|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Some poor choices of wording on my part. I meant solely D&D/PF and not other RPGs for this discussion. By modern I meant 3.x/4E. 5E is interesting because I think it does a better job of any of the recent iterations of bridging old/new school playstyles. My observations are of course mine, and not objective arguments, but generalizations. Even without being objectively correct, I think there is an interesting discussion to be had if anyone cares to engage in such without having to be right.
In the past XP was gained by collecting gold. Parties had the same focus storywise as they do today, but there was much less emphasis on combat and killing things. You could be just as successful bypassing a fight if possible. In fact, it was more optimal to do so. A typical adventure was more balanced between puzzles, obstacles, traps, and eventually an encounter. Each class would shine through with their own strength based on the particular challenge. PCs had to use their limited resources in a game of attrition to complete their goals successfully.
Newer design has moved XP to NPC/monsters themselves, which in a sense put a bounty on their head. Combat has always been a part of the game, but now daily and constant combats are the norm. Many classes received additional resources and powers to make up for this. Good examples are Paizo "point pools", 4E AEDU, 3.5 wands/scrolls in a can, etc. Resources have become levied towards combats and is reflected in recent designs.
One thing id like to mention is I dont see some huge dividing line. Folks played the game differently back in the day because they lacked the decades of experience and modern game design innovations we take for granted today. I do think design choices have a big influence on the outcome on playstyles. However, I have met brand new players I would describe as having old school sensibilities. I also know a few O.G.s who would say, "old school? Been there, and I am never going back!" Both styles have equal merit and are only a matter of preference to me. YMMV.
I dont think its a clean up as much as it is a give up. It takes a lot of effort to maintain welcoming, interesting, and constructive forum communities. WOTC right now seems to be streamlinging D&D into an efficient brand machine. In those cases a dialogue isnt that important with your customer base. They can still get the word out via social media but dont have to worry about conversations and lingering "toxic" communities. If they need feedback they will send out surveys and such. Essentially, WOTC just decided its not important to maintain a vibrate forum community and use other tools instead.
captain yesterday wrote:
Oh! You wanna make a Fantasy Football person really angry have them explain it then when they're done say "so it's like dungeons and dragons except not as fun" had a guy threaten to kick my ass once for saying it :-D
I believe it. I actually started FF because I couldnt find anyone to play D&D with. True story. They all thought D&D was super nerdy and lame but this FF thing was interesting and manly. I do fondly recall making lineup changes via phone with the commish and long sessions in the john on monday looking over boxsocres in the paper. It wasnt until I was an adult I would find a gaming group.
The only time I think extensive research is necessary is if you are making an actual reenactment simulation of one of our existing cultures. I am pretty forgiving when somebody is making up a fantasy culture for an RPG. I might not be the best person to ask though, folks seem to get offended by all kinds of things I dont even notice. The only blatantly offensive RPG material I can think of is F.A.T.A.L.
Hercules, The Kevin Sorbo 1 wrote:
Actually I'm the psylon.
I think its important to recognize that an old school playstyle isnt married to early game design. If you were to compare a recent OSR product with original D&D I think you would see the advancement. Those crappy game design limitations gave way to innovation and modern gaming. There is still some great inspiration from that early era no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Old school to me means gaming playstyles and sensibilities of earlier editions of the game. Over the years and editions the game has evolved and game element focuses have changed for both designers and players. I think there are certainly queues that will help indicate if a person leans towards old school style or not.
Highly lethal games (save or die is A-ok)
I believe 5E to be a pendulum swing back in the direction of many old school sensibilities. The interesting thing is how they reconcile those sensibilities with modern design and tastes. The game is still evolving and eventually the pendulum wing swing again towards a more combat as sport rudimentary rule system. Though along the way you really cant completely separate old from New.
Try it before you drop it. If you feel out of your element then Id suggest you bring that up at the session end. Personally, I never dive into campaigns with strangers and do some screening for playstyle before engaging. Typically one shots or PFS scenarios combined with meetup.com type evenings. Food for thought for next time. I hope things work out for you.
I dont have an issue with modifying the DC as player or GM as long as it is situational and used sparingly. If it was becoming a pattern of shutting down a particular PCs talent, I'd probably speak up about it. Respectfully and constructively of course.
These types of things should be discussed as a group. The GM could be unaware of the impact or the PC might have stumbled onto something that makes the game a bit trivial. If a GM insists on ramping up challenges or shutting down talents frequently without good reason as a playstyle, I may excuse myself from their game. If a player insists on becoming a hyper specialized hammer and treat every game challenge as a nail, I'll choose not game with them. Ultimately, it comes down to playstyle, and I dont have time for folks who are inflexible.
Some folks might want a straight up RAW interpretation of the game and thats A-ok too. I would advise you to be aware that folks might differ on the subject and you may have to find some common ground. Usually folks can work it out and get back to the fun but occasionally the grounds too far to cover. Dont get upset, dont get incendiary, just be real about it.
I dont worry too much about what stats mean. I keep them under the hood and they serve only mechanical purposes. I let my players roleplay however they see fit without forcing my idea of pretty/ugly or smart/stupid on them. Obviously, I would call foul if somebody tried play a genius with low Int and expected actual genius results in gameplay. Fortunately for me, my players have never tried such shenanigans so it has never come up.
Milo v3 wrote:
I think this is the heart of the issue right here. Some may see becoming a lich as simply gaining an undead template and an evil alignment. Perhaps im too hung up on much of the write ups, but I see it as fundamentally changing the individual on a core level. At the point of becoming a lich there is a transformation, a severing from mortal being. A lich no longer has hunger, fear, or passion. A lich is basically an echo of the person they were and as time goes by less and less of their humanity will remain. Ultimately, a lich will become nothing more than a collector of tangible elements like rudimentary power. Anything that mattered before transformation will become unimportant and inconsequential to a lich. All that drove a lich previously, has been imprisoned with their soul as cost of immortality. Clearly my take on things influenced by gaming material and literature I have read. So no not memory loss or damage, but loss of empathy and emotional destruction.
Other peoples addiction is pretty much why I do not have a cell phone smart or otherwise. I find not giving the people I'm with my full attention to be extremely rude. Though modern mores make it A-ok for folks to be on their phones everywhere and at all times, so this is sadly now a thing.
My group typically uses tablets for rules lookup and digital char-sheets. Everyone gets quite into the game. Sure we have moments where one person has the spotlight, but I never felt 80% downtime. Perhaps its because we are older (30's and 50's) and don't relate as well to millennials that we dont experience phone-out at the table. I'm not sure how one goes about combating it.
The original night of the living dead was freaky because of the atmosphere. Romero did a great job with the feelings the film incited. It still was all about the humans and not the monsters. You dont need to make the zombies themselves scary they are immaterial. I dont believe zombie flicks have ever been about the monster and dont think they need to be about the monster. If you want a scary horror film you should pick a different monster IMO.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
I ran Curse no problems the updating is a cinch to do on the fly. I wouldn't wait around for the update you'll need a cane or a rascal by the time its here.
See I never saw PF as a new edition. Its was a slightly modified 3E to keep making adventures for that type of system as opposed to the alternatives. I got over a decade of experience in making the 3E engine purr, all I needs is some more adventure material. Not sure what all the hullabaloo is about editions. Clearly, YMMV.
I dont like Imagine Dragons or mumford and sons too stadium rock for my tastes. Mumfords newest album is especially shi!!y.
Considering they sent Weird Al the settings and such to recreate the music track for his parody of Radioactive, yeah they're decent guys.
When Al asked Mark Knopfler if he could parody money for nothing Knopfler said only if he could play lead guitar on the track.....and did. Beyond decent.
Im pretty sure Greentea has a travel model of soapbox :)
Currently a big fan of Game of Thrones, Ray Donovan, True Detective, Black Sails, Penny Dreadful. Looking forward very much to Walter Blunt and Ash v. Evil Dead. These are some of the best offerings in film/television IMO. They are worth the price to me.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Even Sprecher non-alcoholic offerings are great. You can occasionally find them around the twin cities. Its a Wisconsin company I believe.
First few times I chalked it up to technical issues or improper care. At this point, ive been to enough places that the product is just fishy itself. I dont like my soda to be fishy.
There is residue left over in the nozzle. You will never get just coke out of them. Ice makers and soda fountains are some of the equipment I review repair quotes for as part of my job. I know how filthy they are, which is why I avoid them mostly altogether.
Cal I got at least a dozen cans of Dew in my fridge from a party I threw a few months ago. I dont touch the stuff wish I could pass it along. None of my regular guests drink it either. Probably eat through the can before they get drank.
Minor rant time, anyone notice places going to these new fancy touch screen soda fountains? Its like 77 flavors that all come out of the same spigot. So everytime you get a drink its "cherry vanilla diet grape (your pick here) very gross and annoying.