I went to the most recent Tucson RPG Guild gathering this weekend. It was much better attended than the last one I went to in June when I ran my first public game. There were over twenty people there with four games going. Thankfully, the venue had fixed their cooling problem, so it wasn’t hot and uncomfortable like the one in June. I also managed to score the latest Dragon Magazine Annual in the prize give away which was a fun bonus. I was hoping to play in a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen game using the Savage Worlds game system. Unfortunately, the guy who planned to run couldn’t make it due issues outside of his control. I ended up jumping into a game of Pathfinder. 
Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG put out by Paizo. Paizo took Dungeons & Dragons Edition 3.5, cleaned up some of the rules that bugged people, and created Pathfinder. Basically, people who love 3.5 and don’t like 4th edition can move to Pathfinder for new content. I think adventures written for 3.5 are easily portable to Pathfinder as well. For all intents and purposes it can be considered D&D 3.75. I had fun during the game session. The DM did a great job, the other players were good, and the story was interesting with a nice twist at the end. But, I didn’t care much for Pathfinder itself. The first game of D&D I ever played (and subsequently the first campaign I played in) used D&D 3.5. That was only a little over a year ago. While, obviously, I fell in love with the hobby, I wasn’t particularly crazy about D&D 3.5. Pathfinder really hasn’t change anything about 3.5 that would improve upon my initial impression.
I have several problems with Pathfinder (and 3.5 in general). First of all, it’s a very rules heavy game. Combat rules are complicated without adding any tactical depth. While Pathfinder has apparently cleaned up some problems from 3.5 like grappling and combat maneuver rules, they still seem too complex. Also, the game seems to expect you to have a near encyclopedic knowledge of spells, potions, and items. I played an Alchemist which was a fun class in concept, but I spent a lot of time looking up the effects of potions and mutagens. I wasn’t the only one looking up things for their character either. When you do look up something, you are presented with a wall of text that you have to wade through in order to figure out how it works. I feel like 4th edition (which is rules heavy, too) does a better job of managing the complexity with concise, standardized stat blocks for items, spells, and abilities. Also, a lot of the rules heavy lifting for PCs is taken care of by the character builder. The 4th edition game I recently ran involved mostly people new to 4th edition and I don’t anyone needed to crack a book. With Pathfinder, several people needed to spend time looking things up. It just seems like you need to keep track of a lot more minutiae in Pathfinder and 3.5 and I don’t care for that.
Also, the combat wasn’t any more tactically compelling than combat in my regular Swords & Wizardry game (an Original D&D clone and very rules light game) but ran longer because of the more complex rules. So, Pathfinder combat ends up being the worst of both worlds for me. It can be long and tedious without the tactical complexity of 4th and without the drama, danger, and speed of S&W combat.
Oh, yeah. One thing that really drives me nuts is critical hits. In Pathfinder and 3.5 when you roll a 20, you have to roll again to “confirm” the critical hit. It really dulls the excitement of rolling a 20 for me if I have to roll again to “confirm” it and just seems complex for the sake of complexity. Drives me bonkers.
While I’ve been knocking Pathfinder for the past few paragraphs, like I said, I still had fun playing. With the right group of people and DM, I’d play Pathfinder again but it wouldn’t be my first (or second) choice for game system. I also really enjoyed my PC. Alchemist is a fun class to play and the concept is fun. I may see if I can find an alchemist class for Swords & Wizardry or make one of my own for fun.
I’m glad I made it out to the Meetup and hope to make it out again soon.
Damn, I would have liked to try Pathfinder. I need to put these damn meets on my calendar.
Thanks for the review — and the kind remarks about my DMing. I think you’re right that PF is best categorized as a rules-heavy game, as 3.5 clearly was. 4e falls into that category, as well. I go back and forth between enjoying crunchier systems like PF and fast & loose ones like Spirit of the Century. Regardless, it’s nice to have so many options for systems.
I’d like to try S&W at some point – if you run a session at a Guild meeting, I’ll be at your table.
Again, thanks for playing with us and for the kind nod.
You did do a great job DMing. One thing I failed to mention was you excellent portrayal of NPCs. You really did a good job bringing them to life. I kind of bounce back and forth between rules heavy and rules light games as well. I don’t think my regular game would be the same if it was run in 4th edition or Pathfinder/3.5 instead of S&W. Our DM for that game is very much into the old school gaming scene and does a good job of bringing that to the game.
But, sometimes I get a hankering for more rules and crunch which is why I gravitate towards 4th edition. 4th edition is also the only rules set so far that I feel comfortable running as a DM. It just clicks together in my head for some reason. Maybe I’ll try to run some Swords & Wizardry someday. Or I’ll encourage my DM to run S&W at RinCon.
My bottom line on game systems is that they are nowhere near as important as the people you play with.
Nice write up! I wish I coulda been there! The Savage Worlds thing sound pretty amazing, Ive been wanting to pick it up for a while now. I really got into 3E and thus I like Pathfinder. Its true it can be really daunting to catch up and get everything you need to know all in one place. There is surely room for improvement in managing players resources and make it easier for them to get the info they need. 4E has done a good job of that, in the power cards and stuff. Im playing in a Pathfinder/Ptolus hybrid game and its really fun, of course its the people you play with that make it great. 4E seems more tactical like you said, but then tough too because you have to be aware of other PC powers and which have the best synergy. All in all RPGs are good fun! and Zach and I will try and be at the next one!
I think I’d enjoy 3E/Pathfinder more if I had a better mastery over it. The first game I played in I jumped into a character at level 10. This time I played a PC that was pretty complicated. So, I’ve always felt like I was trying to catch up when playing 3E/Pathfinder. I’m sure with time I’d get better at managing the complexities.
Thanks for the review!
I think I will stick to more light rules games though.