks.
I do admit that viewing it as a “trust curb” is a bit of a pessimistic viewpoint – but I wouldn’t go so far as to say the pessimism is backwards. I’ve very much seen that framework among both players and indie designers.
I’ve seen the GMful direction too, but just in my own personal life, I’ve seen it less.
Maybe I’ll see it more here. 🙂
steven watkins
Not to put words in your mouth, but I’m going to basically test out some words, to see if I’m understanding you or if I’m completely off-base:
In terms of Pathfinder’s principles, would you then would call it a wash, if for example it were emulated more in indie games? A.k.a. regardless of whether those principles are in play or not, you’d find a GM you’d trust anyway.
In that context, given that things like “set difficulty” and “encounter balance calculators” are aspects you already trust the GM to manage, the presence of them in a book would be net neutral for you, perhaps?
They’re fluff or something.
steven watkins
Not to put words in your mouth, but I’m going to basically test out some words, to see if I’m understanding you or if I’m completely off-base:
In terms of Pathfinder’s principles, would you then would call it a wash, if for example it were emulated more in indie games? A.k.a. regardless of whether those principles are in play or not, you’d find a GM you’d trust anyway.
In that context, given that things like “set difficulty” and “encounter balance calculators” are aspects you already trust the GM to manage, the presence of them in a book would be net neutral for you, perhaps?
They’re fluff or something.
As someone who also works in the trad space, I can see the appeal of using character creation as a expression. For which a lot of player facing customisation options are helpful.
As someone who also works in the trad space, I can see the appeal of using character creation as a expression. For which a lot of player facing customisation options are helpful.
Ant Wu That’s close.
When I was playing a lot of D&D OGL, I avoided DMs that ran games where I depended on the trust mechanics in the game to “protect” me.
I preferred DMs that I trusted.
In playing Story Games, I found that the trust mechanics in a game weren’t as needed, but became more of a “ritual” during play (the X-card, Roses & Thorns, Lines & Veils, etc.).
I found that, if I was playing with GMs that I trusted, the trust mechanics (as you mention DC and balance) would get in the way.
Mostly, these mechanics were in the GMs way (therefor neutral to me), and they became a distraction from more important GM responsibilites.
Ant Wu That’s close.
When I was playing a lot of D&D OGL, I avoided DMs that ran games where I depended on the trust mechanics in the game to “protect” me.
I preferred DMs that I trusted.
In playing Story Games, I found that the trust mechanics in a game weren’t as needed, but became more of a “ritual” during play (the X-card, Roses & Thorns, Lines & Veils, etc.).
I found that, if I was playing with GMs that I trusted, the trust mechanics (as you mention DC and balance) would get in the way.
Mostly, these mechanics were in the GMs way (therefor neutral to me), and they became a distraction from more important GM responsibilites.
?
You stated how you felt.
I responded. I was definitely not “explaining to you that you feel something else” because that seems extraordinarily assholish.
If you read me as saying that, this is me formally announcing that I did not.
As for sexual harassment, I view that as a knock against any company for what I hope are obvious reasons. That wasn’t what I was curious about, but since you bring it up I also want to make that clear.
?
You stated how you felt.
I responded. I was definitely not “explaining to you that you feel something else” because that seems extraordinarily assholish.
If you read me as saying that, this is me formally announcing that I did not.
As for sexual harassment, I view that as a knock against any company for what I hope are obvious reasons. That wasn’t what I was curious about, but since you bring it up I also want to make that clear.
The games where I’ve had the most fun with customization are Tenra Bansho Zero and Burning Wheel. Pathfinder never really appealed to me much.
The games where I’ve had the most fun with customization are Tenra Bansho Zero and Burning Wheel. Pathfinder never really appealed to me much.
Jim Crocker oh, you were looking out for steven.
Okay, that makes more sense.
While I’m aware of the use of that structure (“not to put words in your mouth”) as a way of forcing positions, I think it is more disingenuous to just go for it without the disclaimer. Plus, in this case it helped me grok faster.
I’ll make a note to not use that structure with you since you have explicitly told me to change my speech, but in general I hope you’ll understand if I keep using it? If others tell me to stop for them, I’ll stop there as well, of course.
It helps me out in ways outside conversing with you and has caused more clarity than confusion in my life outside of this interaction. I hope that is fair to say.
Jim Crocker oh, you were looking out for steven.
Okay, that makes more sense.
While I’m aware of the use of that structure (“not to put words in your mouth”) as a way of forcing positions, I think it is more disingenuous to just go for it without the disclaimer. Plus, in this case it helped me grok faster.
I’ll make a note to not use that structure with you since you have explicitly told me to change my speech, but in general I hope you’ll understand if I keep using it? If others tell me to stop for them, I’ll stop there as well, of course.
It helps me out in ways outside conversing with you and has caused more clarity than confusion in my life outside of this interaction. I hope that is fair to say.
I’m not convinced they actually are following those principles very well. If you do follow them you essentially end up with the HERO system though, or maybe GURPS, which doesn’t appeal much to me though.
I’m not convinced they actually are following those principles very well. If you do follow them you essentially end up with the HERO system though, or maybe GURPS, which doesn’t appeal much to me though.