I know we likely have a Pathfinder campaign coming up for my gaming group sometime in the future, and for me, it’s a mixed bag. Don’t get me wrong; I respect Paizo, and am pretty darn pleased with how Pathfinder turned out. But I also wonder how deep or complex our campaign is going to be?
I’m definitely not a rules lawyer; in fact, I basically consider them the scourge of good gaming. Pathfinder builds on Dungeons & Dragons 3.x, which was a fairly moderately rules-intense game, supporting a level of system mastery. However, I’m not interested in waiting all day to look up rules, or waiting while someone proves that page xx actually says what they’re saying it says. I also don’t want to spend all day calculating whether or not bonuses stack.
It’s an age-old struggle for me, as I’ve stated before—the comfort of rules support versus the speed and ease of rules-light play. It’s one of the reasons I can love Rolemaster and Risus well and equally, because each gives me something I want.
There’s an easy, understandable game in Pathfinder; otherwise I wouldn’t be looking forward to playing it. You can say it with any system, but ultimately it comes down to the GM and the group, and how much book-digging and arguing over rules they want to do in play. For us, I hope it comes down to very little. Honestly, I think with so many years of d20 under our collective belts, it shouldn’t be a difficult goal.
Ultimately, my goal is to get the Game Master for our Pathfinder campaign to use Rolemaster’s Arms Law as a critical hit system with Pathfinder. If we’re going to have a decent amount of rules, let’s make sure and get some really good bits in there. Actually, if anyone knows of a good optional critical hit system for use with Pathfinder, let me know. But it better stack up well against Arms Law. And none of this "roll to confirm" crap. We don't do instant replay.