SU&SD's Review of the Pathfinder ACG

[Jackalmonkey]

Figured this would be worth linking to here, as it's one of the very few initial negative reviews of the cardboard original. Since its publication a lot of its criticisms have been echoed elsewhere. The points in brief:

 

Easy to learn, easy to master: "Once you know how to win, once you have mastered the subtleties (which are about as subtle as a naked man at a bus stop), the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game turns into a dull routine of flipping a card and rolling dice."

 

Mechanically repetitive, repetitive, repetitive: "Basically, the game pretends to have a story, and yet delivers a mediocre and repetitive game of flipping cards and rolling dice."

 

Dicey dice: "The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is incredibly capricious (for those of you who missed High-Falutin Jabber 101, that means there's too much luck)."

 

I'm posting this here because I've played the cardboard version many times and initially liked it (for reasons pretty well articulated at a different review here). For a few months my friends and I kept it on as the opener when we met to play boardgames, and even used the same persistent characters session to session (O Lem, you once were a true love of mine).

 

But we stopped halfway through the second Adventure Pack, our collective interest waning, then souring as the as the points outlined above kept on smacking us about the face. "I'm 'fighting' a 'harpy,' play 'weapon,' roll dice. I'm 'opening' a 'gate,' play 'item,' roll dice. I'm 'outsmarting' an 'ambush,' play 'blessing,' roll dice." Repeat and repeat and repeat and look, when I say we stopped halfway, I mean to say that we didn't even finish the game we were playing. Someone had to take cookies out of an oven or top off a parking meter or empty the kittenbone tray or something - I don't know, but the game broke up a bit and when we reconvened we just sighed and frowned and between the four of us couldn't think of a compelling enough reason to keep playing.

 

The game has real problems, but I'm hoping that between the new digital format and a critical third party revisiting its mechanics, it can be salvaged to better align with the thematic experience originally envisioned by its developers at Paizo. So I guess I'm just wondering, you know, kind of out-loud-like, if the devs are addressing any of these criticisms in their designs or staying, eh, faithful to the original.

[bthquartermaster]

I get it. 

 

No really, I do.

 

It has the name Pathfinder on it, so it must produce the same sentiment and gameplay as a role playing game would.  Nothing else will do.  Got it.

 

Never mind the fact that this is the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.  Not a roleplaying game.  This is a tabletop card game modeled after successful deckbuilder games like Dominion, with the added features of persistent characters, dice based combat, and a fantasy theme.  It is a fantastic implementation of that game mechanic.  But it is not a roleplaying game.

 

And thus the purists howl. 

 

This game has been wildly successful in print, virtually dominating the 2013 BGG.con convention in Dallas.  Players can't get enough of the rich theme, balanced player development and combat mechanics, and challenging objectives.  PACG has finally brought true character development and campaign gameplay into the tabletop world - and is now poised to do the same for tablets.

 

But instead of praise for that accomplishment, the game is criticized here for its simplified (read, no weeks of GM preparation and setup) gameplay. 

 

THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF IT.

 

You don't have to designate a GM.  You can play it by yourself if you want.  You don't have to deal with unbalanced encounters.  You don't have spend twice as much time preparing as playing.

 

The one fair criticism - it has errata in the printed version.  Plenty of them.  Real problems there, to be sure.  Problems that can be corrected in the digital implementation.  But to dismiss this game outright for its encounter mechanics is unbelievable to me.  In truth, I found more depth here in using the different cards and character abilities to best effect than I found in endless rounds of roll d20, hope-I-crit slugfests.

 

Passing on PACG is denying yourself the best tabletop game of 2013, and I haven't seen much in 2014 to rival it either.

[Jackalmonkey]

I get it.

 

Do you? The criticisms noted above have less to do with the game's dissimilarity to an RPG than with its repetition and lack of interesting decisions. The reasons you like the game have been articulated pretty well by Rab over at Rock Paper Shotgun, whose article I linked to above. And yeah, I get it: it's easy to set up, plays fast, and it has a lot of the generic fantasy tropes that people already know and like.

 

As far as the best game of 2013 goes, I disagree obviously and I've only seen interest wane at BGG, where the game premiered at the top of the Hotness and has since disappeared. Regardless, I reckon that bringing the game to a new format provides an opportunity to iterate upon the current mechanics and provide a bit more story to each adventure.

[bthquartermaster]

sure, you can oversimplify PACG to "flip a card, roll the dice."  you can oversimplify a worker placement game to "move the meeple, collect a resource" too.  or a deckbuilder to "draw a card, play a card, cull your deck."  etc. etc.

 

all your critique has really done is identify the core mechanic of an encounter.  well done. 

 

what it hasn't done is fairly describe the game.  it ignores the rich theme of the locations and adventure path (and how they shape each session), the depth of strategy involved in selecting and using your characters skills effectively as a team, and the tough decisions of when to use scarce resources (often blessings, but may be any category of card in short supply in your character's deck). 

 

PACG is an extraordinarily UN-repetitive merging of co-operative play, deckbuilding, and persistent character development.  There's nothing else like it, and it has been wildly successful.  To claim it is in decline is sheer fantasy.  The diversity of characters lends itself to near endless replayability, and it has retained its popularity against of a slew of potential thematic rivals (Myth, Descent, Thunderstone to name a few).

 

the majority of the criticism has come from the segment I mentioned earlier: the RPG purists.  I can be somewhat sympathetic to their position: anyone expecting something else based on brand history can be forgiven their disappointment when a new product doesn't have the same appeal as the old.  But this critique?  An extreme minority position, and a gross oversimplification.  At best.  Those of us that are primarily tabletop players absolutely love the game.  I'll be at BGG.con again this year, and won't be surprised to see table after table with both Rise of the Runelords and Skull and Shackles on it.

[Deekow]

I absolutely adore this game, and play it whenever I can.  My wife plays and enjoys the game, and this is the only game she does.  But, I can easily see why some people don't like it, and understand entirely that they may find this to be an entirely boring and rote experience.  Fortunately, I have many other games to play and it's never been an issue.

 

The only issue I see here in the OP is the statement, "The game has real problems".  I disagree with this 100%.  The game has mechanics you may not enjoy, but those aren't problems, those are your opinions and preferences (which are entirely fine); but no game will appease everyone and that isn't a problem.  It's a good thing that we all have unique tastes in hobby and entertainment.

 

If you're referring to lack of theme, read the cards... there's PLENTY of story there.  Given that this is a card game, it does a better job than almost anything else at providing a narrative for... a card game (Lord of the Rings LCG does this a bit better, admittedly).

 

If you're referring to errata, there are two answers here.  The first is that with a game with this many cards and this many rules, I can't imagine the work it would take to catch every single little thing.  No other game with this many moving parts ever has, and I doubt it ever will.  There are mistakes on the cards, but not enough to distract from the game, and playing the cards without the errata on the mistake cards doesn't really remove from the enjoyment.  Most of the other errata aren't actual errors, but clarifications brought about due to the ambiguity of the English language.  Keeping things simple provides too many chances for misinterpretation; being too meticulous and covering every edge case by the wording of the rule on a single card is too precise and loses flavor (as is actually already seen due to some over-correcting on some of the errata).  General misunderstandings also happen here that I wouldn't put in the realm of "a problem", such as needing to explain how to read 4-sided dice... yes, they should have caught it, but is it a problem for most players?  Does the inclusion of it as a FAQ entry alleviate the problem?  Many of the rules/card FAQ questions are simple pedantry and wouldn't have been thought twice about for most players who were playing it absolutely fine... or players that are placing their RPG expectations on how they think the rules would play, rather than how they state they actually do.  The only true problem I see is that the game was more popular than their expectations, and that they reached more types of players than they expected and couldn't write a different set of rules and cards for each of them.  We don't all learn the same or place the same context on language as written in rules.

 

I'm more than happy to discuss the game and share why I love it with others.  I run demos, start campaigns, get others started, answer questions, and advocate for the game every chance I get.  But, I've never once considered it a problem or failure if someone doesn't like it.  It's not for everyone, NOTHING is for everyone.  Why does the game have to be considered to have problems along the same argument?

 

You don't like it?  They probably didn't make the game for you.  You do like it?  There's still a chance they didn't make the game for you... but you're quite fortunate, eh?

[redneckdevil]

Ok i LOVE Pathfinder and have been GMing for a couple years and love the setting and stories. Granted it was my first introduction into tabletop gaming.

 

Yal are really started to make me think about buying a deck even though i have no idea what im getting into at all. Really all i would need is just a single deck to be able to play by myself and would i need to buy another to play with my family?

[Jackalmonkey]

The only issue I see here in the OP is the statement, "The game has real problems".  I disagree with this 100%.  The game has mechanics you may not enjoy, but those aren't problems, those are your opinions and preferences (which are entirely fine); but no game will appease everyone and that isn't a problem.  It's a good thing that we all have unique tastes in hobby and entertainment.

 

 

 

Or in other words,

 

 

I'm comfortable describing aspects of the game as problems just as I'm comfortable calling a game good or bad, and I think we all can enjoy that latitude. In truth the concept that games can have problems is taken for granted among gamers and game designers. The kingmaker scenario is generally acknowledged to be a gameplay problem, as is player elimination in long games of more than two players. Other generic problems (arbitrary randomness, encouraging AP, uneven player starting conditions) abound even in successful games and regardless of whether you are comfortable with these elements, they're still problematic insofar as they run counter to the gameplay's fun, strategy, fairness, time commitment, etc.

 

Cases in point:

• Problems are often identified and addressed in subsequent editions of games. Cash and Guns' 2nd edition fixed the loot distribution mechanic (problematic because it slowed the game and involved little player partcipation) by replacing it with a drafting minigame. Game of Thrones' 2nd edition fixed a lot of the problems associated with the different starting conditions by introducing neutral armies to slow certain types of expansion.
• Expansions and updates are often about solving problems in game content and design. The Netrunner relaunch fixed the tracing mechanic and unbalanced abilities by redesigning tracing from the ground up and siloing powerful abilities within a faction system. Eldritch Horror corrects a lot of the problems of Arkham Horror, not only simplifying the mechanics but also creating more varied objectives. Those varied objectives (called mysteries) were criticized after the game's release, not for their inherent mechanics but because there were so few - a problem which EH's Forsaken Lore expansion corrected by adding several for each scenario. For a simpler and more well-known example, Settlers of Catan solves the problem of randomness in die rolls by replacing them with a deck of cards that better obey the 2d6 bell curve.
• Competing games often solve one another's problems. You mention LOTR; well, PACG solves the problem of the LOTR's compartmentalization of deck construction and gameplay sessions by integrating deckbuilding into the encounter deck and making player decks persistent session-to-session. Dominion is a great game, but the lack of player interactivity is a legitimate problem that other deckbuilders have since aimed to fix: Trains does so by making players compete for real estate; Arctic Scavengers addresses the problem via a bidding/combat round, etc.
• House rules are about nothing if not fixing problems. One of the most popular threads for Spartacus at BGG is the "blue dice variant" that fixes the problem of kiting in combat and brings the movement mechanic in line with other gamplay elements. The game is better and more consistent with the variant implemented. Problem solved!

In short, many (very good) games do have problems, and more importantly, those problems can be identified and solved. PACG's problems are likewise both evident and solvable. If you'd like to articulate how to solve them I'm all ears, but I don't think further discussion about whether the game is good or bad is interesting or fruitful.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Jackalmonkey

[bthquartermaster]

Ok i LOVE Pathfinder and have been GMing for a couple years and love the setting and stories. Granted it was my first introduction into tabletop gaming.

 

Yal are really started to make me think about buying a deck even though i have no idea what im getting into at all. Really all i would need is just a single deck to be able to play by myself and would i need to buy another to play with my family?

 

Hi Redneckdevil - I recommend picking up the base set and the character add-on deck.  Try that with one, two, or three players and see if you like the game before buying anything else.  Gamers with a tabletop background have generally loved this game, particularly if they enjoyed other deckbuilders.  Gamers with an RPG background (like yourself) have had more mixed reviews. 

[bthquartermaster]

 

The only issue I see here in the OP is the statement, "The game has real problems".  I disagree with this 100%.  The game has mechanics you may not enjoy, but those aren't problems, those are your opinions and preferences (which are entirely fine); but no game will appease everyone and that isn't a problem.  It's a good thing that we all have unique tastes in hobby and entertainment.

 

 

 

Or in other words,

 

 

I'm comfortable describing aspects of the game as problems just as I'm comfortable calling a game good or bad, and I think we all can enjoy that latitude. In truth the concept that games can have problems is taken for granted among gamers and game designers. The kingmaker scenario is generally acknowledged to be a gameplay problem, as is player elimination in long games of more than two players. Other generic problems (arbitrary randomness, encouraging AP, uneven player starting conditions) abound even in successful games and regardless of whether you are comfortable with these elements, they're still problematic insofar as they run counter to the gameplay's fun, strategy, fairness, time commitment, etc.

 

Cases in point:

• Problems are often identified and addressed in subsequent editions of games. Cash and Guns' 2nd edition fixed the loot distribution mechanic (problematic because it slowed the game and involved little player partcipation) by replacing it with a drafting minigame. Game of Thrones' 2nd edition fixed a lot of the problems associated with the different starting conditions by introducing neutral armies to slow certain types of expansion.
• Expansions and updates are often about solving problems in game content and design. The Netrunner relaunch fixed the tracing mechanic and unbalanced abilities by redesigning tracing from the ground up and siloing powerful abilities within a faction system. Eldritch Horror corrects a lot of the problems of Arkham Horror, not only simplifying the mechanics but also creating more varied objectives. Those varied objectives (called mysteries) were criticized after the game's release, not for their inherent mechanics but because there were so few - a problem which EH's Forsaken Lore expansion corrected by adding several for each scenario. For a simpler and more well-known example, Settlers of Catan solves the problem of randomness in die rolls by replacing them with a deck of cards that better obey the 2d6 bell curve.
• Competing games often solve one another's problems. You mention LOTR; well, PACG solves the problem of the LOTR's compartmentalization of deck construction and gameplay sessions by integrating deckbuilding into the encounter deck and making player decks persistent session-to-session. Dominion is a great game, but the lack of player interactivity is a legitimate problem that other deckbuilders have since aimed to fix: Trains does so by making players compete for real estate; Arctic Scavengers addresses the problem via a bidding/combat round, etc.
• House rules are about nothing if not fixing problems. One of the most popular threads for Spartacus at BGG is the "blue dice variant" that fixes the problem of kiting in combat and brings the movement mechanic in line with other gamplay elements. The game is better and more consistent with the variant implemented. Problem solved!

In short, many (very good) games do have problems, and more importantly, those problems can be identified and solved. PACG's problems are likewise both evident and solvable. If you'd like to articulate how to solve them I'm all ears, but I don't think further discussion about whether the game is good or bad is interesting or fruitful.

 

One feature that I had hoped to see in Skull and Shackles (and didn't) was some sort of cash mechanism.  As it stands, there is no immediate reward for defeating monsters or (most) barriers.  Encountering and overcoming monsters and barriers is the very heart of this game, but there is no positive incentive to encounter them.  You get nothing for overcoming them (except a few barriers).  I think there should be a "loot" reward for defeating monsters and barriers that can then be used to draw random (or even specific) cards from the box in between scenarios. 

 

They could also do more to integrate the monsters, barriers, and the players themselves into the locations.  Locations should have traits similar to the other cards that provide bonuses and penalties - this keeps the thematic elements more at the forefront of the mind, and reduces some of the dry mechanics that Jackalmonkey doesn't like.

 

To be clear:

 

- I still absolutely love this game

- I do not think Obsidian should alter the game mechanics at all in their app implementation of Rise of the Runelords. 

- I do think Paizo should consider this in (hopefully forthcoming) adventure paths of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.  Really hoping we see a set that focuses on the far north regions like Irrisen and the Linnorm King

[redneckdevil]

 

 

Ok i LOVE Pathfinder and have been GMing for a couple years and love the setting and stories. Granted it was my first introduction into tabletop gaming.

 

Yal are really started to make me think about buying a deck even though i have no idea what im getting into at all. Really all i would need is just a single deck to be able to play by myself and would i need to buy another to play with my family?

Hi Redneckdevil - I recommend picking up the base set and the character add-on deck. Try that with one, two, or three players and see if you like the game before buying anything else. Gamers with a tabletop background have generally loved this game, particularly if they enjoyed other deckbuilders. Gamers with an RPG background (like yourself) have had more mixed reviews.

Ok was thinking of bringing my group in which is 3 other people. We love tabletop and mmos and video games all together to try this out.

so which do u think i should start off with? Rise of the runelords or skulls and shackles? We have been running RotRL for some time and they are enjoying it but is close to the end. We was actually gonna do S&S after we finished and once i found the books at a cheap price somewhere (i like pdfs but i HAVE to have a physical copy im weird like that lol) so both decks will touch on games we have and will eventually play.

also the additional cards...are u talking about the ones that have the iconics or the ones that are for each class? Like i have seen one that had some of the iconics in one deck and seen decks specifically for each individual class (ex. A deck for clerics and a deck for fighters).

Thanks for the heads up. Just dont want to repeat my mistake when i first got into tabletop gaming and literally put down well over a grand on books and adventure paths (which im glad i did) but not glad on on the maps and minis and whatnots (stuff i didnt need but spent wayyyy to much on).

[bthquartermaster]

 

 

Ok i LOVE Pathfinder and have been GMing for a couple years and love the setting and stories. Granted it was my first introduction into tabletop gaming.

 

Yal are really started to make me think about buying a deck even though i have no idea what im getting into at all. Really all i would need is just a single deck to be able to play by myself and would i need to buy another to play with my family?

Hi Redneckdevil - I recommend picking up the base set and the character add-on deck. Try that with one, two, or three players and see if you like the game before buying anything else. Gamers with a tabletop background have generally loved this game, particularly if they enjoyed other deckbuilders. Gamers with an RPG background (like yourself) have had more mixed reviews.

Ok was thinking of bringing my group in which is 3 other people. We love tabletop and mmos and video games all together to try this out.

so which do u think i should start off with? Rise of the runelords or skulls and shackles? We have been running RotRL for some time and they are enjoying it but is close to the end. We was actually gonna do S&S after we finished and once i found the books at a cheap price somewhere (i like pdfs but i HAVE to have a physical copy im weird like that lol) so both decks will touch on games we have and will eventually play.

also the additional cards...are u talking about the ones that have the iconics or the ones that are for each class? Like i have seen one that had some of the iconics in one deck and seen decks specifically for each individual class (ex. A deck for clerics and a deck for fighters).

Thanks for the heads up. Just dont want to repeat my mistake when i first got into tabletop gaming and literally put down well over a grand on books and adventure paths (which im glad i did) but not glad on on the maps and minis and whatnots (stuff i didnt need but spent wayyyy to much on).

 

I greatly prefer rise of the runelords to skull and shackles, but the games are very, very similar - so if the pirate theme appeals to you, go for that.  otherwise, rise of the runelords.

 

get this: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/186930

 

and maybe this: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/186931

 

...and start with that.  Play through the introductory three game sessions (or maybe all of pack 1, included in base set).  if you like it, then consider getting the class decks you speak of and additional decks 2-6. 

[elcoderdude]

Comparing Rise of the Runelords PACG with Skull & Shackles: Some people complain RotR is too easy. It's difficult to lose a scenario, let alone have a character die.  The final adventures (5 & 6) are a bit more challenging than the others, but still, many people never lose in their entire campaign.

 

For Skull & Shackles, Paizo upped the difficulty.  It's common for people to lose multiple times in the base set scenarios alone, never mind adventure 1. So if you prefer a challenge, you're better off with Skull & Shackles.  If what matters to you is a sword & sorcery theme as opposed to pirates, then by all means go for Rise of the Runelords.

[bthquartermaster]

Comparing Rise of the Runelords PACG with Skull & Shackles: Some people complain RotR is too easy. It's difficult to lose a scenario, let alone have a character die.  The final adventures (5 & 6) are a bit more challenging than the others, but still, many people never lose in their entire campaign.

 

For Skull & Shackles, Paizo upped the difficulty.  It's common for people to lose multiple times in the base set scenarios alone, never mind adventure 1. So if you prefer a challenge, you're better off with Skull & Shackles.  If what matters to you is a sword & sorcery theme as opposed to pirates, then by all means go for Rise of the Runelords.

 

lose as in run out of time in the blessings deck, or lose as in die?  One has much more drastic consequences than the other.  I always felt like if you actually died in RotR, then you took an unnecessary risk exploring when you shouldn't have.  We had to repeat a few scenarios (including one embarrassing incident on The Poison Pill while we were still learning) - but never died. 

[ender424]

I'm sorry but that review was terrrible.  Admittedly I enjoy the game but I certainly wouldn't say that it's the greatest game ever or doesn't have its faults but any game is going to sound boring when you reduce it to it's core mechanics.  Yes you flip a card and roll the dice to try to beat or gain the card but there is also a timer, various rules that change depending on the scenario, various interactions that can be had between characters with powers, various consequences if you get a bad roll, and more. 

This game may use the Pathfinder brand, but that doesn't mean you are getting the same experience.   If anything I consider PACG more of a dungeon crawler card game than a RPG or deck builder game.  Despite lack of tiles or minis it probably has more in common with the D&D adventure games than any other game I can think of. 

Yes there is a randomness and luck involved because you have dice and shuffled cards but tons of games have that and I would agree that victory sometimes has more to do with luck than strategy but its not completely lacking in strategy. 

PACG isn't the game I was hoping for (keeping wanting some kind of Descent, PACG, Mage Knight, LOTR LCG hybrid lol) but hardly a bad game. 

 

[grifflyman]

For me the game offers more, when I'm playing the game I'm interacting and joking with my friends. When we roll a dice we will sometimes say what happened, so if it was a missed attack we will make up a little story to explain what happened.

I've not had problems with the game becoming boring yet, but I also play with different people almost every time which I think really helps make the game enjoyable.

[Luridis]

I have yet to play a RPG themed card game, but this does interest me. That said, I see some criticism being levied at it, but also being dismissive of some qualities that have actual value.

 

 

Do you? The criticisms noted above have less to do with the game's dissimilarity to an RPG than with its repetition and lack of interesting decisions. The reasons you like the game have been articulated pretty well by Rab over at Rock Paper Shotgun, whose article I linked to above. And yeah, I get it: it's easy to set up, plays fast, and it has a lot of the generic fantasy tropes that people already know and like.

 

I like space games, complex space games like X3, Master of Orion 2, etc. But, there's another game I like and play called Weird Worlds in Infinite Space. Much of the game is a tongue in cheek representation of those larger more complex games. Gameplay is simple and you fire up the game and finish it in about 10 minutes. But still, I like it and have played it for hours on end. It's perfect when I've had a long and difficult day and I don't want to do a lot of in depth thinking and just want to play something simple.

 

Ever stop to think that, the things you are complaining about are things seen as strengths to other people? Not everyone has time to be deeply invested in game complexity and not everyone wants to spend all of their free time there either. If you don't like simple games then don't play them.

 

I mean...

 

[hfm]

 

Ok i LOVE Pathfinder and have been GMing for a couple years and love the setting and stories. Granted it was my first introduction into tabletop gaming.

 

Yal are really started to make me think about buying a deck even though i have no idea what im getting into at all. Really all i would need is just a single deck to be able to play by myself and would i need to buy another to play with my family?

 

Hi Redneckdevil - I recommend picking up the base set and the character add-on deck.  Try that with one, two, or three players and see if you like the game before buying anything else.  Gamers with a tabletop background have generally loved this game, particularly if they enjoyed other deckbuilders.  Gamers with an RPG background (like yourself) have had more mixed reviews. 

 

 

I have an RPG background and I dig it. When your characters and facing down imminent death it gets a little tense.

[redneckdevil]

I finally got it and it was a hit with some and a miss with others. Still trying to get all the rules down but definitely need a "storyteller" to make it more engaging but its imho still fun without.

[Aerothorn]

The OP's question - of whether this is a straight port or a "new edition" - is a very good one.

FWIW, I'll be very surprised if any substantial changes are made, mostly because the current simplicity has mass appeal and it would require real design time, and a lot of negotiations with Paizo, to change anything.