|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I could never afford minis as a kid (and I coveted the entire Ral Partha line, trust me), so I even ran 3x TotM style (it's what I knew) until newer players used to (and in possession of) minis wanted to use the Chessex mat the way it was intended.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
I rolled first. And failed. Didn't know you could take 20 after a failed roll, or I was so in my feelings I forgot. ;-)
I think the secret door in the goblin stronghold in RotRL's first installment really brought home my problems with 3x games. My character tracked the goblin boss to the secret door, KNEW there was a secret door, and I rolled a three or something to "find" the secret door.
In AD&D, I would have just started describing everything I did until I found the latch. In 3x, I rolled a three, and there was nothing to be said after that.
Needless to say, I prefer games where logic and deliberation trump a stupid die roll.
I started an AD&D campaign a while back, but the table didn't seem to be feeling it. With the modern versions of the game defining everything about your character on the sheet, having to actually think things out and not just roll a d20 to resolve EVERYTHING seemed like a chore to them. So, I just let the game die, I wasn't having fun. :-(
Edit: I'd play that, by the way. Sounds like a fun time. AD&D 1E and BECMI (Rules Compendium) are my two favorite iterations of D&D.
Like I said, it's the oldest school of the old school modules. The entire thing is based on how carefully the players can navigate the tomb. Reckless power gamers die quickly, since there is almost nothing to overpower. People who just like to roll dice and not think about much die quickly, it's a thinking person's adventure. People who stock up on ten foot poles, spikes and hammers, and all of the old school goodies, go slow and steady, and never rush into stuff eventually have their souls sucked by the demi-lich at the end, since, invariably, they almost never have the right spells memorized.
If you run ToH straight, short rests, etc, will mean nothing. Most of the traps and stuff just kill you if you're not cautious. The hard part of running it in 5e is that the game, while it gives a nod to AD&D, isn't AD&D. They still have DCs, and a host of mechanical things that a die roll and not your brain will resolve.
Seriously, the only way to run it and get the full feel is to actually run it in AD&D. Everything from 3.0 on, even 5e, is written with modern sensibilities in mind, especially character mortality. AD&D (and OD&D) were written for a war gamers, and they didn't mind death as much. AD&D 2e and beyond were written for a completely different audience, with completely different expectations from the game.
I guess a kind of bad analogy would be trying to recreate the Roman chariot races, but with APCs. The drivers are way more protected from mistakes made in navigating. ;-)
Cole Deschain wrote:
It was specifically created FOR Gygax's players, you know, guys that came up through the wargaming ranks and played a game with story elements. They didn't care if their characters died, they cares that their brains could outsmart Gygax's brains. The guy that played Robilar just threw his orc army at the thing until he got to the end.
It was a different time. D&D was just a game back then, death was expected at one point or another, and a lot of the best moments (for people not emotionally invested in an imaginary avatar represented by a piece of paper) were goofy, silly deaths. FBG sold a crapload of all of the Grimtooth books for a reason, after all.
Don't project modern sensibilities onto Gygax's AD&D. The players back then were a different breed until non-wargamers started to get into the hobby bigtime.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
We did pregens, never used it in a campaign. It's the most old school of old school modules, I'd use it as a "history of the game" moment and use AD&D rules or download OSRIC, and play it straight.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Why would you do that? The entire point of the module was to be nearly unbeatable. We used to use how people described their ToH experience to judge whether they were munchkins or worthy of our table.
Scale is irrelevant. Right now, Pathfinder is the "Star Wars" of the RPG world.
My point wasn't that TTRPGs are as popular as movies. They aren't. They aren't as popular as the TV show Survivor, even. My point was that people will buy recycled stuff happily, in any genre or medium. The 2000's pop culture, so far, has just been recycling things from the previous two generations. Almost every movie is a sequel or a remake any more, new music is mostly dumbing down older music, even the biggest video game releases are mostly sequels.
Pathfinder is a 3x retro-clone. It was published so Paizo could keep publishing APs. It innovated nothing, fixed nothing, and that's fine. People liked 3x, it pretty much saved the hobby from even more obscurity and irrelevance, and it was a fun game. Nothing wrong with what Paizo is doing, but they aren't doing anything new and improved.
captain yesterday wrote:
It had more classes, but they weren't as diverse.
What "diversity" does Pathfinder have? The witch? Samurai? Ninjas? Gunslinger? Magus? Nothing new in any of them, nothing that hasn't been done before.
Oracle? Summoner? Inquisitor? Pfft.
Pathfinder turned a few cliches into base classes. Whoop-de-doo.
captain yesterday wrote:
Pathfinder hasn't quite reached the level of insanity 3x at the end achieved. The sheer volume of 3x materials just published by WotC is ridiculous. Trust me, there are more base classes, spells, feats, prestige classes, etc, in 3.x than Pathfinder. And WAR is horrible. I'd rather look at Lockwood paintings in my books, to be honest.
Mechanically, Pathfinder and 3x are identical. Shortening the skill list and CMB are quite minor as innovations go.
Paizo, like someone stated above, didn't "win" because they innovated anything, they "won" because someone (or a bunch of someones) at WotC screwed the pooch. Period. We'll see if 5e is just a placeholder to get to the 50th anniversary, or if it will help WotC get back some of their mojo, but Pathfinder is just the continuation of the edition published in 2000. It is 3x with different expanded base classes. The exact same disparities, lack of balance, and slog-fest high level combat. Same one or two encounters a session since combats take so long. Same "the powerful wizard is 23 because leveling is so fast, he can't even grow a proper beard yet" mechanics. Same problems with economy action.
Nothing changed, Paizo fans are just more fanatic than the average, it seems.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Considering that most people don't know a game called "Pathfinder" exists, but almost all of them have at least heard of "Dungeons and Dragons" pretty much proves your point. The name "Dungeons and Dragons" is worth more than all of the other TTRPGs combined in cache and recognition by a LONG shot.
Again, everyone bought Pathfinder, which did nothing to fix any of 3x's problems. People spent a billion dollars to see a Star Wars movie that was basically the same movie from '77 with some better graphics and slightly different plot. I think you underestimate the current generation's love affair with recycled material.
Norman Osborne wrote:
They can't compete with a good console video game release. I'm just guessing, but it would probably take Paizo ten years (or more) to make what GTA V made in its first week ($800 million).
I'm down. Especially for V&V. ;-)
This is pretty much the reason I don't play AD&D 1e much any more. ;-)
Funny, what this describes is Pathfinder to a T. Paizo even hired new people to design for their 3.5 clone. Seems to me, judging from most gamers I know, people buy all sorts of recycled stuff.
Nathanael Love wrote:
There is far less TTRPG competition in the Paizo era than the AD&D era. Less game systems, less TTRPG companies,etc.
The difference is AD&D competed with Atari and the NES. Modern games, in a niche (at best) market, compete with Playstation, WoW, and arguing dumb stuff on Facebook.
Gruumash . wrote:
We shall see. I think he is better than most people think. He had two very good season with the Eagles, I think they are going to regret firing him especially based upon who they hired to replace him. I don't think Petersen is the answer there.
He had two ok seasons, mostly with the former guy's players (a guy that needed to go, things get stale, but is currently finding success on a team that had less than he left Chip with when he arrived), then nose-dived once he got rid of a bunch of those players in favor of his hand picked replacements.
The NFL is about talent and coaching. If you have a Belichick, some talent deficiencies can be masked or overcome by scheming, if you have a loaded roster, coaching deficiencies can be masked (Bill Callahan taking over Gruden's Raiders comes to mind). Chip's scheme was successful with the incredibly talented team Reid left him, it wasn't so great after he ran most of those guys off.
Time will tell, but Chip has to drop the "smartest guy in the room" nonsense and figure out that his cute little college schemes mean nothing when EVERYONE is fast, strong, and the cream of the crop. It's easy coaching in college, only about 2% of the players you face are possible pro material, it's hard when just about every player suiting up on Sunday is the cream of the crop.
Plus, he just stepped into a division with three of the better defensive units in the league, to take over an offense that has nothing in the cupboard. Good luck there. ;-)
Edit: re, the middle part. Lurie isn't a snap judgement guy, and he had a ton of success with Reid running the show. If anything, he was a little TOO patient with Reid toward the end, considering the amount of talent on the team. Chip has to have some serious personality and judgement deficiencies for Lurie to pull the plug before three seasons were in the books. There must have been some smoke to Jackson's, McCoy's, and (to a much lesser extent) Maclin's fire, as to how Chip carried himself and treated people (I doubt he's "racist", but I get the impression he is an arrogant p***k), and how he evaluated players.
Chip came in believing the hype surrounding his "genius". The NFL doesn't tend to treat coaches like that well.
I have a strange feeling in my gut that pdfs are coming. They basically have no reason whatsoever not to, at this point
They're waiting for hardcover sales to slow down. You can't sell a PDF for $50, and the FLGS can't stock them. Hasbro is about physical products on shelves, after all.
I agree about the movie. The Gene Wilder one, the Depp one doesn't exist in my old mind. My girls want to watch it, I have it on blu-ray, but I'm waffling a bit, they're only five, and parts are kinda scary, I guess.
How about "impartial arbiter of the rules and maker of the rulings at the table, while gaming, a game generally preceded by hours upon hours of prep, world building, and scenario crafting".
Actually, in the very first RPG ever published, and the AD&D edition that followed, the Dungeon Master was specifically told to be an "impartial referee". Most games, until 2e was released, expected the GM to be an "impartial referee".
Sorry, but you're factually wrong about what "traditionally" was the role of the GM in RPGs.
Edit: or whatever you're quoting. Sounds like someone revising the wargaming roots of the first and second wave of RPGs.
You feed on sentient, living creatures to survive. You take their lives, not to save the world from anything, but to continue to exist.
The response isn't "helpful" because, from what I can tell from this thread, people want all of the power of being undead, but none of the consequences.
Norman Osborne wrote:
The DM lady was one of the player's mom. Just not Blackleaf's player.
You're missing the point of his statement. It isn't that the GM is "just a referee". It's that, during GAMEPLAY, his job is to be the impartial arbiter of rulings, and he isn't playing "against" the party, he's setting up a world and scenarios and letting the party to what they will. As in, he's the referee, he just happens to be doing the talking and dice rolling for the NPCs and whatnot.
"Impartial" means not taking sides. "Referee" means person adjudicating the rules fairly and consistently.
Nothing in the statement says "unimaginative", "boring", or "lazy about world building and creating an immersive game".
It's almost like the whole "Stormwind" thing. I optimize the living crap out of my characters, but I don't "min/max", I take my rolls and make something incredible out of them. But, just because Cadogan was dropping Shadowrun numbers of d6s every time he hit something doesn't mean he wasn't roleplayed to the hilt, as well.
And, seriously, if you think that Kirth's impartial referee style of GMing takes anything away from his ability to make a setting you can immerse yourself into, or roleplay memorable NPCs, or any of the other things you mention, I'm here to tell you you're far from correct.
Aviona, Aramni, etc, were living, breathing places with tons of intrigue, amazingly fleshed out and compelling NPCs (particularly d'Ansac, he was a hoot, and Monk, who made the PLAYER behind Cadogan seethe with anger and a tinge of fear).
You're confusing prep, worldbuilding, and the ability to bring something to life through narrative ability with adjudicating the game.
If you're not "just a referee" as a GM, impartiality flies out the window. Players are going to destroy whatever you have planned, it's what they do if they have a shred of ability to play the game, but if you're too emotionally involved with your setting or NPCs, some players are going to be turned off by that.
I, for one, am a "let the chips (or dice) fall where they may" player. If I suspect a DM is fudging or influencing things because of some story he's attached to, I find another table. I WANT an "impartial referee" so I know everything is kosher. I don't want to think you're "cheating" to keep a pet NPC alive, or railroading the party to fit your narrative. The "collective storytelling" part of the game is secondary to the "I'm playing a game with rules and dice that determine success or failure" part of the game. Otherwise, why use the dice at all? Just play Amber or something.
I believe they learned from their mistake with the 3.x OGL. The SRD is for people that would like to publish material for 5e, not for cheapskates that want to play the game without paying up.
People complained there wasn't an OGL for 5e, now they're complaining that too much was left out. What a sense of entitlement people have these days.
Actually, you can describe mechanics all day long, it's the name you can't use. ;-)
Yeah it is. It will be interesting to see what happens with it.
I expect some of the better selling 3pp settings might get a run, and someone might convince WotC to let them do 3pp versions of some of the more popular 2e settings they're not planning on doing anything with, like maybe Dragonlance or Dark Sun, perhaps.
Celestial Healer wrote:
Ah, gotcha. Half the men on the paternal side have bypass scars. I feel ya there.
*munches on his salad some more*