I think I may be working with a different idea of what Exception based means than the bulk of the thread is.

The problem isn't the rules heavy or the exception based design. It's having all those design bits interact with each other.

You can do power attack, diving slash OR blood rage that's relatively fine.

If you can do them all at once and have to figure out how the hell that works when they're all from different splatbooks and the designers didn't bother to think about how things from different splat books interact with each other then you've got a big problem.

Don't know Pathfinder well but with 3.5ed a big problem was that a bunch of writers of different splat books thought that, say, "run at someone and hit them really hard" as a fun feat to have in their splat without really thinking about similar feats existing in half a dozen other splats so it was pretty easy to cherry pick them all and then load them all on one character and have them all stack.

I used to be fine with rules heavy games, and I think as some others have suggested, the appeal is you feel as a player if there is a rule for it you can do it, if there isn't a rule, you either cant do it or are at the mercy of GM rulings. Also, optimization can be a game in itself for some, or perhaps an interesting thought exercise. I used to be a heavy optimizer and understand the appeal, but have since gone in the other direction, and am now happy to play whatever - just so long as I have my niche. I am more concerned these days with "memorable moments" from a session, nd having the freedom to take the story in the direction we want to.

So games such as Shadowrun I cant play anymore, too many rules, even though I love the setting.

Oooon the other hand, I want some rules and some customization. So not tooo rules light. Just right.

Quote from: Lunamancer;933594.... Something I often say about 1E initiative is forget the DMPrata outline. ....

Haven't seen that mentioned in a while, but DMPrata deserves mad props for it.  It also educated me on the fact that I don't think anyone ever (even at tournaments) used initiative by the book.

You hit the nail on the head though, group d6, (with DEX bonus individually), some special situations maybe, highest goes first.  Likewise on the 80/20 rule that is exactly the perfect level of design.  I've found for how I and those I play with over the last 35+ years; the rules needed to be detailed enough so I could adjudicate situations in a way that worked with mechanics (e.g., what to roll against) but never so detailed to protect against rule exploitation as the people I've gamed with have never been like that.  You know like actual adults that can accept a plausible ruling even if it goes against their own interest.

I play both rules light stuff like Fate Accelerated and rules robust stuff like Pathfinder. The biggest thing I miss when playing the former is that sometimes I want some things (items, abilities, background, etc.) to matter, but by the RAW, they don't.

Sometimes I don't want lots of accounting for things like a backpack full of odd equipment or niche abilities. Other times, I do.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;934079I play both rules light stuff like Fate Accelerated and rules robust stuff like Pathfinder. The biggest thing I miss when playing the former is that sometimes I want some things (items, abilities, background, etc.) to matter, but by the RAW, they don't.

Sometimes I don't want lots of accounting for things like a backpack full of odd equipment or niche abilities. Other times, I do.

That's not always true. Pathfinder horribly suffers the Christmas tree effect where characters are defined by their golf bags and closets and chests of magnificent mansion containing magic item warehouses rather than their own ability. Did you ever see the Book of Vile Darkness movie? At the beginning there's a scene where the hero walks into a magic item general store and buys a dozen magic items, which instantly destroys any pretense of serious the movie might have had.

13th Age codifies a rule that every character has a unique thing to do. If that matters.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;934094That's not always true. Pathfinder horribly suffers the Christmas tree effect where characters are defined by their golf bags and closets and chests of magnificent mansion containing magic item warehouses rather than their own ability.

Are you certain you read my post correctly? Because this doesn't sound like a response to what I said, and I am missing what you say isn't always true.

Quote from: Xanther;934077Haven't seen that mentioned in a while, but DMPrata deserves mad props for it.  It also educated me on the fact that I don't think anyone ever (even at tournaments) used initiative by the book.

Eh. I get the feeling almost nobody actually read the document. A 20 page outline is really scary stuff. But when you start taking a closer look, you find it's not really a 20 page outline on doing initiative. First of all, the outline ends at page 10. Secondly, the outline includes all facets of encounters, combat, and initiative. Not just order of action. Part I is about surprise which takes up 2 pages but I don't know it's something very many people were confused about. Part II is about encounter distance, part III about declaring actions (come on, you need instructions on this?). Part IV concerns pre-initiative actions, which really only pertains to bow and x-bow specialists. Since I didn't use UA and never liked weapon specialization, this just didn't even apply to my campaign (nor was BtB at the time the DMG was published). Part V is Psionic Combat. I never outright banned psionics, but it never once came up. Part VI is telling you each side rolls d6, including exceptions for for special monsters and magic items.

So it's not until part VII, which begins on page 6, that the document actually delves into order of action. Which, if I may put it in my own words, just says "Highest goes first, with these exceptions." The exceptions are multiple attacks, charge, spell-casting, and use of weapon speed on tied initiative. That's it. Just four exceptions to "roll d6, highest goes first." This is exactly how I played in my BtB 1st Ed campaign I ran in highschool (before this document existed) and again in college.

QuoteYou hit the nail on the head though, group d6, (with DEX bonus individually), some special situations maybe, highest goes first.  Likewise on the 80/20 rule that is exactly the perfect level of design.  I've found for how I and those I play with over the last 35+ years; the rules needed to be detailed enough so I could adjudicate situations in a way that worked with mechanics (e.g., what to roll against) but never so detailed to protect against rule exploitation as the people I've gamed with have never been like that.  You know like actual adults that can accept a plausible ruling even if it goes against their own interest.

Yeah, and I thought 1st Ed initiative is the perfect illustration of the principle. The basic rule is each side rolls d6, highest goes first. Then four exceptions. Making the basic rule 20% of the whole, and it really is sufficient in 80% of all cases. I mean, even the one in six chance off the top for tied initiative calling for the Weapon Speed rule, in order for it to really matter, there has to be such a weapon speed difference that one side gets multiple attacks against the other, or else one of the combatants must die for order of strike to have any impact. These rules are important in determining outcome far fewer than 20% of the time if you really analyze it.

And I believe this is exactly why 1st Ed initiative strictly by the book isn't perhaps so well known. Because you don't need to know it to play the game. For all the efforts to streamline RPGs nowadays and anal retentive critics nit-picking teh organization, my experience has been that AD&D is far more accessible in terms of minimizing the time in between "Hey, do you want to give this game a try?" to actually playing.

Exception-based design? 3E doesn't have it. What Estar said.

Rules-heavy? I don't think anyone should be just getting a hard-on when they see the rulebook that has 600 pages.
But, each rule does *something*. Someone will like particular rules-heavy games because in total, all those individual rules are doing things that you like.

Pathfinder is above my personal tolerance these days (I played in a convention game recently and dear Jesus I've never seen so much arguing about cover), but theoretically what you get is: PCs and monsters using the same rules (with implied monster customizability because you can replace feats or add class levels or whatever), detailed adjudication of what magic does, a multitude of character customization options to 'model' particular sets of character abilities and that conversely, mean people without that option can't do it, and assorted combat options and movement rules.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;934318Exception-based design? 3E doesn't have it. What Estar said.

Rules-heavy? I don't think anyone should be just getting a hard-on when they see the rulebook that has 600 pages.
But, each rule does *something*. Someone will like particular rules-heavy games because in total, all those individual rules are doing things that you like.

Pathfinder is above my personal tolerance these days (I played in a convention game recently and dear Jesus I've never seen so much arguing about cover), but theoretically what you get is: PCs and monsters using the same rules (with implied monster customizability because you can replace feats or add class levels or whatever), detailed adjudication of what magic does, a multitude of character customization options to 'model' particular sets of character abilities and that conversely, mean people without that option can't do it, and assorted combat options and movement rules.

Pathfinder isn't simply rules heavy. It's full of needless verbosity and redundancy. You need handbooks to tell you how not to gimp your character. Fluff is square-peg-round-holed into fitting the idiosyncratic crunch.

For example, the huecuva has a whole paragraph dedicated to its disguise power rather than casting disguise self. There are a dozen different martial classes for knights and swashbucklers because fighters suck. Casters still break adventures with reality warping awesome. Psychic magic and mythic is redundant. Characters are decked out like Christmas trees. The naga is an aberration only because of HD and skill ranks. The dullahan is undead because fey suck at combat. Genies don't need to eat or sleep because who the heck cares? Unchained, Spheres of Power and Path of War are mandatory.

It's friggin crazy anal is what it is. This is the entire reason I prefer OSR or even 5e over the nightmare that is 3e.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;934368For example, the huecuva has a whole paragraph dedicated to its disguise power rather than casting disguise self.

Let's look under the hood.

QuoteFalse Humanity (Su) During the day, a huecuva is cloaked in an illusion that makes it look, sound, and feel like the living creature it once was. This effect functions similarly to disguise self—if a creature interacts directly with a huecuva, it can attempt a DC 12 Will save to see through the illusion. Regardless, the huecuva's scent never changes—it always exudes a faint stench of grave dust and decay. Creatures with the scent ability receive a +4 bonus on any Will saving throw made to see through this illusion. At night (regardless of whether the huecuva itself knows night has fallen) this illusion fades and reveals the creature for what it truly is. The save DC is Charisma-based.

So lets see what is verbose.

QuoteDuring the day, a huecuva is cloaked in an illusion that makes it look, sound, and feel like the living creature it once was.

OK flavor one sentence which is acceptable. Note that it is medium undead so likely there is going to be a wrinkle.

QuoteThis effect functions similarly to disguise self—if a creature interacts directly with a huecuva, it can attempt a DC 12 Will save to see through the illusion.

The ability does operate like a disguise self. But since the disguise self spell allows for a will save to see through the disguise and the Huecuva isn't a spell caster they need to state the DC of the save. So far still reasonable.

QuoteRegardless, the huecuva's scent never changes—it always exudes a faint stench of grave dust and decay.

Ah here is the wrinkle. From what I remember of the myth this is based on it is a reasonable modification to add.  But given this is Pathfinder we need to define what it means in terms of mechanics. Which the following does

QuoteCreatures with the scent ability receive a +4 bonus on any Will saving throw made to see through this illusion. At night (regardless of whether the huecuva itself knows night has fallen) this illusion fades and reveals the creature for what it truly is. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Now if it was me I would write it like this.

QuoteFalse Humanity (Su) During the day, a Huecuva uses illusion to transform back into its original living form. This works like a disguise self spell with a DC 12 for the Will Save. However the illusion isn't perfect and the Huecuva still exudes a faint stench of the grave. Creatures with the scent ability will get +4 to the Will save. At sundown, the illusion will fade and the Huecuva's true form will be revealed.

My version is 75 words and conveys as the 121 words of the original. But... I don't consider it that drastic of an improvement to condemn the author for being too wordy. Each individual sentence carries it weight and my rewrite hits the same points but with tighter sentences.

There are rule books that are overly verbose. Adventures in Middle Earth is a prime example of taking way too many words to do what needed.  But Pathfinder I find it is generally not on of them. It is however a detail heavy version of 3.X D&D so it has a lot to it. But then that is what they wanted to do in the first place.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;934368There are a dozen different martial classes for knights and swashbucklers because fighters suck. Casters still break adventures with reality warping awesome. Psychic magic and mythic is redundant. Characters are decked out like Christmas trees. The naga is an aberration only because of HD and skill ranks. The dullahan is undead because fey suck at combat. Genies don't need to eat or sleep because who the heck cares? Unchained, Spheres of Power and Path of War are mandatory.

Look Pathfinder presents a lot of stuff. At this point it is a toolkit to do whatever with 3.5e. Looking at the PRD there are dozens of options for all kinds of fantasy campaigns spanning different time periods. That is a valid approach. If you want a basic 3.X presentation why didn't you stick with the core books? Nothing forcing you to go diving into the Bestiary 2, 3, 4, or 5.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;934368It's friggin crazy anal is what it is. This is the entire reason I prefer OSR or even 5e over the nightmare that is 3e.

Since I started publishing, I sent people my stuff for free and people have sent their stuff to me for free. I look up my shelf of OSR stuff and look at the navigation bar of the PRD and everything that Paizo has covered is in one or more of the OSR books I got sitting up there.

I am debating this with you because you seemly have the mindset that everything is defined by the rules. If the publishers has two dozen books or more it must mean they have a complex game. It up to you as the referee to pick and choose what goes into your campaign. Not the players not the publishers. The rules are just the tools you use to make the campaign.

I have issues with 3.X and Pathfinder but they are not because of the volume of material they produced. I don't like how the numbers work out at each level. And I don't like how I have to come up with enough abilities to cover 20 levels of advancements. I especially despise the stat block formatting you have to do if you want to publish for 3.X. This would be true if all I ever saw were the core books.

Quote from: estar;933580The point of exception based design is that it is not rules heavy. It has a simple core and everything you need to know about a power, skill, or talent is contained concisely within the description. Part of this is achieved by using keywords with standard meaning.

Quote from: Kiero;933582Having a "simple core" is meaningless when there are so many exceptions that the core becomes virtually irrelevant.

I know estar disagrees with Kiero from a later response, but I have to agree with Kiero.

Quote from: Tod13;934381I know estar disagrees with Kiero from a later response, but I have to agree with Kiero.

The part of the core that important, and simple, is the standard framework and keywords. Not the mechanics which are mostly superseded by the abilities that are picked.

But in Kiero's favor D&D 5e works more like the point he is emphasizing. D&D 5e feats are exception based but they don't overwhelm the core rules and they are balanced with the simple +2 attribute option.

Rules heavy + a lot of exception based mechanic´s is totally contrary to what I want in a game. Rules Light + several exception based mechanic´s implented loosly on the fly with a very simple core I can grokk. But going rules heavy I want a very strict and clear core with a minimum of new sub-systems to keep track on. Example:

B/X-BECMI-RC: Simple foundation with easy sub-systems that don´t need to interact with each other and very easy to modify or ignore without the whole house falling appart.  
4e D = On the heavy side. Need to keep track on a lot of effects/powers but almost freeform outside of combat = OK
3.X = Die in fire

Quote from: estar;934379My version is 75 words and conveys as the 121 words of the original. But... I don't consider it that drastic of an improvement to condemn the author for being too wordy. Each individual sentence carries it weight and my rewrite hits the same points but with tighter sentences.

There are rule books that are overly verbose. Adventures in Middle Earth is a prime example of taking way too many words to do what needed.  But Pathfinder I find it is generally not on of them. It is however a detail heavy version of 3.X D&D so it has a lot to it. But then that is what they wanted to do in the first place.

The huecuva was converted from Tome of Horrors, where it casts disguise self. The reason why it changed was because disguise self was reworded so that it couldn't change your apparent creature type. A monster knowledge check is required to discern a creature's type. This resulted in a cascade effect as several monsters still relied on disguise self to appear humanoid, but only some of them had it changed to alter self (which is transmutation rather than illusion). This sort of thing happens often. A similar problem is that many monsters have a variation of the same power that is reprinted in every entry, even though there's a whole section for universal abilities. The elemental subtype was designed for elementals but then got applied to loads of monsters that were not amorphous blobs. Stat blocks are also a huge pain to put together.

(Creature types are probably the stupidest part of monster design because they function as both target keywords and pseudo-classes and a monster only has one. This means monsters are often shoehorned into a type because of its combat prowess rather than any fluff logic. Half the types are also poorly defined or superfluous.)

QuoteLook Pathfinder presents a lot of stuff. At this point it is a toolkit to do whatever with 3.5e. Looking at the PRD there are dozens of options for all kinds of fantasy campaigns spanning different time periods. That is a valid approach. If you want a basic 3.X presentation why didn't you stick with the core books? Nothing forcing you to go diving into the Bestiary 2, 3, 4, or 5.

Trap options, feat taxes, the christmas tree effect, martial/caster disparity, action economy taxes, skill taxes, bonuses and penalties up the wazoo, other sacred cows, etc are part of the core rules. It's a shoddy foundation that requires massive house ruling and third party sourcebooks to fix, and since it's so complex you always have to worry how everything fits together.

All of those problems could be fixed by much tighter editing and designing. Paizo is simply bad at that sort of thing. This was widely known when they were still publishing the Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

QuoteI am debating this with you because you seemly have the mindset that everything is defined by the rules. If the publishers has two dozen books or more it must mean they have a complex game. It up to you as the referee to pick and choose what goes into your campaign. Not the players not the publishers. The rules are just the tools you use to make the campaign.

The rules are inherently nonsensical. The mi-go brain cylinder interacting with revival spells in a way that makes no sense outside the d20 rules is the tip of the iceberg. Positive and negative energy are logically contradictory. I could go on for days like this.

I like having options. The problem is the core rules are poorly designed and balanced. I never had the same problem with GURPS because the editing and proofreading was miles ahead of Paizo. My problem with the alternatives is that they have nowhere near as much material for them as Pathfinder does. There's no Spheres of Power or Path of War for other systems.

QuoteI have issues with 3.X and Pathfinder but they are not because of the volume of material they produced. I don't like how the numbers work out at each level. And I don't like how I have to come up with enough abilities to cover 20 levels of advancements. I especially despise the stat block formatting you have to do if you want to publish for 3.X. This would be true if all I ever saw were the core books.

I agree wholeheartedly.