Quote from: Windjammer;489331Clear answer to me is Pathfinder RPG. The worst design 'fix' I've ever seen in the entire history of RPGs, but a stunning commercial success to boot.

I think we have a winner.

Quote from: Windjammer;489331Clear answer to me is Pathfinder RPG. The worst design 'fix' I've ever seen in the entire history of RPGs, but a stunning commercial success to boot.

Isn't Pathfinder just the last hold out of the D20 system fad?

Quote from: Windjammer;489331Clear answer to me is Pathfinder RPG. The worst design 'fix' I've ever seen in the entire history of RPGs, but a stunning commercial success to boot.

Pathfinder's supposed to be a rules fix? :eek:

Quote from: Lawbag;488638This is the anti-post to my other one, wherein I ask the question which game has been criminally over-rated.
 
I would include in this list a sub-genre of games which are still-born, and should never have escaped the game designer's brain and committed to paper...

Call of Cthulhu.

Back off poindexter, it isn't per se a bad game, but...


"you have been summoned to the mansion of Great Uncle Fester to learn his dark secret..."

Quote from: David R;488677I get the feeling over-rated here means games I don't like as opposed to "I don't get what all the hype was about"

True20 is pretty over-rated.

Regards,
David R

This I don't get, because IMO True20 is the cleanest and best version of d20 I've seen. I get calling d20 itself over-hyped, even though I actually like many d20 games, but I would almost exempt True20 due to it's more streamlined implementation of the d20 engine. I even adapted Dark Sun stuff to it and enjoyed it more than I ever enjoyed DS with 2e or 3e D&D.

Quote from: Aos;488864I've got this one too, and I'd also love to run it some time.

I've always wanted to play in 50 Fathoms.

Quote from: TristramEvans;489435Isn't Pathfinder just the last hold out of the D20 system fad?

That's how I'd characterize it as well. My vote, despite enjoying the hell out of it for years, would be D20 in general. I'm very doubtful I'd ever run it again, even my True20 version. Now that I have rediscovered RQ and BRP, and have obtained good quality clones of older D&D, I think my D20 days are over. I'm happy that Paizo have achieved success with PF, but I can't see myself wanting to play it unless the rest of any group I were in insisted. It's decent (as are many D20 incarnations), but it's not the end all be all of game systems that D20 system games in general were hyped as being. Unless I'm playing older D&D clones (which IME run faster and have faster chargen) for the old school dungeon crawl / hex crawl experience, I'm not much interested in any class / level games anymore.

Quote from: Windjammer;489331...
Clear answer to me is Pathfinder RPG. The worst design 'fix' I've ever seen in the entire history of RPGs, but a stunning commercial success to boot.
...

Out of curiosity, as someone who hasn't played a d20 game in five years, what does Pathfinder purport to 'fix' in 3.5?

In retrospect, the hype over d20, and especially D&D 3e, in the early 0's looks pretty insane to me today.

Quote from: Akrasia;489562Out of curiosity, as someone who hasn't played a d20 game in five years, what does Pathfinder purport to 'fix' in 3.5?

Isn't that why Windjammer put the would fix in invert commas and called it worst? It seems he agrees with you.

Quote from: Skywalker;489579Isn't that why Windjammer put the would fix in invert commas and called it worst? It seems he agrees with you.

Is it really worth my time answering this question?

For me, two things it fixed is combat maneuvers and skill ranks, as well as some less pivotal things like shapechanging mechanics.

If you are the sort of person who hates the 3.5e approach in its entirety (like a few hatahs in this thread), chances are the pat answer is going to be "it didn't fix anything".

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;489580Is it really worth my time answering this question?

FWIW I am not expressing an opinion either way. Just noting that Windjammer seemed to be agreeing with those that were asking him what PF fixed.

Pretty much exactly.

The short answer to Akrasia: google Pathfinder, Trollman, kick a man when he's down, and some other threads on TheGaming Den. There's also the documentation when Trollman & Co. got removed from open playtesting because they were using mathematical modelling to show that the actual design didn't deliver the intended results. The reason given wasn't only or so much that he had used non-nice language (though he had) but that mathematical modelling wasn't what Paizo wanted from the public playtest. You read that right.

The slightly longer answer, restricting myself to the two things CaesarSlaad mentioned.

Pathfinder copied 4E's way of rolling Jump & co. into Athletics, and Listen & co. into Perception. That was a fix. Not a terribly original one, but (what little) honor where honor is due. Pathfinder of course also tries to be original, and that's where the hilarity starts. Like, to stay on topic, introducing a Fly skill. Yes, that's exactly what D&D needs.

CaesarSlaad mentioned Combat Maneuvers. These'd be my main beef. I can't rule out that these things got fixed in errata v. 1.03416, so please forgive if I judge the game on its release state.
I agree that resolving combat maneuvers in 3.5. could be a session stopper for players if they were unfamiliar with them (hint: players who use them repeatedly grow familiar with them in no time). But the thing was, for characters these things worked - they could pull them off, with fair chances of success.

Voia la, Pathfinder comes along and reverses the trend. I guess they must have cheered at that ridiculous 4E promotion video ('grappling is inane'). So PF cut out one intervening step in the resolution mechanism - in 4E we'd have said, 'streamlined the mechanics' to 'strip out' the 'unfun' bits.

Unfortunately, in the process PF also borked the success chance of combat maneuvers because someone came up with the glorious idea to
a) kick up the target number one rolls against by adding an extra stat modifier (Dex PLUS Str), this skewering the 3.5 odds of succeeding at these things considerably; and
b) introduce some great feats for casters to nullify the use of said maneuvers on them.

When pressed for an explanation of these design choices, James Jacobs said (and is on record for saying) that things like bull rushing and charging are so over the top things that PCs (meaning, those who attempt them) should only pull them off successfully very few times per session, and only against clearly inferior foes. So it wasn't even a bug, it was a feature now.

Before you let that fully sink in, one more thing. The context of that remark was a discussion about level 12 characters, when casters pull off world shaking stuff. But heaven forfend if our lvl 12 barbarian can successfully charge a monster at that level.  

So between introducing fixes no one wanted and rationalizing changes by the most bizarre reasoning ever, Pathfinder's alleged 'fixes' are the creatures of designers who frankly couldn't play second fiddle when WotC was busily designing 3.5.

God, I love Golarion and most of Paizo's adventure modules, if not always for content then for their inspiring artwork. But claiming that PFRPG is superior to 3.5 is in my book a dead reliable indicator that someone can't tell wheat from chaff in game design.

Edit. Why am I even typing these long posts? It's not 2009 anymore, and we all know where we stand on these issues. Ok, Akrasia wasn't around or didn't care at the time, but the rest? I guess Aos must be thanking me on his bare knees for these pontifications.

Quote from: Windjammer;489618The slightly longer answer:

Pathfinder copied 4E's way of rolling Jump & co. into Athletics, and Listen & co. into Perception.

Nevermind that other d20 games (Spycraft, True20, frex) did it first, but actually they didn't.

They rolled Jump and Tumbling into acrobatics. Pathfinder doesn't have an athletics skill, though if they were looking for good mechanics to copy, folding Climb and Swim into Athletics as Spycraft does would have been a winner.

QuoteLike, to stay on topic, introducing a Fly skill. Yes, that's exactly what D&D needs.

I used to not care to much for fly.

After playing with it, I consider it no worse than climb or swim, and in an environment where you need to randomize success of ariel maneuvers, it's the way to go in the 3e type skill-resolution environment.

QuoteCaesarSlaad mentioned Combat Maneuvers. These'd be my main beef. I can't rule out that these things got fixed in errata v. 1.03416, so please forgive if I judge the game on its release state. Combat maneuvers were borked because someone came up with the glorious idea to
a) kick up the target number one rolls against by adding an extra stat modifier (Dex PLUS Str), this skewering the 3.5 odds of succeeding at these things considerably; and
b) introduce some great feats for casters to nullify the use of said maneuvers on them.
When pressed for an explanation of these design choices, James Jacobs said (and is on record for saying) that things like bull rushing and charging are so over the top things that PCs (meaning, those who attempt them) should only pull them off successfully very few times per session. So it wasn't even a bug, it was a feature now.

Well, all I gotta say here is our group just made 10th level, and based on actual play (and with no errata I am aware of), things are ticking along fine. Not only are unusual maneuvers less complicated in play and opened up variety in combat accordingly, but it has significantly reduced the "AoO paranoia lock" by people actually taking one on the chin just to pull a necessary maneuver off.

As for rarely pulling it off... well, what's good for the goose, y'know. Our witch, master debuffer, nearly neutralized one combatant entirely by an unlikely feeblemind. Considering that this tactic uses up one of his highest level spells, why should the fighter get unfettered access to an ability that is as much of a gamechanger?

I really have to wonder how much actual play your frothing hate comes from, or if you are yet another one of those hatahs out there always fault-finding and never really giving the games they hate a chance.

Given that your supposed "mathematially derived" flaws are so at odds with my actual play experience, I am given to suspect the latter.

PF didn't fix 3.5 in any substantive way so if the perception is that it did then it's certainly overrated. Having said that while I am over the whole 3.5 thing (I'm running LoTFP and loving it) I will always have a soft spot for it for sticking it to WOTC and the abomination that is 4E.

PF just means that 3.5 is still supported. No more and no less. That is more than enough to justify it's popularity, however.