Should I transition to Pathfinder for a larger player base?

[Lord_Viper_69]

I have had several requests to change my campaign world from 3.5 to Pathfinder. My world is low arcane magic, limited item creation, theological, 75% RP oriented and gritty (far more details, but a steady baseline for explanation). I have begun the transition by allowing PF classes, feats and abilities.

I have confirmed what I believed, it is incompatible with a low magic world, the base for PF is high magic and apparently most players prefer the access to all magics, arms race, PC's personal wealth rivaling or exceeding that of kingdoms at high levels. I feel this removes any interest for me to DM and magic is used to circumvent all obstacles (in place of PC skills and ingenuity).

I know and prefer the d20 system but I may need to change systems to enjoy the gaming experience. Also, I do not concur with the belief that if the players are happy the DM is happy, all parties must reach an agreement. I greatly dislike high magic and it can be done in d20 systems, I am very comfortable with D&D, learning Pathfinder and finding little to allow for a gritty game outside of Dark Sun.

Additionally, why is it so difficult to find players who enjoy roleplay? I find nearly all of them want an optimized character, uber everything, NPC's are only there to be beaten, all challenges can be overcome when they find it, often doing the simplest aspect to "shutdown their brain", entitlement personality. I understand it is an escape from the world but I thorougly enjoy deep and complex stories where investigation is required, combats that require thought other than "I charge and attack". My last conversation about planning amounted to "we let the rogue go first then I charge and swing", yes he is a barbarian but it is not an excuse to play like a simpleton (for any player).

The main query is: With the xp of the forum is it better, long-term, to change for more players (limited numbers outside of pathfinder, a large card game community) and try to squeeze in aspects I, as the DM, will enjoy?

[Knaight]

I have had several requests to change my campaign world from 3.5 to Pathfinder. My world is low arcane magic, limited item creation, theological, 75% RP oriented and gritty (far more details, but a steady baseline for explanation). I have begun the transition by allowing PF classes, feats and abilities.

I have confirmed what I believed, it is incompatible with a low magic world, the base for PF is high magic and apparently most players prefer the access to all magics, arms race, PC's personal wealth rivaling or exceeding that of kingdoms at high levels. I feel this removes any interest for me to DM, magic is used to circumvent all obstacles.

I know and prefer the d20 system but I may need to change systems to enjoy the gaming experience. Also, I do not concur with the belief that if the players are happy the DM is happy, all parties must reach an agreement.

You're talking about switching between two basically identical games. Pathfinder is no worse than 3.5 for everything you're currently using it for, all the problems you have with it are things it pulled directly from 3.5, and if you can get that working for a fairly low magic, low wealth, gritty game you can get Pathfinder working just as well. The player base for the two is also functionally the same, which is largely an effect of the way they're basically identical.

[Lord_Viper_69]

In my area it is all pathfinder or D&D 5e, "no one plays 3.5 anymore, it is dead" says the players. It is no longer supported, true, but it does not diminish its value or entertainment.

[Red Fel]

I have had several requests to change my campaign world from 3.5 to Pathfinder. My world is low arcane magic, limited item creation, theological, 75% RP oriented and gritty (far more details, but a steady baseline for explanation). I have begun the transition by allowing PF classes, feats and abilities.

Okay. What kind of world did you start with? It sounds like you were using d20? That part is kind of important, to figure out what your expectations are.

I have confirmed what I believed, it is incompatible with a low magic world, the base for PF is high magic and apparently most players prefer the access to all magics, arms race, PC's personal wealth rivaling or exceeding that of kingdoms at high levels. I feel this removes any interest for me to DM and magic is used to circumvent all obstacles (in place of PC skills and ingenuity).

That's somewhat true. PF, like D&D before it, is very much a magic arms race. And magic can be used to circumvent obstacles. However, this can be addressed by sitting down with your players and explaining that you don't like the arms race, and that if they use spells to bypass everything, it makes it harder for you to compose an engaging, entertaining and challenging world.

I know and prefer the d20 system but I may need to change systems to enjoy the gaming experience. Also, I do not concur with the belief that if the players are happy the DM is happy, all parties must reach an agreement. I greatly dislike high magic and it can be done in d20 systems, I am very comfortable with D&D, learning Pathfinder and finding little to allow for a gritty game outside of Dark Sun.

This is fair. Happy players do not equate to a happy DM, and everyone - players and DM alike - needs to be reasonably happy in order for the game to be fully enjoyable.

Additionally, why is it so difficult to find players who enjoy roleplay? I find nearly all of them want an optimized character, uber everything, NPC's are only there to be beaten, all challenges can be overcome when they find it, often doing the simplest aspect to "shutdown their brain", entitlement personality. I understand it is an escape from the world but I thorougly enjoy deep and complex stories where investigation is required, combats that require thought other than "I charge and attack". My last conversation about planning amounted to "we let the rogue go first then I charge and swing", yes he is a barbarian but it is not an excuse to play like a simpleton (for any player).

... Why, hello, Stormwind.

Look. You're frustrated, I get that. It's quite possible that your players are optimization-focused and love crunching numbers. But don't confuse an optimization mentality with that of the murderhobo or RP-avoider. It is possible to love both optimization and roleplay. Your players may be different; if that's a problem, it's one you have to address by talking to your players. We can't help you here with that part.

The main query is: With the xp of the forum is it better, long-term, to change for more players (limited numbers outside of pathfinder, a large card game community) and try to squeeze in aspects I, as the DM, will enjoy?

Short version? As the DM, you have to come first. That may sound odd, but let me explain. To put it simply, an unhappy DM spoils the table. A burnt-out DM spoils the table. As DM, you are the focus of gameplay - you lay down the plot, the NPCs, the encounters. Without you, there is no game. That's not to say you're the most important person at the table, but it does mean that if you can't give the game your 100%, the game will suffer and the players will be unhappy. So you've got to do you first.

And it boils down to this. Even assuming that switching to PF will get you more players, will it make you happy? If you switch to PF, will you be able to handle it? Will you be able to concoct a campaign as you like it, or will you grimace as your players optimize themselves through the roof? Will you enjoy the narrative and social aspects, or will you find yourself cringing at the magic arms race? Because if you can't handle the change, it doesn't matter how many players you get - they won't have a DM to run the game.

Once you've found your comfort, sit down with your players. Set up clear expectations. Want a low-magic PF campaign? Ban full-casting classes. Set restrictions on available archetypes. Try running PF e6 or something. Or just discuss ways to not take things over the top.

Do you, first. Then talk to the players.

Oh, and don't judge optimizers by a few murderhobos.

[BWR]

In short, the games are identical for nearly all basic assumptions, so any gripes you have about PF can equally be applied to 3.5, be it magic, optimization, Stormwind Fallacy or Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy, etc.

Personally, I prefer PF to 3.5. I still play 3.5 with one group. I'd like to switch but it's not a big deal, especially since some PF material has been adopted.

RF, as usual, makes good points.

[Lord_Viper_69]

The starting world was D&D 3.5, minor deity changes, magic items and creation rather limited, low arcane magic (a mistake with clerics fully able but limitations upon resurrection magic and some 9th level abusable spells (wish, miracle). A barter and trade system dominates, completing quests gains rewards, enemies are not loaded with items, all in the world must use their skills, wit and roleplay to survive. Some enemies and areas are not level appropriate, they will face challenges they cannot overcome at times. The history of the world is only 800 years past, a cataclysm occurred and such knowledge is guarded, if it exists; the longer lived beings do not speak of it, if they are found. Mechanically players have higher starting statistics than high fantasy, maximum hp (all in the world) and social skills cannot be used against players.

One can roleplay through most encounters and gradually learn more about the world. There are many layers and some immediate information may be untrue, just like the current reality, some entities or groups may not be clearly defined (my "organization") unless such knowledge is sought.

[gameogre]

While Pathfinder and 3.5 are very similar they are not that same.

Pathfinder powers up magic a great deal in many regards. Clerics receive group wide healing as class feature in addition to spells, many of the class's have more magic tied to them that wouldn't fit a magic low game.


Basically All Pathfinder did was fix a few areas that were broken, brake a few that were not and power up every class and race in the game and add a TON of options.

Now I do like Pathfinder as well as 3.5 and in many peoples games I would tell them just to change over. However, if you are running a low magic type game 3.5 is a better fit than Pathfinder(not that I would think 3.5 would be the best fit for that type of game anyway).

Also if you have been running you probably have already bought all the 3.5 stuff you want and changing would just be sinking hundreds of bucks into a system not too far removed from the one you have.

Also after rereading your post and taking a guess as to your players, you might want to take a look at what they are really asking for. A change to Pathfinder might be asking for more than just a system change and instead be a asking for a change to a higher magic type setting/game.

[The Grue]

I was going to elaborate on a previously stated point - that Pathfinder is no worse than 3.5 as far as encouraging optimization and high-magic setting elements - but since the OP has not responded directly to any criticism of his "conclusions" I don't see the point.

OP, feel free to do whatever you like, as that seems to be what you'd planned all along. I guess the purpose of his thread was not so much a forum in which to ask for advice as it was an echo chamber in which to validate your conclusions.

[Thrudd]

Enact the same modifications to pathfinder as you have to 3.5, as everyone has noted it is nearly identical. Ban troublesome spells and magic abilities, limit crafting and magic item availability, what would be the difference?
Finding players that want to play the type of game you want to run is another issue, regardless of system. If you always run in the same circles, there's not much you can do to change that. You may need to look to message boards or local game stores for new folks with interest closer to your own.

[Lord_Viper_69]

The low magic idea is not sitting well with majority of the players and the few (3) examples of those with actual magic are referred to often. The typical high fantasy/high magic setting is what most are accustomed to and I do not enjoy that setting.

I asked for advice if changing would be beneficial and I did power down 3.5 substantially to mostly low magic. I would gain far more players in my area but they are the combat oriented type, which I find droll. I do not believe RP is part of combat e.g. "I rustle my cape and dash forward, rapier ready" is description or the occasional "I tell the wizard this" should not substitute for roleplay and interacting with the world.

I could make events interesting to me at times while providing combat more often, a 50/50 split seems to be where they are leaning. I already scaled down some RP aspects but my "onion peeling" design for the world, to find more and more over time, is unappealing as it is a custom world, they are comfortable with what they know.

What other systems encourage RP and low magic? Savage Worlds is a simple system that can assimilate with any setting.

[Lord_Viper_69]

Enact the same modifications to pathfinder as you have to 3.5, as everyone has noted it is nearly identical. Ban troublesome spells and magic abilities, limit crafting and magic item availability, what would be the difference?
Finding players that want to play the type of game you want to run is another issue, regardless of system. If you always run in the same circles, there's not much you can do to change that. You may need to look to message boards or local game stores for new folks with interest closer to your own.

I have had little luck with the local game stores and I have asked around. My emphasis on roleplay turns off many prospective players and I have a custom world where one would need to learn several things about it, in game, invest in a character (many believe they are throw away) and adventure paths are fine but I would not run them default.

[Lord_Viper_69]

There have been several good points made. It seems a setting mismatch between what they are accustomed to and what was stated prior to beginning (all rules and setting specific information given referencing magic and economy).

Ideally there will be no major switch required but the mention of Pathfinder classes and races was fully embraced so that one seems stuck and has been in play for one session. I am fine with a hybrid, it will be adjusted accordingly.

3.5 melee is definitely subpar compared to PF melee abilities. There was a test battle, 3.5 elven blademaster (fighter 5/dervish 10) vs. PF half-orc barbarian 5; the barbarian took the lvl 15 to half.

I will adjust all melee classes first to ensure some challenge.

[Red Fel]

I have had little luck with the local game stores and I have asked around. My emphasis on roleplay turns off many prospective players and I have a custom world where one would need to learn several things about it, in game, invest in a character (many believe they are throw away) and adventure paths are fine but I would not run them default.

It sounds like you've staked out your territory, then. You know what you want to run, a custom setting with specific expectations. I don't think switching to PF will change things dramatically. You'll still be running your custom setting with your specific expectations, only you'll be using some slight mechanical refinements (i.e. the switch from D&D to PF). And that's fine.

All that said, I'm not convinced that the shift will net you more players. Not because PF isn't any good - I happen to like it immensely - but because you have a specific vision of the game you want to run, and from what you're telling us, players in your area don't necessarily seem to share that vision.

I'd advise sitting down with the players you already have and talking it out. Gaming is often a compromise. If they really want PF, and you're comfortable enough with the changes, you can give it to them, but keep your limitations on casting and your focus on RP. But talk it out.

[Lord_Viper_69]

To all:
I know what I enjoy running and that type of person is difficult to find, in my experience. Thanks for the input, Red Fel was most interactive.
I can update when I have more information from the players and their desires and game compromises.

[saeval]

Have you considered 5e at all? I DM'd 3.5 for quite some time and have recently started a new 5e campaign. I find the update to be pretty versatile so far, and I generally run low magic campaigns myself. My current is actually more of a compromise, similar to your scenario. heck, they pretty much handhold players into making actual characters with some sort of backstory, which can be challenging sometimes. no more "I made a barbarian, his name is gronk" "why is gronk travelling?" "well, gronk has 20 strength and a greatsword, with ____ feat combination" *dies a little inside*

Pathfinder really is just updated 3.5, but is totally high magic themed, its hard to hold the throttle on what is and isn't allowed. You say "I'm gonna run pathfinder for you guys" and they hear "make that dragon-sorcerer with wings" not to say it isn't modifiable and totally okay for a low magic setting, people just do not expect it. clearly explaining that your campaigns are always gonna be low magic and you have veto power is more important than any setting, though admittedly, if they aren't cooperating, it makes you look like the ass stomping on their fun.

It's your story, your time, your effort though, they can either enjoy what you put together trying to make something for everyone (including you, your enjoyment matters, otherwise Nobody is playing!) or game elsewhere/run a campaign where you get to play a character... whose father was a silver dragon and mother was gender-flipped Elminster and you have a lucky flaming bastard sword of antagonist impaling taken from your immense inherited dragon hoard, that you dual wield with a wand of meteor swarm. Of course you are also a loner, who only recently decided to travel with 3 other people, with whom you do not even share a personality trait.

[oxybe]

First of all, don't try to force a setting on players. Disgruntled players will spoil your table.

That being said, don't invite player you know don't mesh well with your playstyle. I don't ask all GMs to invite me to their games, simply because I know the kind of games I like to play and some of those GMs don't run the types of games I like... and I wouldn't expect to be invited to their games because of that mismatch.

This is why you usually have a pre-campaign session to iron out questions about character building, world description, etc...

I generally enjoy high-fantasy where I can basically go nuts. Roleplaying is my cooldown time and when I want to play a drunken, shapeshifting magical foxman ninja well, it's likely because my unemployed self doesn't live as exciting a lifestyle as I would have hoped. If I wanted grim realism, I'd go to Tim's or Starbucks and chat with the barista/coffee jockey. Now there is a depressing conversation waiting to happen!

As for the realities of the 3.5 & Pathfinder systems, I dislike them both equally . I play PF because it's virtually the only thing the people in my area play, but we started with 3.5.

The transition was relatively smooth, but weird rule hiccups happened when we assumed a rule stayed the same with the switch as both systems are VERY similar in how they handle and treat the same subset of rules. Don't assume anything other then familiarity, if a particular rule should come up, make sure you look it up and remember the way it now works, though since the foundation of PF & 3.5 is identical applying that change shouldn't be a problem.

I would recommend, at the least if you're looking into pathfinder, to port some of the stuff over. Not everything immediately, just some of it as a test run to see what works. I find the skill system to be significantly better in PF then 3.5 while still being similar. the flat +3 to class skills if you have one skill point in them makes dipping into skills more approachable if you're looking to make a more rounded character and the removal of ".5 per point in cross class" skills means you're looking at characters who may be trained in skills outside their given list. I would also recommend giving out more skill points personally, but that's because I find 3rd and PF to be needlessly stingy in that regard.

It might require some work on your part, but the Combat Maneuver Bonus/Defense system used in PF is leaps and bounds above the 3.5 system for grapple/trip/etc... acting as a single static mod & defense value. Not that it's an entirely new concept, but rather it condenses previous subsystems into a more manageable (and defined) whole.

Finally you may want to look into the pathfinder version of the polymorph line of spells and how it handles that form of shapeshifting/wildshaping as a whole. I've found less issues with it then the 3.5 version, if only because it makes it so the caster can no longer freely dump their physical stats entirely, knowing that their Dire Wombat form has stellar base scores to bum off of.

[DireSickFish]

I second the vote for 5th edition. Pathfinder really is just more of 3.5. In 5th edition they have toned magic down, especially buffing. Magic items are also not necessary in 5th edition and they do not get as powerful due to bounded accuracy.

That said most classes have spells or a way to get spells into there class. So your PC's are almost always going to have magic available to them in some form.

It does not have wealth by level like 3.5. Gold also is not supposed to be able to buy magic items so you can have poor in money high level characters. Groups of enemies are also more dangerous as even low level creatures have a decent chance to hit. Armor also is very hard to raise about a certain value so hoards can hit reliably.

[Psyren]

If you want low magic and less work for the DM to challenge the players, I third 5th edition. It's not my cup of tea personally but it sounds like exactly what you want.

[Synovia]

In short, the games are identical for nearly all basic assumptions, so any gripes you have about PF can equally be applied to 3.5, be it magic, optimization, Stormwind Fallacy or Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy, etc.

Personally, I prefer PF to 3.5. I still play 3.5 with one group. I'd like to switch but it's not a big deal, especially since some PF material has been adopted.

RF, as usual, makes good points.

Stormwind is the fallacy that optimization necessarily leads to lack of roleplay. The fact that it's not always true doesn't mean it never is.

I have trouble with 3.5/PF - every interaction is so heavily ruled that it's really tough to not get bound up in "well, what rule do I use here", and it hurts immersion for me.


Remember, D&D's base is a tactical miniatures game - there are rules and stats for everything, and when you constantly have to reference a stat sheet, it's tough to not think of your character as a tactical miniature - a set of numbers that need to be maximized, tweaked, and used in the most effective manner possible. Being the game rules are really just extended combat rules, it's tough to convince players sometimes that combat isn't the right solution. It sets up a very "everything else is a hitpoint bag" dynamic.

If you still want to play D&D, I'd play 5E, it's got way less problems than 3.5/PF, especially if you're trying to play low-magic. Trying to play low-magic in 3.5 is an exercise in futility - it's just not what the system is for. Frankly, I'd play a different system - simply to try to break them out of their current mindset.

[Vitruviansquid]

Gosh, OP. Literally every game I have played other than DnD 4e would be a better fit than 3.5 or Pathfinder for your style. You've stated your preference for the systems, but let me make my case.

In DnD games (including Pathfinder), you are sort of "supposed to roleplay," but there are no rules that give you an actual result from roleplaying. You don't officially earn bennies or experience or a critical because you write a little speech to convince someone to help you out instead of just saying "I roll diplomacy on him." You would also never run into a situation in DnD where roleplaying is mandatory, where the DM can say "look at your character sheet, and tell me that's something he would do." Sure, you can houserule that stuff into DnD 3.5/PF, but even if you did, roleplaying would be like a hat to those games, whereas roleplaying is more like a liver or kidney in the others.

[Lord_Viper_69]

Gosh, OP. Literally every game I have played other than DnD 4e would be a better fit than 3.5 or Pathfinder for your style. You've stated your preference for the systems, but let me make my case.

In DnD games (including Pathfinder), you are sort of "supposed to roleplay," but there are no rules that give you an actual result from roleplaying. You don't officially earn bennies or experience or a critical because you write a little speech to convince someone to help you out instead of just saying "I roll diplomacy on him." You would also never run into a situation in DnD where roleplaying is mandatory, where the DM can say "look at your character sheet, and tell me that's something he would do." Sure, you can houserule that stuff into DnD 3.5/PF, but even if you did, roleplaying would be like a hat to those games, whereas roleplaying is more like a liver or kidney in the others.

I concur with your statement. I had also wondered what other systems would work with my preferred game design/DMing. I mentioned Savage Worlds, a simple d10 system. I have heard of Shadowrun as well for a low magic or customizable setting, within reason, where roleplay is expected and necessary for success.

[Lord_Viper_69]

If you want low magic and less work for the DM to challenge the players, I third 5th edition. It's not my cup of tea personally but it sounds like exactly what you want.

I enjoy creating and I do not shy from work on the DM side. It would be far less work for a low magic setting though emphasizing roleplay would be needed as it is D&D, basic assumptions do follow for most. I am actually playing in a 5e module, hoard of the dragon queen, to test the system. It seems exceedingly simple and low powered, possibly compared to E6, at the high end it is still low powered compared to previous editions. A 20th lvl 5e character is essentially the power level of a 10th lvl 3.5 or PF character. Such is my experience.

[gameogre]

Savage Worlds is Great for creating your own setting and is a fun system.

13Th Age is what you are looking for as far as story goes but NOT for low magic. I would encourage you to give 13th age a look though as even it's high magic type, it is extremely easy and fun to DM and ALL about the story and role playing.

Also though I am hesitant to call it low magic, Dragon Age rpg might fit that bill for you and is a really good system.

[Beta Centauri]

Realistically, you probably should. Ideally, you find a game with rules you like, and use the internet to find people who want to play it.

[Knaight]

I concur with your statement. I had also wondered what other systems would work with my preferred game design/DMing. I mentioned Savage Worlds, a simple d10 system. I have heard of Shadowrun as well for a low magic or customizable setting, within reason, where roleplay is expected and necessary for success.

Savage Worlds sounds up your alley - it's not a d10 system, its a dX system where X is any even number from 4-12, and varies by die. I could also see Chronica Feudalis working well for you, and Fudge is just about always a good option.

I'd avoid Shadowrun. It's an extremely rules heavy system built for a very specific setting, and hacking it to be something else is just painful. With that said, I could see Burning Wheel working well for what you want.

[Psyren]

I enjoy creating and I do not shy from work on the DM side. It would be far less work for a low magic setting though emphasizing roleplay would be needed as it is D&D, basic assumptions do follow for most. I am actually playing in a 5e module, hoard of the dragon queen, to test the system. It seems exceedingly simple and low powered, possibly compared to E6, at the high end it is still low powered compared to previous editions. A 20th lvl 5e character is essentially the power level of a 10th lvl 3.5 or PF character. Such is my experience.

Precisely. And that's not a bad thing at all. Certainly I consider 5e a much better balance of variety and... well, balance, than 4e was.

We'll see how long it stays simple though as splats and setting material come out.

[Kiero]

13Th Age is what you are looking for as far as story goes but NOT for low magic. I would encourage you to give 13th age a look though as even it's high magic type, it is extremely easy and fun to DM and ALL about the story and role playing.

Eh? There is nothing intrinsically "high magic" about 13A, and indeed it's much, much easier to go low magic than in any iteration of D&D.

[Firest Kathon]

I don't know about the availability of the English language books, but if you are a German or can get your hands on it I suggest looking into Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye). I'd call it a medium-magic setting, and you can easily run it as a low-magic setting by disallowing full casters. Most published adventures do not require casters to succeed, and there is most of the time some heavy focus on roleplaying.

[mikeejimbo]

There are some GURPS books that cover more what you're looking for. I'm particularly thinking of GURPS Social Engineering, and GURPS Fantasy might be of interest. The Fantasy book is mostly about world building, but it definitely allows for low magic as an option. They're both by William Stoddard too, and from what I hear he tends to run games similar to yours.

Granted, you're likely to get even fewer players by switching to GURPS, but many books contain decent system agnostic ideas.

[johnbragg]

Realistically, you probably should. Ideally, you find a game with rules you like, and use the internet to find people who want to play it.

Yup. I was going to recommend trying play-by-post. That way you can focus the recruitment on peeling your onion, and find players who want to play in the kind of campaign you want to run, without being so limited by geography.