Super Powered Fantasy vs. High Fantasy - warning… Grognard rant ahead...


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Digitalelf wrote:
Rules complexity is one of the reasons why I went back to 2nd edition (though I have not totally abandoned Pathfinder)...

I have every intention of retro-working Pathfinder back to something resembling AD&D, by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff and eliminating a lot of the bloat. Feats and skills will still be there, but they won't turn characters into combat gods.

Dark Archive

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Rules complexity is one of the reasons why I went back to 2nd edition (though I have not totally abandoned Pathfinder)...
I have every intention of retro-working Pathfinder back to something resembling AD&D, by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff and eliminating a lot of the bloat. Feats and skills will still be there, but they won't turn characters into combat gods.

That's what I'm doing right now.

A big key to that is changing the attribute modifiers and widening the stat range between bonuses -
- this reduces base hp
- increasing hp problem (and fighters suck problem/attacking hp problem)
- the need for damage multipliers (hp at higher level are lower)
- increases the usefulness of evo-magic (lower hp)
- resolves the whole save/x-mass tree problem since save DCs do not scale exponentially vs. base Saves you do not need to (and cannot) stack items to saves.

It looks more like AD&D 3rd edition - stripped out the damage/crit multiplier feats and the DC increasing feats. So I benefit from some of the better 3rd ed inventions - open AC/to hit, the skill system, simplified mechanic, etc - while ditching the scaling bloat (and game management).

Plenty of work though - overall it's a flatter game (progression, stats bonuses, the ability to inflate/manipulate stats and DCs). I have re-written several test creatures and they almost look like AD&D (once you change the stats) creatures but I don't know if I want to spend the time to finish this up. My players want me to but I don't know if I want to create a new index/stat pool for the entire bestiary/player abilities when I would rather work on other projects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I like the fact that after about 5th or 6th level the PCs begin to surpass the limits of normal humans. I actually enjoy seeing characters transition into superheroes and that's exactly how I think of them.

With that said though, just because I like a system that enables this doesn't mean it's to everyone's tastes. From what I've read in its rulebooks and heard from people who play it, the Dragon Age tabletop RPG has a lot more of the grit and simplified mechanics that some folks desire. Also, it's a fairly popular system with good name recognition so a group that's skeptical about playing antiquated system that are no longer in print might be more receptive.

Also, as others have mentioned, trying to retool an entire system to suit a different purpose can be a LOT of work. (Hell, just building a homebrew is a major time-sink.) If time is a limited commodity, it seems to me that it makes more sense to just buy a system built to do what you want. That way, your RPG time can be planning for and playing the next session instead of spending months (or years) reinventing the wheel.


Don't forget to nerf the innumerable feats that add attacks. I'm, going to allow one extra attack per round, whether with a missile weapon (Rapid Shot), or Two-Weapon Fighting (removing improved and greater).

I don't think I'm going to alter the stat mods. After all, you have to have a 20 to get a +5, and 18/00 in AD&D gave you a +6 to damage. So the ranges aren't that bad.

Limiting iterative attacks is key, however. There's just too much damage flying out there. I'm going to make the maximum number of attacks three, not including the extra attack from a feat.

So the first additional attack is at 6th level, the second at 11th, and the third at 16th. No more after that, even if you reach 50th.

And scaling spells will have reduced die types; d4s instead of d6s, d6s instead of d8s.

Dark Archive

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I don't think I'm going to alter the stat mods. After all, you have to have a 20 to get a +5, and 18/00 in AD&D gave you a +6 to damage. So the ranges aren't that bad.

Disagree - the stat modifiers and progression are actually a HUGE part of the problem.

Also comparing 18(00) +3 to hit /+6 damage to a 20 +5 to hit/+5 damage is no comparison. Your level 1 Str 20 guy has +2 more to hit over the 18(00) character and it only goes up from there (Str 22:+6/+6, etc). That extra point of +1 damage for STR 18(00) over STR 20 (3r ed) just doesn't match up with the +2 increased chance to hit from the 3rd ed version, especially at low to mid-levels (keeping in mind this is a huge factor on both sides of the DM screen)

The scaling extra numbers are part of the problem and this is one of the fundamental changes from 1st/2nd to 3rd that everyone seems to be ignoring.

Stat mods need to be flattened over the stretch of the stat (less overall bonuses)- less increases over stat range and this will bring down all creatures in line. It reduces damage output and reduces HP (and the need for uber high damage output).

IMO if you want to fix the game (TO THOSE THAT THINK IT'S A PROBLEM) the 12(+1)/14(+2) nonsense needs to go. Stats and stat mods need to be flatter if you want to narrow down the DCs (and thus saves and thus the need for save item booster assumption), reduce hp (and thus reduce the need damage output/brings back evocation magic as a viable tactic).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple attacks will be tied to BAB/level + proficiency (feats). So basically a port over of the multi-attack system of 2nd ed but a little cleaner.

Since most fighter attacks will be something like 1d8+4 at mid and high level I am not that worried about multiple attacks as the characters progress. No more weapon damage enhancements, i.e. fiery will not add 1d6 but will have the damage be in fire - since I still plan on keeping some form of reduced (but scaling) DR in the game.

I liked the 3rd ed (3.0) approach to DR more than 3.5, but I plan on writing out DR like this

DR:6(-)/3(+1)/0(+2)

So a creature would have a DR of 6 vs all non-magical weapons or a 3 from +1 weapons. Versus +2 weapons the sample DR would be 0. This will bring back the need for increased plus weapons over weapon material type and multiple enhancements as the character progresses in level. I plan on including some material type DR requirements but those will be be poor mans/low-level substitution whereas +1 increase to would be the classical improvement path as the player gets higher level.

I will include some weapon/item style bond class features so theoretically your +1 sword at 3rd level could end up being a +3 weapon (with abilities) by 12th level - yet again, less need for magic items in the game. Since this would work for NPCs there would be less items floating around overall.

My focus is on getting more adventure and playing done vs. CharOp and heavy emphasis on PC mechanical development. Theoretically if the numbers work I can run a low or high magic item game with great ease - the vanilla low magic item PC saving throw mods wouldn't be statistically far off from the higher magic campaign PC with equipment. Flatter stat range, with a greater emphasis on internal factors on the math scaling vs. the current paradigm on external factors playing into the math scaling.

Anyway


Interesting stuff Aux! Care to repost in the homebrew forum and hopefully expand on it?

Scarab Sages

@Aux and Jerry: If you're interested in starting a collaborative project thread along these lines, I'd be up for helping out. I've been tinkering with a lot of rules along those lines.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
stormcrow27 wrote:
Speaking as a Grognard myself, you're looking through the lens of nostalgia for 1st ed.

I have to disagree...

I too am an old grognard (of the "You kids get off my lawn" variety). I currently run a weekly 2nd edition game and find the rules far less complicated than Pathfinder (and 2nd edition is more complicated than 1st edition) even with the weapon speed modifiers to initiative, weapon vs. armor modifiers, and the other assorted rules...

One can roll up a character in far less time, combat takes place at light speed compared to Pathfinder, and DM prep time in general is considerably less (mechanically speaking of course)...

Rules complexity is one of the reasons why I went back to 2nd edition (though I have not totally abandoned Pathfinder)...

And how many more hours, days, weeks, months, years....decades? more experience do you have playing with that rule set as opposed to the newer editions?

Anything is easy once you have learned it inside and out. It becomes even easier once the game stops receiving support and no new rules are produced that need incorporated into play.

And as far as taking Pathfinder and reworking to something akin to 1st or 2nd edition, good luck to you, and I hope you enjoy playing with your set of houserules.

But the comment that you are doing it "by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff" is absurd. The older editions were just as susceptible to manipulation and power gaming as the rules systems from recent years, so all you will be doing is stripping out the stuff you perceive to be munchkiny and putting stuff back in that is just as bad.

Grand Lodge

Moro wrote:
And how many more hours, days, weeks, months, years....decades? more experience do you have playing with that rule set as opposed to the newer editions?

From 1989 to 2000, I played AD&D 2nd edition. But with the release of 3rd edition in mid 2000, I switched over and left 2nd edition behind. That was 12 years ago! Any system mastery I may have once had with 2nd edition is long gone, so I can say from a fairly clean slate that 2nd edition is less complex than Pathfinder/3.x D&D...


Moro wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
stormcrow27 wrote:
Speaking as a Grognard myself, you're looking through the lens of nostalgia for 1st ed.

I have to disagree...

I too am an old grognard (of the "You kids get off my lawn" variety). I currently run a weekly 2nd edition game and find the rules far less complicated than Pathfinder (and 2nd edition is more complicated than 1st edition) even with the weapon speed modifiers to initiative, weapon vs. armor modifiers, and the other assorted rules...

One can roll up a character in far less time, combat takes place at light speed compared to Pathfinder, and DM prep time in general is considerably less (mechanically speaking of course)...

Rules complexity is one of the reasons why I went back to 2nd edition (though I have not totally abandoned Pathfinder)...

And how many more hours, days, weeks, months, years....decades? more experience do you have playing with that rule set as opposed to the newer editions?

Anything is easy once you have learned it inside and out. It becomes even easier once the game stops receiving support and no new rules are produced that need incorporated into play.

And as far as taking Pathfinder and reworking to something akin to 1st or 2nd edition, good luck to you, and I hope you enjoy playing with your set of houserules.

But the comment that you are doing it "by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff" is absurd. The older editions were just as susceptible to manipulation and power gaming as the rules systems from recent years, so all you will be doing is stripping out the stuff you perceive to be munchkiny and putting stuff back in that is just as bad.

I agree there are fixed costs to learning a new system and it becomes easier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I have every intention of retro-working Pathfinder back to something resembling AD&D, by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff and eliminating a lot of the bloat. Feats and skills will still be there, but they won't turn characters into combat gods.

Unless you re-work the entire combat and casting chassis so as to tilt the balance WAY back to the martials' favor, what you're doing is screwing martials even more. There's a game for that already; it's called "Ars Magica" and might suit you better than D&D, if you really, really want to make sure that mundane combat sucks and spells rule even more than they do now.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I have every intention of retro-working Pathfinder back to something resembling AD&D, by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff and eliminating a lot of the bloat. Feats and skills will still be there, but they won't turn characters into combat gods.
Unless you re-work the entire combat and casting chassis so as to tilt the balance WAY back to the martials' favor, what you're doing is screwing martials even more. There's a game for that already; it's called "Ars Magica" and might suit you better than D&D, if you really, really want to make sure that mundane combat sucks and spells rule even more than they do now.

Pretty much this. Fighters don't need any more help at the mages kicking their tails.

Scarab Sages

Moro wrote:

But the comment that you are doing it "by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff" is absurd. The older editions were just as susceptible to manipulation and power gaming as the rules systems from recent years, so all you will be doing is stripping out the stuff you perceive to be munchkiny and putting stuff back in that is just as bad.

Yeah, but it wasn't hard-coded into the core class progressions. The advantage of using Pathfinder is that it did make some significant improvements to the core game mechanics (skills, combat maneuvers).

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unless you re-work the entire combat and casting chassis so as to tilt the balance WAY back to the martials' favor, what you're doing is screwing martials even more.

That's a given. But with some work, it should be possible to make warriors more effective without layering complexity.

At least AM is honest about what fighters should be doing in that system. ;)


Jal Dorak wrote:
That's a given.

It's a given to you and I, but to people who don't really play past 3rd level, and who think meteor swarm is an "awesome" spell, it's not a given at all. Quite the contrary -- blasting wizards are relatively ineffective damage-dealers, but some people insist on using them as the upper-end benchmark of what should be possible in combat... and then will use the logic "but people without magic shouldn't be able to do as much" to make sure the martial people are well and truly screwed. In the words of Phillip Marlowe,

Raymond Chandler, in The Big Sleep wrote:
"You know what Canino will do---beat my teeth out and then kick me in the stomach for mumbling."

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
That's a given.

It's a given to you and I, but to people who don't really play past 3rd level, and who think meteor swarm is an "awesome" spell, it's not a given at all. Quite the contrary -- blasting wizards are relatively ineffective damage-dealers, but some people insist on using them as the upper-end benchmark of what should be possible in combat... and then will use the logic "but people without magic shouldn't be able to do as much" to make sure the martial people are well and truly screwed. In the words of Phillip Marlowe,

Raymond Chandler, in The Big Sleep wrote:
"You know what Canino will do---beat my teeth out and then kick me in the stomach for mumbling."

What I find even more humourous is that the truly powerful spells, like say hold monster, are actually more realistically modelled in a warrior type. How hard would it be for a master swordsman to intentionally paralyze his opponent? The problem becomes when can he do it, and how do you keep it from breaking the game world or from complicating combat even further?


Moro wrote:
But the comment that you are doing it "by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff" is absurd. The older editions were just as susceptible to manipulation and power gaming as the rules systems from recent years, so all you will be doing is stripping out the stuff you perceive to be munchkiny and putting stuff back in that is just as bad.

The first time I ran a moderate (10th-12th level) game in Pathfinder, the min-maxed Barbarian was doing upwards of 30 points of damage per attack. And with TWF, at 12th level, he was getting five attacks per round.

A 12th-level AD&D fighter, min-maxed to the nines, would be getting five attacks every two rounds, be taking heavy minuses to do that (-4 to -6), and do about 16 points per attack. That's about 25% of the Pathfinder character's "DPR".

Sure, there were magical ways to up the damage done, and attacks per round. One could use haste, for instance, but in those days, using haste aged a recipient character a year every time it was cast. And magical ways to increase damage done can be found in PF, as well.

I stand by what I said. Removing the munchkiny-stuff will improve the game. YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
The first time I ran a moderate (10th-12th level) game in Pathfinder, the min-maxed Barbarian was doing upwards of 30 points of damage per attack. And with TWF, at 12th level, he was getting five attacks per round. A 12th-level AD&D fighter, min-maxed to the nines, would be getting five attacks every two rounds, be taking heavy minuses to do that (-4 to -6), and do about 16 points per attack. That's about 25% of the Pathfinder character's "DPR".

Yes, and the huge, ancient red dragon in 1e had 88 hit points. An ancient red dragon in PF has 362. That means monsters in 1e had 25% of the hp of their Pathfinder counterparts. Hit points were increased by a factor of 4, and so damage was increased to follow it. Dropping both back down to 1e levels would mean re-doing the entire standard Con bonus to hp system from 3.X, and going back to a more arbitrary scale like in 1e.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
The first time I ran a moderate (10th-12th level) game in Pathfinder, the min-maxed Barbarian was doing upwards of 30 points of damage per attack. And with TWF, at 12th level, he was getting five attacks per round. A 12th-level AD&D fighter, min-maxed to the nines, would be getting five attacks every two rounds, be taking heavy minuses to do that (-4 to -6), and do about 16 points per attack. That's about 25% of the Pathfinder character's "DPR".
Yes, and the huge, ancient red dragon in 1e had 88 hit points. An ancient red dragon in PF has 362. That means monsters in 1e had 25% of the hp of their Pathfinder counterparts. Hit points were increased by a factor of 4, and so damage was increased to follow it. Dropping both back down to 1e levels would mean re-doing the entire standard Con bonus to hp system from 3.X, and going back to a more arbitrary scale like in 1e.

Simple house rule there. Con bonus only applies once. The favored class bonus should do enough to keep a PC ahead of the hp curve.

Dark Archive

Moro wrote:

And as far as taking Pathfinder and reworking to something akin to 1st or 2nd edition, good luck to you, and I hope you enjoy playing with your set of houserules.

But the comment that you are doing it "by stripping out all the munchkiny-stuff" is absurd. The older editions were just as susceptible to manipulation and power gaming as the rules systems from recent years, so all you will be doing is stripping out the stuff you perceive to be munchkiny and putting stuff back in that is just as bad.

No, it isn't a binary situation with a series of false trade-offs. You don't need to trade one level of "munchkiny stuff" for another. Are all games exploitable – pretty much yes. Is that the issue here, …for me no, not really. The issues here (for me at least) is ease of play and play style.

-

Ease of play is all about stats, stat modifiers, and multiple stacking effects (limit all of them).

Play style is about the feel of play - lower hp, lower number of spells, lower damage and damage exponentials. The overall mood and theme for the game changes back to something easier to run and MANAGE. 2nd ed was very easy to run – I just played in a game a few months ago which one of my players ran – he hadn't run the game in 20 years. We played through multiple fights in a single night and got through the adventure at a very decent and reasonable pace – 3rd edition does not offer that. This with what amounted to a novice DM (had to keep checking spells, etc).

Overall what I am looking for as a total package (and trying to create) is a move away from supers to something a little more down to earth. And for those with the knee-jerk "it's always been about the superz!!!1!!!!" response let me cut you off at the pass - spells and spell casting need to be fixed and reworked. Spell casting (and ease of) needs to be reigned in for an overall fix to the game.

I know what was wrong with 1st/2nd ed and I know what’s wrong with 3rd ed/Pathfinder. You don't need to undo the good stuff (again this is subjective but for me it is Open AC/Saves, skill check and the general d20 universal mechanic) just chuck out the garbage. The stat assumptions (and magic items) and the inflating numbers which go along with it.

This isn't a zero sum game where I need to make one absolute trade off in functionality for another.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yes, and the huge, ancient red dragon in 1e had 88 hit points. An ancient red dragon in PF has 362. That means monsters in 1e had 25% of the hp of their Pathfinder counterparts. Hit points were increased by a factor of 4, and so was damage. Dropping both back down to 1e levels would mean re-doing the entire standard Con bonus to hp system from 3.X, and going back to a more arbitrary scale like in 1e.

Exactly, only replace "arbitrary" with the term functional. I.e., learn from the mistakes of others - it isn't impossible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jal Dorak wrote:
Simple house rule there. Con bonus only applies once. The favored class bonus should do enough to keep a PC ahead of the hp curve.

That's good, but suddenly de-values Constitution by a factor equal to (HD -1). If you're OK with that, good deal. But then, if we're getting rid of "bloat," we probably don't want Con and resistance and different classes all applying to Fort saves, for example, and adding pointless complexity. Let's just give everyone the same flat save bonuses. And DCs are a pain to calculate, so let's make them all 10 -- and then we don't even need to scale the save bonuses with level!

You can see where this ends up, I suppose. Every change you make has a rippling effect, interacting strangely with other factors in the game. Trying to remove some "bloat" requires evaluating all of the ripple effects and re-designing all the connecting elements to dampen them, which creates more ripples. Ultimately, you can easily end up with a level-less system in which you simply flip a coin to determine everything. That's as simple and non-bloated as you get. Or you stop short of that, and end up with some sort of exception-based system in which the bloat removal is countered by elaborate series of "if/then" statements designed to counter the fallout.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerth Gersen wrote:
Yes, and the huge, ancient red dragon in 1e had 88 hit points. An ancient red dragon in PF has 362. That means monsters in 1e had 25% of the hp of their Pathfinder counterparts. Hit points were increased by a factor of 4, and so damage was increased to follow it. Dropping both back down to 1e levels would mean re-doing the entire standard Con bonus to hp system from 3.X, and going back to a more arbitrary scale like in 1e.

How often have you run into an ancient red dragon, in any edition of the game?

There's much less difference between the monsters ordinarily fought at 12th level. The "factor of four" breaks down with other creatures. Taking a couple of monsters at random:

The Pathfinder hill giant has an average of 85 hit points. The 1E hill giant has an average of 38. That's not 25% of 85. It's actually 44% of 85. The Pathfinder troll has and average of 63 hit points. The 1E troll has an average of 32. That's 50% of 63.

I'm not going to go through the whole monster manual. The fact is, the difference between AD&D hit points and Pathfinder hit points is more like two-to-one, not four-to-one. And there are many more factors that change things in the Pathfinder system of combat that aren't reflected in these numbers (attacks of opportunity come to mind).

Pathfinder characters do a lot more damage, and are capable of taking a lot more damage, than their 1E counterparts, even with a difference in scale. There are lots of people who like that. I'm not one of them.

I'm making the changes so that I can run the game I like to play.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I'm making the changes so that I can run the game I like to play.

I'll agree that, at the end of the day, those are probably the right kinds of changes to make -- provided you've got other players who feel the same way. I was lucky insofar as the house rules I wrote are, with one or two exceptions, pretty much the same ones that houstonderek would have written if he'd had the opportunity. Granted, I like shorter fights, not longer ones, so my personal house rules reflect that. If you like longer fights, reducing damage with respect to hp is a start (and eliminating save-or-lose spells entirely would be the next important piece for you, for obvious reasons).

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's good, but suddenly de-values Constitution by a factor equal to (HD -1). If you're OK with that, good deal. But then, if we're getting rid of "bloat," we probably don't want Con and resistance and different classes all applying to Fort saves, for example, and adding pointless complexity. Let's just give everyone the same flat save bonuses. And DCs are a pain to calculate, so let's make them all 10 -- and then we don't even need to scale the save bonuses with level!

Where is this hyperbole coming from? Why is the assumption always that if things are removed that they will ultimately make the game turn out wrong/moron world?

Kirth Gersen wrote:
You can see where this ends up, I suppose. Every change you make has a rippling effect, interacting strangely with other factors in the game. Trying to remove some "bloat" requires evaluating all of the ripple effects and re-designing all the connecting elements to dampen them, which creates more ripples.

And eventually those ripples end - this isn't the Butterfly Effect applied to the real world. You have a finite set or rules with a finite set of changes and ripples. If you don't like one aspect you change the way the ripples are generated or the effects of the ripples themselves. Ideally you would have it fine tuned from the generation point vs. putting a fix-it/band aid on the end point of the ripple effect, but having a few exceptions and the end of those ripples is not a big deal and quite survivable if your end product is what you want.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ultimately, you can easily end up with a level-less system in which you simply flip a coin to determine everything. That's as simple and non-bloated as you get. Or you stop short of that, and end up with some sort of exception-based system in which the bloat removal is countered by elaborate series of "if/then" statements designed to counter the fallout.

Lol


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally with Kirth on the obstacle of over-simplification...

What I'd really like to see is a game where characters can actually role-play combat. That is to say, valid in-character decisions should never be locked off behind a feat — feats should enhance potential character actions, not enable them.

Much of the game's complexity issues owe to this. The constant refrain of "You can't do x action because you didn't choose y feat" really grates on me. Add to this the conditions and modifiers that overlap conceptually but not mechanically. I'd love for these to be collapsed down to a slightly more generic system.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
But then, if we're getting rid of "bloat," we probably don't want Con and resistance and different classes all applying to Fort saves, for example, and adding pointless complexity. Let's just give everyone the same flat save bonuses. And DCs are a pain to calculate, so let's make them all 10
Where is this hyperbole coming from? Why is the assumption always that if things are removed that they will ultimately make the game turn out wrong/moron world?

What hyperbole? What's quoted above is more or less how saves worked in 1e-2e, remember? Which we're told is superior to the bloat of complexity and options in 3.X? So what's wrong/moronic about how Gygax did it? 1e had no save DCs, except for the rare "save at -4." It had no Con mods to saves, no resistance bonuses to saves, no stacking mods from multiclassing, etc.; you just looked up a number on a table, and that was it.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Ideally you would have it fine tuned from the generation point vs. putting a fix-it/band aid on the end point of the ripple effect, but having a few exceptions and the end of those ripples is not a big deal and quite survivable if your end product is what you want.

You seem to have a good grasp of that, but Jerry's comments led me to suspect that maybe he hadn't thought through a lot of them all the way to the end point.

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
What hyperbole? What's quoted above is more or less how saves worked in 1e-2e, remember? Which we're told is superior to the bloat of complexity and options in 3.X? So what's wrong/moronic about how Gygax did it? 1e had no save DCs, except for the rare "save at -4." It had no Con mods to saves, no resistance bonuses to saves, no stacking mods from multiclassing, etc.; you just looked up a number on a table, and that was it.

I agree - I think that limited the game and became very problematic at higher levels (the whole inverted number thing), same thing with negative AC - that is why I do think that PF/3rd edition is somewhat salvageable. There are some nice aspects to the base game that are superior to older editions: upward AC, BAB and modifiers, Save vs DC's (vs the high level 1st/2nd ed "you just need a 2 or better" saving throw system), Increasing DC's/DC checks and so on. I prefer an open ended system to a closed one, my issue is that just because it’s open ended it doesn’t need to go to the moon.

-

For me the big problem is the current amount of changes and variables which are added to the core numbers. The overall mutability of the core numbers just by the sheer amount of variables, externals and then the assumption that you needed to be there in the first place is bad game design – and very limiting who want to get outside of that trap.

The system is like a giant Ouroboros - devouring its own tail in an effort to stay afloat and remain internally consistent, with number requirements feeding into bonuses you need to stay even – when staying even at a given level should be a built in assumption. Again, poor game design imo – and if you want to talk about ripples the stat mods/DC manipulation and inflated hp are all a product of the changes made from 2nd to 3rd - somehow they forgot the fighter in all of that. But I know you already know this because you have a strong grasp of the all the systems. You just chose a different way to fix it with martials (that is an over simplification/example on my part and not an insult).

So for me this all goes back to assumed stats and assumed bonus starting points (when stat bonuses kick in based on assumed starting ranges – be it from point buy or 4d6). The big part of the problem is the 12(+1)/14(+2)/etc, numbers game and manipulation. Stretching out the stat ranges/bonuses and having things fall into level appropriate DCs with less manipulation(some minor changes to range due to specialization) all built into the core system and you have yourself a better game. Again, this is from my perspective.

Base/Core Stat/Function/Number: Should be 90% of its value
Modifications/Manipulation: 10% to 15% of value (even this may be too high)

Anyway, I will go ahead and post something in the homebrew section in the future – I’ll probably start with modified stat ranges as a core change.


Aux -- I think you and I are pretty much on the same page; we may have different approaches, but we see things the same way. What got me off ranting was the comment (not yours) more or less directly equating "combat effectiveness" with "useless bloat."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Running the game as E8 (HP, Saves, BAB, etc don't advance beyond eighth level, with a feat gained every 50,000 xp thereafter) has solved the problems I had with Super-Powered Fantasy {tm}; however, my homebrew is so houseruled at this point that I might do just as well playing a classic Traveller campaign on a tech level 1-2 world.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Aux -- I think you and I are pretty much on the same page; we may have different approaches, but we see things the same way. What got me off ranting was the comment (not yours) more or less directly equating "combat effectiveness" with "useless bloat."

I get your frustration Kirth, I think many people see a problem with the game and want to dump/change or remove a few things and they think it will all come together with no consequences or system breakdown.

It's like the standard low-magic argument that goes on over here every other day. Poster says "there are too many magic items in the game, so I am going to remove item creation and not have as many available for purchase" while forgetting that the wizard still has all the same spells at the end of that argument.

People get upset because they don't have the game they want (or think they want), but they can't peg the problem down in the system - so they go for the most glaring thing and often without looking at the consequences (and the math demands/assumptions) to the game.


Digitalelf wrote:
Moro wrote:
And how many more hours, days, weeks, months, years....decades? more experience do you have playing with that rule set as opposed to the newer editions?
From 1989 to 2000, I played AD&D 2nd edition. But with the release of 3rd edition in mid 2000, I switched over and left 2nd edition behind. That was 12 years ago! Any system mastery I may have once had with 2nd edition is long gone, so I can say from a fairly clean slate that 2nd edition is less complex than Pathfinder/3.x D&D...

That is an interesting anecdote, and to add my own to yours, I have a similar amount of time invested with each system as yourself, only a couple of years ago I began running a 2nd edition campaign for 7 players, 5 of whom had never played 2e.

All 5 have agreed that the complexity of the systems are directly related to the number of splatbooks, and they have declared that the 2e system is just as difficult to master and full of rules loopholes and munchkinlike exploitations as 3.5e/Pathfinder.

The biggest complaint I have heard is that in addition to the above problems, they also have noticed huge swaths of what can only be called "intentionally vague" sections of the 2e rules. To put it shortly, same problems, less definition.


Moro wrote:
All 5 have agreed that the complexity of the systems are directly related to the number of splatbooks...

Heh. Check out Fantasy Wargaming, by Bruce Galloway (a history grad student at Cambridge University). There was just the one rulebook, but every task required a series of tables and long algebraic equations -- different ones for each task, of course -- so that simply attacking someone with a dagger became a master's thesis.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You seem to have a good grasp of that, but Jerry's comments led me to suspect that maybe he hadn't thought through a lot of them all the way to the end point.

Quite the contrary. I have thought them out to the end-point. That's why I want to change things, to create a game That I feel comfortable with.

The game is needlessly complex, with rules for things that are better determined through GM fiat.

I trust my own judgement to run a game far more than that of game designers who have much less experience than I do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Moro wrote:
All 5 have agreed that the complexity of the systems are directly related to the number of splatbooks...
Heh. Check out Fantasy Wargaming, by Bruce Galloway (a history grad student at Cambridge University). There was just the one rulebook, but every task required a series of tables and long algebraic equations -- different ones for each task, of course -- so that simply attacking someone with a dagger became a master's thesis.

Oh yes! I had forgotten about that particular book. It was interesting, but nobody that I know personally has ever actually attempted to play it.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Quite the contrary. I have thought them out to the end-point. That's why I want to change things, to create a game That I feel comfortable with.

The game is needlessly complex, with rules for things that are better determined through GM fiat.

I trust my own judgement to run a game far more than that of game designers who have much less experience than I do.

Reliance upon GM fiat is never better than codified rules. It is at best a necessary evil. I am not saying it cannot be fun, but a system can have flexibility and a lower level of complexity without resorting to just not having rules.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Moro wrote:
All 5 have agreed that the complexity of the systems are directly related to the number of splatbooks...
Heh. Check out Fantasy Wargaming, by Bruce Galloway (a history grad student at Cambridge University). There was just the one rulebook, but every task required a series of tables and long algebraic equations -- different ones for each task, of course -- so that simply attacking someone with a dagger became a master's thesis.

Why not use stochastic calculus you are making ti to easy. end sarcasm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
Reliance upon GM fiat is never better than codified rules. It is at best a necessary evil. I am not saying it cannot be fun, but a system can have flexibility and a lower level of complexity without resorting to just not having rules.

In your opinion.

I've had much more fun in loose games where the rules covered the basics and both players and GMs were encouraged to make things up as they went.

I can enjoy rules heavy games too, but there are definitely drawbacks.

Grand Lodge

Moro wrote:
That is an interesting anecdote

And this is what it all boils down to; "in my experience" vs. "in your experience"...

I'm sure both of us could go on and on stating anecdote after anecdote...

Moro wrote:
Reliance upon GM fiat is never better than codified rules.

Less codified rules...

This is another of the reasons why I came back to 2nd edition, and part of how I see it as less rules intensive...

I happen to prefer this style of play...

Grand Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Heh. Check out Fantasy Wargaming, by Bruce Galloway (a history grad student at Cambridge University). There was just the one rulebook, but every task required a series of tables and long algebraic equations -- different ones for each task, of course -- so that simply attacking someone with a dagger became a master's thesis.

I received this book for Christmas one year (back in the 80's). Never used it, but an interesting read none-the-less...

I still have it...

Scarab Sages

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Add to this the conditions and modifiers that overlap conceptually but not mechanically. I'd love for these to be collapsed down to a slightly more generic system.

I was just thinking about this very thing today. You've got "insight" bonus and "competence" bonus, which sound like the same thing. "Luck" bonus is arbitrary, since every bonus represents a change in luck. For some reason natural armor stacks with armor even though it does fundamentally the same thing. And then there's the "alchemical" bonus.


To be fair, speaking as a player, I do enjoy that floating "I'm just that awesome" bonus. :P


OP wrote:
And PS- I don’t need to hear “well dig up your old books and go play em” I live in a small town with a small gamer circle, we play what the other 8 or so gamers in town want to play, and I’m not a DM (player only) and have no desire to try and find younger new players/DMs to “go retro”

alot of people have spoken of other systems (new systems) that can achieve a different feel, which are valid.

if Pathfinder APs/rules are want you or your players want to play, i'd just have this advice:
Just play straight up Core Rules.
Also, from the original post, I just thought: 's~@&, if this GM just had a handle on all the effects/modifiers in play, it would be pretty clear and not need the whole table chiming about every this-and-that'. You should know the PC's char-sheets and abilities, and you know the NPCs info as well.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Add to this the conditions and modifiers that overlap conceptually but not mechanically. I'd love for these to be collapsed down to a slightly more generic system.

I was just thinking about this very thing today. You've got "insight" bonus and "competence" bonus, which sound like the same thing. "Luck" bonus is arbitrary, since every bonus represents a change in luck. For some reason natural armor stacks with armor even though it does fundamentally the same thing. And then there's the "alchemical" bonus.

I have to disagree about insight and competence. The latter represents (to me) a focus on a particular area of endeavor, whereas the former is a kind of intuitive flash, rather than a matter of discipline or achievement.

Do we need both types? Eh, probably not; but I don't think they're the same thing.

Dark Archive

I feel like some people on this thread would appreciate E6.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d -d.html

Less bloat, due to the restriction to levels 1-6.

Scarab Sages

Alitan wrote:


I have to disagree about insight and competence. The latter represents (to me) a focus on a particular area of endeavor, whereas the former is a kind of intuitive flash, rather than a matter of discipline or achievement.

Do we need both types? Eh, probably not; but I don't think they're the same thing.

Here's my thinking:

Competence represents training and skill in the area, ie. mental and physical familiarity with the task.

Insight represents a eureka moment, ie. mental or physical brilliance.

The key here is that they are both mental/physical (ie. bodily) improvements to the task. Your physical being (perhaps inspired by magic) is providing the impetus for the increased chance of success.

The fact that an insight bonus is just temporary is not enough reason for it to qualify as a unique bonus type. It's redundant, and can be replaced by simply making all insight bonuses temporary competence bonuses. A "eureka" moment is best represented by a high die roll.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Alitan wrote:


I have to disagree about insight and competence. The latter represents (to me) a focus on a particular area of endeavor, whereas the former is a kind of intuitive flash, rather than a matter of discipline or achievement.

Do we need both types? Eh, probably not; but I don't think they're the same thing.

Here's my thinking:

Competence represents training and skill in the area, ie. mental and physical familiarity with the task.

Insight represents a eureka moment, ie. mental or physical brilliance.

The key here is that they are both mental/physical (ie. bodily) improvements to the task. Your physical being (perhaps inspired by magic) is providing the impetus for the increased chance of success.

The fact that an insight bonus is just temporary is not enough reason for it to qualify as a unique bonus type. It's redundant, and can be replaced by simply making all insight bonuses temporary competence bonuses. A "eureka" moment is best represented by a high die roll.

Except the point of different bonus types is to allow them to stack.

Making all insight bonuses temporary competence bonuses means they don't stack and are thus less useful.
You can argue with the naming and classification of bonuses, but just lumping different types into the same categories based on the meanings of the names isn't a good idea. You're conflating the fluff of the bonuses with the crunch.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:


Except the point of different bonus types is to allow them to stack.
Making all insight bonuses temporary competence bonuses means they don't stack and are thus less useful.
You can argue with the naming and classification of bonuses, but just lumping different types into the same categories based on the meanings of the names isn't a good idea. You're conflating the fluff of the bonuses with the crunch.

It was intentional. The objective was to simplify things so that they are easier to manage and make sense in-game.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over not allowing moment of prescience to stack with inspire competence.


Jal Dorak wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Except the point of different bonus types is to allow them to stack.
Making all insight bonuses temporary competence bonuses means they don't stack and are thus less useful.
You can argue with the naming and classification of bonuses, but just lumping different types into the same categories based on the meanings of the names isn't a good idea. You're conflating the fluff of the bonuses with the crunch.

It was intentional. The objective was to simplify things so that they are easier to manage and make sense in-game.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over not allowing moment of prescience to stack with inspire competence.

That's fine. If your intent is to reduce the number of stackable bonuses and thus the max available bonus, then that's a worthwhile discussion to have.

But you didn't seem to be saying that. You didn't seem to be considering the balance issues at all, only the fluff of the bonus types.
Maybe "not allowing moment of prescience to stack with inspire competence", won't make any difference, but others might. Merging armor and natural armor as you mentioned earlier will at least come into play more often.

Scarab Sages

@thejeff: If you backtrack a bit in the discussion, you'll find what led us to minimizing stacking bonuses.


Insight and competence are, to my mind, still not the same thing. I've no objection to dumping one, the other, or both types of bonus in the pursuit of simplicity, but, in my perception, insight=\=competence. They are distinct concepts, not mirrors or shadows of each other.

Please note: am not disputing that, as bonuses, they (needlessly?) complicate the rules system. Nor advocating that both must be kept intact. Purely denotative, semantic difference of opinion.

:-)

51 to 100 of 249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Super Powered Fantasy vs. High Fantasy - warning… Grognard rant ahead... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.