Sunday, October 14, 2012

Pathfinder Woes

 I've been running a Pathfinder game for several sessions now. My players are great and seem to be having a good time.  Me behind the screen, not so much.  Don't get me wrong, my players are awesome and we have a lot of fun, but the older I get the less and less I like rules heavy systems and for me Pathfinder is a rules heavy game.  For me its strengths are also its weaknesses. You can really create a unique cool character with all the multitude of options, skills, feats and variables but those same options and variables can be a chore for the DM to manage, at least this DM, especially once the campaign starts reaching some higher levels.  This was what eventually caused me to quit playing 3.5.  It's kind of a shame from my standpoint.  Paizo puts out top notch product, with some really great ideas, adventures etc. and I really would love to go whole hog all out for Pathfinder, but I hate having to refer to a rulebook during a game, for me it takes away from the session and even many sessions in, I still find myself having to look up alot of stuff.  Even my players, have to looks up alot of stuff, and it just seems to take away from our time at the table.  I don't mean to sound whiney, I know my experiences and opinions aren't shared by everyone, but I saw another blogger (Tenkar's Tavern) post something similar today and thought I'd chime in with my thoughts as well.
Anyways just curous what some of my reader's thoughts and feelings were about this.  Feel free to comment.
I've done enough prep to last me for a few more Pathfinder sessions, so I'm going to try to run it a bit longer, but after that, I will definately be switching to a different system.

16 comments:

  1. I finally picked up a copy of Pathfinder, just a few weeks ago. I felt it was so overwrought that I couldn't help but laugh. No way I'd run the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @James Smith - The Pathfinder Beginner Box is the only way I'd run a Pathfinder game - it is very well written and does not feel overly crunchy

    Its a shame that I feel AS&SH is too crunchy for me to run these days, but it is. I'd play it as a player, but to learn it well enough to run it? I'm no longer up to such ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is why I'm grooving on Blood & Treasure these days--much of what I liked about 3E without all the complexity. Now if I could just figure out a good megadungeon for B&T . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is exactly how I feel about Pathfinder, man. It's a gorgeous product and Paizo is a great company, but my free time is at a premium and I'm just not into running a game that I feel like I have to study for. I've run two very short, very unsuccessful PF campaigns, and it's pretty unlikely that I'll every roll it out again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Many moons ago I started a Pathfinder campaign with my boys. Unfortunately, we spent most of our playing time looking up stuff. Our switch was to Castles & Crusades and it has been C&C ever since. I'm an old school gamer at heart and C&C has really given me the best of old and new with my "D&D" campaigning. Not sure if Castles & Crusades is your style, but it worked for us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I tried 3.X for years but it was too much for me. So is Pathfinder, as it is more or less the same game. All those heavy, detailed rules and it adds no more fun than was in the older, slimmer D&D editions, it just makes more headaches and wastes time on micromanagement and bookeeping. I'm running OD&D these days (for the first time) and I have never felt better about DMing a game. It goes fast, and it might be the most fun we've ever had gaming. I sit down to DM every week and feel completely at ease and confident I can handle anything that comes up. I never felt that way under WotC's "d20 System".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blogger keeps eating my reply (TL;DR??)
    So I'll sum it up:
    I feel like I have to study Pathfinder to have a grip on the rules. I'd rather run a game where I don't feel like that.

    Paizo is a good company, though, and PF is a beautiful product.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We have a couple of rotating Pathfinder games going. It starts off well enough at low-levels, but by the time you get to the mid-levels things start to bog down. All it takes for the game to bog down is for one person to say "I thought that feat did X, not Y." Everything comes to a screeching halt for a half-hour while everyone debates it and looks up the rules.

    Still, the group I game with has no interest in OD&D or the retroclones, and Pathfinder is better than nothing at all, so....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wouldn't you know it I get a post with alot of great comments and Blogger is impairing my ability to reply. Argh!
    Sounds like I'm not alone in my thoughts. I'm glad to hear its not just me with these issues. I was afraid maybe I was just getting old. LOL
    Erik, I don't have the Pathfinder Beginner Box, unfortunately at this point I figure my players would take issue if I tried to go to a more basic version of Pathfinder.
    James,Rob,McWieg,Anonymous it sounds like we are on the same page!
    Jeff M. I played quite a bit of C&C a few years back, but I think Blood & Treasure is a better fit for me now, at least as far as Fantasy goes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh how I know how you feel! I was running a PF game a while back and it got to much. It is a perfect system in many ways just too perfect. From a player's perspective it's truly a perfect game full of story and cool abilities. From the GM's perspective all monsters are full characters and it is a huge clunky mess. My players freaked out on me as I wanted to convert my megadungeon back to Labyrinth Lord/AEC and they refused to play anything but PF so as the DM I sad fine then we won't play anything unless YOU run it. We have not played in over a year. I have been reading all the DnDNext articles and looking at the play test material and DnDNext looks like an answer to many of the over complicated crap rules that have been coming out here lately.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I feel your Pathfinder pain. They do put out good quality stuff, and I don't mind playing in it, but it's more complicated than I desire to run.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I really like the notion of the thick tome that is Pathfinder...as long as I'm not the one running it. For running games, the simpler the better, and besides, simple rules allow players more time and freedom to expand the game in other directions; like character development aand story. Which is always a plus.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love Pathfinder and some of the other "descendants of D20", but you definitely need players willing to forgive the occasional forgotten rule. Unless a PC is about to die, I make rules lawyers look up the relevant rules while we continue the game. If nobody is down and bleeding, there’s no way that I’ll let the game stop for an argument over petty details.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I play Pathfinder, but even having played 3e in its various incarnations since 2000, I do absolutely agree. But, as I rule with my PC just at the left off me, I get milage out of the Combat Manager by Kyle Olson. Great thing. Need a 3rd level Wizard or a 5th level rogue? Just customize one of the built in NPCs a little bit (or use them as is), and voila! Worth checking out. You could print out just as easily for sessions without electronic aid.
    By the way, we do individual initiative new every round (one click), and that's a blast...

    ReplyDelete
  15. I play 3e in it's various incantations since 2000, but even I agree about it being to rules heavy for the DM. If it wasn't for Kyle Olson's Combat Manager, I'll probably had changed for something simpler some time ago. You totally should check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. another DM here who cannot deal with the chore of post 2nd ed games. my time is limited the older i get and i enjoy my less complex OSR games. more time to write and play.

    ReplyDelete