Oh, for heaven's sake. If you're going to add in rules like this, just don't play Pathfinder. Go play a rules set that's designed to work with this. (Or, cobbled together to work with this, which is a better description than "design" for the first edition of AD&D.)Also add in "If a caster is distracted (e.g. damaged) before casting their spell then it is lost - no concentration rolls". Also casters get no DEX bonus while casting. This should put caster back in their proper place :)
This does mean to might have to roll for initiative each round.
Rolling for initiative each round would entail some complications for PF and d20. All of those 1 round durations from stunning fist to power attack modifiers and AoO become more complicated to handle. One benefit of the cyclical initiative is how easy those are to handle.
However, I do think making the spellcaster easier to disrupt isn't a bad thing. It's one of the reasons d20/PF get criticized for being "caster-edition" D&D. Most of the gamist-oriented changes (ones intended to smooth the playing of the game elements) end up making things a lot less chancy for spellcasters. They may have been well-intentioned attempts to remove "unfun" elements of the game like slower administration as everyone rolls for initiative every round or wizard players complaining about never getting their spells cast and having nothing to do but sit on their hands. But part of the benefit of having those powerful spells in the first place was offset by the danger the wizard faced in casting them. Remove the danger and those spells have increased their uncompensated power.
I wouldn't necessarily worry about spellcasters losing their Dex bonus. That's going to be relatively small potatoes, I think. Bumping up casting time from a standard action to a full action or even 1 round for the most threatening spells like save or die spells and offensive environment changers may be of more use. I would keep most evocation or direct damage spells as a standard action. Full-action castings limit them to a 5 foot step on the round but allow the spell to be cast and adjudicated within the spellcasting player's turn. One round casting times allow virtually everyone to try to interrupt the casting since the adjudication doesn't happen until the start of the caster's next turn. I can see reasonable arguments for both methods, but I would want to test it out for a few sessions before settling on one or the other having the right feel.
|
That pretty much sums it up for me. I really liked the idea of new classes, always making up my own etc. Kits seemed so underwhelming, and gave so very little mechanical advantage. Sometimes the fluff outworded the mechanic.... The thief Bandit kit - - the 1e Bandit NPC class was a favourite from Best of Dragon - - the 2e Bandit thief kit goes on and on and on about skills, weapons proficiencies and non-weapon proficiences, and the hidrance for being known as a bandit etc, and finally a piddly +1 to..... surprise enemies in a wilderness setting?!?!?! OMG! Let me be one immediately.....!!! :p
Actually, that was part of the problem of the Complete Book series--different authors had wholly different ideas as to how things were supposed to go. I actually liked the Complete Thief's Handbook. It focused on a bunch of the nitty gritty of being a thief of different kinds, the kits were RP-heavy, mechanics-light, and easy to implement without worrying about imbalancing, and there was the whole chapter dedicated to thieves' guilds, how to build them, how to use them. I really enjoyed it.
Also, it was written by John Nephew.
The Complete Book of Elves, on the other hand, was a single huge block of cheese. RP fluff that explains that the elves are just plain better in every way, given them extra powers for no reason (reverie, manifestation), and then give them a bunch of kits that are... just plain better in every way. Basically, you're an elf or you're nothing, with this book in hand.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, for heaven's sake. If you're going to add in rules like this, just don't play Pathfinder. Go play a rules set that's designed to work with this. (Or, cobbled together to work with this, which is a better description than "design" for the first edition of AD&D.)Also add in "If a caster is distracted (e.g. damaged) before casting their spell then it is lost - no concentration rolls". Also casters get no DEX bonus while casting. This should put caster back in their proper place :)
This does mean to might have to roll for initiative each round.
This was part of what old school was, clichés. When you played a thief you knew you weren't going to win any DPR races, when you played a fighter you knew you weren't going to be sneaking, when you played a cleric you knew healing was expected, when you played a magic user you knew you had a limited supply of spells and then were cannon fodder.
Biggest hurdle to old school PF is casting rules, casters get too many spells and are able to cast them too easily. As Bill Dunn points out the casters gained everything in d20 and lost nothing. I like Bill's idea that make all spell 1 rnd - starting on your initiative in the round and then going off on your initiative of the following round (As Mr Dunn suggests). I would keep the concentration check in this case. Alternatively and more like 2e, ask all players what they are doing at the start of the round. From then on any spell can be disrupted up until the initiative of the caster. In this case I would say if you are hit in combat then you auto-lose the spell. The wizard standing in the middle of a fight (by choice) should be punished by the rules.
Magic item were, well, magic in 1e/2e, now they are a commodity like Cola which in turn has made the economy of any fantasy world a joke. Given the relative price of common food items etc every player is like a billionaire. Having to go on a side quest to find someone who has enough cash to buy a 500 gp gem from you - that is old school.
So to the OP I would say you need to do a search for "Gygaxian Naturalism" and think on toning down magic (both casting amount & especially magic items). Oh and -1 CON (permanent) with each raise dead/resurrection, perhaps even a FORT save (DC 20-con maybe?) to see if the spell works?
Or... 2e is dirt cheap and in all honesty is an excellent system with faster character generation, better array of saving throws, fast combat. Remove the level limits (if you must) - but do read the section in the 2e DMG first.
Good luck on your quest,
Stefan.
To the OP:
Well, that quote you provided confirms all of my advice said earlier. A good roleplaying group will never let the game down, and it sounds like you've got that. Again, its not about the rules, and you already know how to do it - this means, just run things naturally as your instinct guides you. Stay in the moment, be creative, come up with things on-the-spot. You can run Pathfinder RPG as your game, but as your friends pointed out: focus on the story and by extension the roleplay of NPCs etc.
I've had a blast running Mystara. The classic setting is in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos. The Pandius website is a good reference if you don't have the original boxed set.
http://pandius.com/index.html
http://www.cartographersguild.com/regional-world-mapping/2151-mystara-grand -duchy-karameikos.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/S
hadowTriad/karameikos.html
http://pandius.com/karameikos-8.pdf
A classic place to have that paladin dwarf be from is Rockhome:
http://pandius.com/rockhome.htmlA classic place to start the campaign is in the Barony of Threshold:
http://pandius.com/thrshmp2.htmlFrom there you're quite close to water, mountains, forest, badlands, ruins, moors, etc.
If you need anything else, just let us know. Grats on playing Pathfinder RPG, and kudos for playing it in Mystara.
Its best to start small, with a small local area, 1st level PCs, minor quest, then build the story from there. Introduce NPCs, travel a few hexes out, then return to the homebase town. Then send them on some quests that take them farther out. Eventually, cross over into new lands, and perhaps even take them out to sea. You can find PAIZO's updated Isle Of Dread module in the old Dungeon Magazines, along with some great fold-out maps and information. The Pandius website will give you awesome details and maps. About every 15 minutes of game time - look around at what the players are actually doing and ask yourself, "how can I make THIS interesting" and opt to springboard off their ideas,...
Thanks for the resources, but do you know if any of the magazines have been made available freely? It'd be great to see some of the old articles. I had a talk with the group. Apparently I had left my binder at their house (two of them live together) full of details from my setting (which they, of course, read) and they said they're up for either Mystara or my setting, Illphyria...even though the latter is only a broad outline and has only a single kingdom fleshed out. That said, I'm not ready for adventuring in my world yet. I've already got a vague plot fleshed out. Does anyone know how other planes interact with Mystara?
You should ask the DM on that one. ;)
Another good website to look at for understanding some of the "old-school" feel is called <HackSlashMaster.blogspot.com>. Lots of fun and useful stuff there.
One thing to consider is whether you want to have the "nostalgic feel" of "old school D&D" or if you want an "accurate feel" for the game.
If you are just after the sense of free-form gaming, story telling and immersion that people (sometimes erroneously) recall from their early gaming days, then follow the advice which leads to a less rules-focused, less tactical battle simulation more "theater of the mind" approach.
If you want to actually reproduce the accurate game play, just be sure to have a lot of replacement characters rolled up.
I want to be accurate in gameplay without altering the PF rules beyond what I've detailed in my list above. The group likes a good roleplay, with a sprinkle of "kick in the door". I found that update of tomb of horror, but I think I'll save that for a day when I can't get the old thinker running. Since I was bottlefed on 3.x, I don't understand the "immortals" in Mystara. Are they God? Where exactly do clerics get their powers from? I was thinking about making a pantheon for the setting or supering imposing Illphyria's pantheon upon Mystara, but the latter is a last resort kind of thing due to the nature of the deities on my world...I've already told them to keep at least 3 back up characters made and ready to play. The oldest laughed "Hey guys, this kid is gonna give us a run for our money." I'm usually a gentle GM so this will be a fun change.
Yeah I think a lot can be accomplished with fluff and feel without touching the rules.
Play to the old sterotypes- 3.x and beyond really opened up the field to anything goes. Even if you allow it all a dwarf druid should still raise eyebrows.
Traps lots of traps- sure generic traps but what fool does not seal his scroll case, expolsive runes, snake sigils, create a sense of paranoia.
Puzzles- Sure there are still puzzles in newer adventures but old school had a lot of them.
Cursed items- Use them enough that people rarely use a new item with actually identifying it.
There aren't very many examples of puzzles in newer adventures or books. I love puzzles and a lot of the RPG video games I have have lots of puzzles (Golden Sun, I'm looking at you and your sequels).
I've quite literally blown my mind with Mystara. There is so much stuff that I dunno where to begin, let alone how to begin converting the setting, particularly the Immortals.
Looking at it from the outside, I've set the expectations of myself high, so I've got to dial it back a bit before I get discouraged at start small when it comes to the setting itself. It's a good thing my players are familiar with the setting, or I'd be screwed trying to absorb all that information. My wife actually told me I was muttering to myself about the Hollow World before she made me leave the computer and my books to go outside and sit on the porch. Heh.
EDIT: Are there any 3.x modules that give the nod to AD&D and OD&D as far as flavor goes?
If you're going to do puzzles, I'd suggest avoiding riddles as not everyone is clever enough to solve one and it can get frustrating to sit for hours trying to figure out the riddle of the sphinx.
Instead, do more tactile and physical puzzles. Sliding tile puzzles are my go-to puzzle. Humans seem to just click a lot easier when it comes to those rather than word puzzles or worse, mathematical puzzles.
There are 3 doors with 3 guards.
One guard always tells the truth
One guard always lies
One guard always stabs people who ask tricky questions.
There are 3 doors with 3 guards.
One guard always tells the truth
One guard always lies
One guard always stabs people who ask tricky questions.
I like this one. Heh...
Don't make a puzzle based on pi. I don't know why, but that seems to be a favorite for DMs to make...
PI?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old School feel: "DC15 Fort save against that poison"
PF Player: "Umm...Missed, gotta 14. How much strength loss do I get for how long?"
Old School feel: "Your PC keels over dead"
Old School feel: "The Wight hits you...lose a level.."
PF Player: "Umm...Don't you mean the PC gets a negative level and gets a chance to throw it off in 24 hours?"
Old School feel: "Nope...Kiss goodbye to 50K Experiance"
PF Player: "Cast Haste on the party."
Old School feel: "Everyone age a year..."
PF Player: :WTF!!"
PF Player: "Cast Identify on the item."
Old School feel: "Cross off that 100gp pearl which you have just crushed and drunk while stirring it into wine with a feather"
PF Player: "Yay!! My Fighter has hit 12th level! Time for hit points...So 2 gained now per level plus my Constitution bonus...Grandor now has 90 hits! Two more than an ancient Red dragon. Shame he died so many times and his Constitution is now 12 not 17 when he was 1st level."
Old School feel: "Yeah...10k and a point of Con is a tad harsh for a raise...Should have saved against Spell for half of that 12d6 fireball."
While I do have very good memories of 1st edition the lasting memory is that the whole system was designed to be very player unfriendly and seemed to have the GM v Player thing built into the game. I mean if it was a good thing for players then it always came with a penalty which didn't matter a bean for NPCs (such as Haste..)
If I was going to do it today the only thing I would change is make poison save or die and spells like Slay Living do what they say.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Old School feel: "DC15 Fort save against that poison"
PF Player: "Umm...Missed, gotta 14. How much strength loss do I get for how long?"
Old School feel: "Your PC keels over dead"
Old School DM: "You see an ancient huge red dragon" (1e = 88 hp)
PF TH-Fighter: "<7 minute delay while numerous bonuses and current buffs are added> I hit it, hit it, hit it, hit it, and hit it. That's <3.5 minute delay while dice are rolled and numbers (huge numbers) are added> 367 points of damage. I kill it and its grandchildren. I hit it so hard it parts of the dragon have travelled back in time and told proto-red dragons not to bother evolving. I have destroyed red dragons as a species!"
Old School DM: "Er, right. Shall we continue the adventure?"
PF TH-Fighter: "What adventure? Why?"
Old School DM: "The one you made the character up for, that adventure."
PF TH-Fighter: "What? No, I built the Fighter to destroy your dragon. I'm now going to build a Gunslinger who will destroy all Mindflayers!"
Old School DM: "Ah due to copyright issues there are no Mindflayers in PF."
PF TH-Fighter: "Copyright my butt. Those Mindflayers heard about my Gunslinger and asked not to be imported from 3.5e D&D."
Old School DM: "I think I understand the sudden rise in Retro-Clones..."
Old School feel: "DC15 Fort save against that poison"
PF Player: "Umm...Missed, gotta 14. How much strength loss do I get for how long?"
Old School feel: "Your PC keels over dead"Old School DM: "You see an ancient huge red dragon" (1e = 88 hp)
PF TH-Fighter: "<7 minute delay while numerous bonuses and current buffs are added> I hit it, hit it, hit it, hit it, and hit it. That's <3.5 minute delay while dice are rolled and numbers (huge numbers) are added> 367 points of damage. I kill it and its grandchildren. I hit it so hard it parts of the dragon have travelled back in time and told proto-red dragons not to bother evolving. I have destroyed red dragons as a species!"
Old School DM: "Er, right. Shall we continue the adventure?"
PF TH-Figher: "What adventure? Why?"
Old School DM: "The one you made the character up for, that adventure."
PF TH-Figher: "What? No, I built the Fighter to destroy your dragon. I'm now going to build a Gunslinger who will destroy all Mindflayers!"
Old School DM: "Ah due to copyright issues there are no Mindflayers in PF."
PF TH-Figher: "Copyright my butt. Those Mindflayers heard about my Gunslinger and asked not to be imported from 3.5e D&D."
Old School DM: "I think I understand the sudden rise in Retro-Clones..."
Seriously. I've only played 3.x and I've NEVER been like that ever. I don't build characters like robots...
Nope. The highest level I ever got to was 13 and I played a druid once and a cleric once. My bard was the one that made it to 13th level. I've never optimized a character just to play a gimmick. I love my Aasimar Paladin with Eldritch Heritage (Starsoul). Sure, I had to burn a feat, but I play it up to his character. RPGs are about the adventure, not the powergaming.
EDIT: I see you ment one of my players. The answer is still no. I had a powergamer once, but when I "beat" him at his numbers "battle", he got mad and never came back...that and his fighter flat out couldn't handle the Half-fiendish Rust Monster coupled with a dread wraith.
I have always been a merciful GM, but I do kill powergamers ruthlessly. I do not tolerate them. Is that wrong? What happened to good characters and good adventures? I once had a player who played a barbarian who was convinced he was a bard. He wrapped a single piece of sinew around his fingers and plucked it like a rubber band. He kept at it until the God of music took notice. During the battle with the BBEG, the Barb once again pulled out the ol' sinew, only when he played, the god of music granted him a use of inspire courage +2 for three rounds as if he were a bard of his character level. It was fun and the player loved his character all the more for it. THAT is what the game is about. Here's a scenario I've had to deal with in the past.
Powergamer: Alright, I leveled up. Now I take a level in Rogue.
Me: You've been a fighter for the past three levels.
Powergamer: Yeah, now I wanna dip into rogue.
Me: Oh really? How did your 'in your face and smash it' fighter learn to be a rogue?
Powergamer: Well...uh...
Me: When did you sneak past something? Look for a potential trap? try to pick a lock? Your character doesn't even own a set of lockpicks...
Powergamer: But I'm going to be an assassin and go for the assassin PrC!
Me: And when have you practiced using poisons?
Powergamer: ...
That exchange actually happened, only what followed was me getting cursed at for not letting him take a level in a class his character hadn't even shown a disposition towards learning. Once again I ask you, am I wrong? I think not.
I agree on the part about having fun, but when your idea of fun is being a one man show and "beating" the game, you're wrong. I've dealt with enough players, both as a player and a GM, that it has poisoned me against powergamers. Digressing, Does anyone have an idea how to convert the Immortals from Mystara? I don't think I can make it go seamlessly...
I've quite literally blown my mind with Mystara. There is so much stuff that I dunno where to begin, let alone how to begin converting the setting, particularly the Immortals.
If in doubt, start with Treashold in Karameikos. Create a local dungeon and some rumors. Read up on Kelvin, Spekularum, Black Eagle Barony, and the basics on Selenica and Thyatis would be helpful.
Not sure about the immortals. The clerics was pretty generic in the system used with Mystara, or at least in the earlier products.
I would check with the players what kind of divine casters they want to play before putting any work into it. Maybe you dont have to worry about it.
I agree on the part about having fun, but when your idea of fun is being a one man show and "beating" the game, you're wrong. I've dealt with enough players, both as a player and a GM, that it has poisoned me against powergamers. ...
Be careful with labels. Many people would not agree that your description (being a one man show and "beating" the game) is a powergamer.
I will be very suprise if those 2 sentances don't spawn another 10+ posts angrily denouncing you for insulting them.That is a common problem with 'invented' insulting labels. There is no universally agreed on definition. On these boards, I've seen 'powergamer' used for everything from 'expert system knowledge' to 'intimidating the other players (players not characters) to get his way'.
For this reason I try very hard to not use the insulting labels and just describe the behavior with which I have a problem
Also, it is not usually my cup-of-tea but if you get a bunch of the people like you described (or the people you labeled) together, they do have fun gaming in their way. So it is not wrong for them.
The issues come up when you get people together for a game that have very different styles of gaming and do not enjoy playing with the other styles of gaming.
|
|
RPGs are about the adventure, not the powergaming.Amen.No.
RPGs are about having fun. That is all that is important.
Some people have different ways of having fun, but that doesn't make them wrong.
The only time anyone is doing it wrong, is when people stop having fun.
I agree completely - but from a completely neutral point of view RPG's were to allow people to carry out 'adventures'. Powergaming is just a way of carrying out an adventure.
Complexity of D&D/PF has gone up but the danger has gone down. PF is 1e/2e with a safety net. 1e wasn't harder, it just had consequences that actually mattered to your character. Face a creature that needed +2 or better to hit and you have a +1 weapon only = scary. Face ANY level draining undead = scary. In PF, make a PC that does maximum DPR and you can overcome anything.
S.
Complexity of D&D/PF has gone up but the danger has gone down. PF is 1e/2e with a safety net. 1e wasn't harder, it just had consequences that actually mattered to your character. Face a creature that needed +2 or better to hit and you have a +1 weapon only = scary. Face ANY level draining undead = scary. In PF, make a PC that does maximum DPR and you can overcome anything.S.
Agreed... I remember players s1@ting bricks when meeting a wraith as the attack really had a bad downside...Now its "meh...Wraith..."
Same with poison.Not saying it was better but overall there was less forgiveness built into the game.
Ha, ha...just remembered two things which have got forgotten.
Tracking Alignment: When adventuring you were supposed to act within your Gygaxian Aligment and the expected roles of your class and the DM would score you 1-4. When you leveled that score (the number of weeks it took to train) was multiplied by your current level and the abstract number of GP depending on class and that is how much it cost you to level up. And if it was greater than 2 then you had to do some more adventuring to get the average down. If you actually shifted alignment *BANG* you lost half your XPS! Thieves had to be sneaky, Fighters heroic, Clerics adhering to their Faith, Magic Users hiding away and not entering combat otherwise you were a BAD Gygaxian Player and got stuffed by the rules for it.
Magic Users starting with random spells: Tough if you started with Friends, Read Magic, Unseen Servant and Mage Armour. You were limited to chucking 3 darts/round after using your single spell that day at 1st. If you were lucky you got to cast Sleep, at least that had no save back then.
Ha, ha...just remembered two things which have got forgotten.
Tracking Alignment: When adventuring you were supposed to act within your Gygaxian Aligment and the expected roles of your class and the DM would score you 1-4. When you leveled that score (the number of weeks it took to train) was multiplied by your current level and the abstract number of GP depending on class and that is how much it cost you to level up. And if it was greater than 2 then you had to do some more adventuring to get the average down. If you actually shifted alignment *BANG* you lost half your XPS! Thieves had to be sneaky, Fighters heroic, Clerics adhering to their Faith, Magic Users hiding away and not entering combat otherwise you were a BAD Gygaxian Player and got stuffed by the rules for it.
Magic Users starting with random spells: Tough if you started with Friends, Read Magic, Unseen Servant and Mage Armour. You were limited to chucking 3 darts/round after using your single spell that day at 1st. If you were lucky you got to cast Sleep, at least that had no save back then.
I definately remember those stereo types and that being key to rp. However all of the examples you used are tactics not alignment except the cleric adhering to faith.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been giving this subject some serious thought the past couple of days.
Mostly so far I've focused on my recollections of the two most memorable characters from the early days of D&D, my wizard and my Illusionist.
But I also played fighters, thiefs, clerics and monks. Not to mention fighter-thiefs, fighter-clerics and other "multi-class" characters.
I remember now how frustrated I was with the arbitrary restrictions around multi-classing (e.g. humans couldn't multi-class and non-humans had crazy level limits). One of my favorite characters was a half-elf fighter-cleric who maxed out (something like level 10/8 or something like that) and was unable to advance any higher. So as the rest of the party continued to level up, he became less and less effective and I finally retired him with great regret and rolled up another cleric (who managed to score psionics! WIN!).
Also, when my wizard first died and we investigated the cost of raising him, it turned out to be so expensive that we had to literally go on a quest to raise the funds. Which was sort of fun (and allowed my newly created cleric with psionics to shine) but meant I was unable to play my wizard for several months while the quest was completed.
Speaking of "you failed your fort save, you died" that is exactly how my best fighter died. Hit by a giant scorpion poison attack, it was "roll your save. You're dead."
We also found some really nice artifacts in one campaign. My Illusionist wanted one of the artifacts very badly (I can't recall which it was) but he was unable to because of alignment restrictions.
Nostalgic memories tend to focus on the pleasant memories.
In retrospect there were lots and lots of frustrating memories too.
I enjoy the heck out of Pathfinder. I hope my comments about the "old school" gaming don't lead people to think I greatly preferred the "old style". There were things I liked about it, but there are plenty of things I don't miss at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not fond of the Edition hate, or the "your playing it wrong" comments.
I personally I am not fond of a simple numbers game, or a WOW with dice type of game, but as long as all involved are having fun, then they are doing it right.
Just because someone is playing a different style, it does not give anyone the right to throw out the "dey tah doody hedz" comments.
Remember, someone might have the same opinion about your preferred style, and you don't deserve unkind treatment for liking it.
BBT, it has been my experience that some people take any personal expression of a favorite type of play as a direct insult to their own favorite type of play even when no insult was intended.
As in: "Man, I think the game today is sort of like training wheels compared to the lethality of early versions, I used to really enjoy that fear of mortality."
Getting the response of: "What!? How dare you claim that PF isn't totally as lethal as the old style game! You're totally wrong, and where do you get off claiming the old style was 'better' anyway! There is no badwrongfun!!!"
I get tired of that, myself.
Agreed... I remember players s1@ting bricks when meeting a wraith as the attack really had a bad downside...Now its "meh...Wraith..."
Same with poison.
Not saying it was better but overall there was less forgiveness built into the game.
Meh at 1d6 Con drain? That's not a particularly forgiving attack. Stat damage is one place I think 3e/PF shines. In some ways they are more forgiving than save or die, but the threats remain relevant for many levels more than low hit point damage.
|
I think the biggest difference between 1E/2E D&D and 3.x D&D was tactical combat movement.
In 1st and 2nd AD&D, there was no tactical combat movement. Minis were completely optional. The DM described the situation, and the players described what they did. The DM kept track of positioning in his head and described what happened accordingly. There were no AOOs, no distinction between an "attack" and a "full attack." No action types (free action, swift action, move action, standard action). The old-school feel was much more free-form, and the DM had to make a lot of determinations on-the-fly.
It's hard to emulate that using the D&D 3.x rulesets, as tactical positioning is now built into the rules.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS. PF is fantastic for what it does and how it works, but for me, the old school feel is matched only by using your imagination and visualizing the combat and how it unfolds.
PF is not good for this, imho. I game with a core of mostly older (30+) gamers, and a few in their lower 20s. You can tell the difference b/c the 20 somethings are constantly asking "how far, how high, how wide, etc" and seeing if their feats and such make it possible, whereas the older gamers are pretty much "can I walk it?" and then doing it.
I dont think this is a BADWRONGFUN! way of doing it, but its just NOT the same. Its not.
I think the biggest difference between 1E/2E D&D and 3.x D&D was tactical combat movement.
In 1st and 2nd AD&D, there was no tactical combat movement. Minis were completely optional. The DM described the situation, and the players described what they did. The DM kept track of positioning in his head and described what happened accordingly. There were no AOOs, no distinction between an "attack" and a "full attack." No action types (free action, swift action, move action, standard action). The old-school feel was much more free-form, and the DM had to make a lot of determinations on-the-fly.
It's hard to emulate that using the D&D 3.x rulesets, as tactical positioning is now built into the rules.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS. PF is fantastic for what it does and how it works, but for me, the old school feel is matched only by using your imagination and visualizing the combat and how it unfolds.
PF is not good for this, imho. I game with a core of mostly older (30+) gamers, and a few in their lower 20s. You can tell the difference b/c the 20 somethings are constantly asking "how far, how high, how wide, etc" and seeing if their feats and such make it possible, whereas the older gamers are pretty much "can I walk it?" and then doing it.
I dont think this is a BADWRONGFUN! way of doing it, but its just NOT the same. Its not.
We were using battle grids and miniatures in the late 70s. Most of the gamers I played with did too. While it is now much more of a "requirement" to do so, most of the games I played used them from the very beginning. It was just too easy to get into arguments about exact positioning and the grid and miniatures tended to stop most of those arguments.
Back then, just like today, we tended to use the grid and minis mostly only during combat. During social encounters and while traveling from place to place we tend to just set our minis up in marching order and talk through the activities. Just like we did when Carter and Reagan were President.
|
|
BBT, it has been my experience that some people take any personal expression of a favorite type of play as a direct insult to their own favorite type of play even when no insult was intended.
As in: "Man, I think the game today is sort of like training wheels compared to the lethality of early versions, I used to really enjoy that fear of mortality."
Getting the response of: "What!? How dare you claim that PF isn't totally as lethal as the old style game! You're totally wrong, and where do you get off claiming the old style was 'better' anyway! There is no badwrongfun!!!"
I get tired of that, myself.
I too, dislike those types of responses, but that was not mine.
I was really only reaching out to the few posters who were behaving badly.
Many of the posts about what some loved about older editions I agree with.
|
|
The combat grid has been in use since the very beginning, this is a fact. However, it's integration has never been as extreme as it became in 3.X/PF. There are pages upon pages of rules in these editions that essentially become an unplayable mess if the grid is excluded (YMMV on how close they are to an unplayable mess they are even with the grid).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whooo, what am I reading here, guess 1E/2E rulesets weren't small scale tactical wargames of dungeon and wilderness exploration but in fact were narrativist experiences of transcending existence and chasing ethereal dogs in the vineyard!
Heavens, how could I be so wrong all those years along...
|
|
Hey, like I said, the grid has always been a part of the game. But are you really gonna try to deny that it isn't 100% more firmly entrenched within 3.X than it has been in any other edition since Arneson and Gygax decided to call it "dungeons & Dragons"? Cos if you are, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
BBT,
I'm not insulting you or denouncing your apparent style of play. Before I begin a game or introduce a new player, I explain to them the kind of game it is and what the mutual expectations of the me and the other players are for this. We all usually agree on a heavy roleplay game...that we weren't building machines for combat, we were developing characters for an epic tale, even the aforementioned gamer agreed to this in this particular instance. I DO include the hack and slash element for this type of player, but the overall story/character development is the biggest part. Here is a snippet from one of my Campaign guides.
You must have a deity (With the exceptions of Druids, who worship The Green Faith) and include a few sentences about why you worship this deity. Clerics and Druids must include why they have their domain selections (This will count towards the bonus gold).
Sorcerers, Oracles, and Witches must give details about where their magic comes from. They may or may not know the reason or source.
Please submit a short dialogue portraying your character during a memory of a life changing event in their life (e.g.: Your coming of a ceremony, the death of a loved one, When your character decided to pursue their class, etc.) This will NOT count towards the bonus gold.
When aforementioned player had no interest in the above beyond the required dialogue, which was very poor compared to the rest of the group (I think he said he fell from a tree and his father helped him...literally that), I let him play anyway. You see, he was much like that player in the group you are in that damaged your minis, only he knew how to play the game.
NOW, getting OFF this subject...the portrayal of an "analog" on 2e through Pathfinder seems to be, from what everyone has input, this (a generalization):
More traps, more puzzles, dangerous gameplay, looser CR adhearance, ability capstones, class/race restrictions. I think that hit the major points...
|
|
Hey, like I said, the grid has always been a part of the game. But are you really gonna try to deny that it isn't 100% more firmly entrenched within 3.X than it has been in any other edition since Arneson and Gygax decided to call it "dungeons & Dragons"? Cos if you are, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
*opens his 1E/2E PDFs, ooogles all those gridded maps*
|
|
I think we can all agree that consequences were more severe under 1e/2e. Less hp's more save and/or die - or no save (Power Word Kill), permenant level lost, aging effects (haste or wish etc). Later D&D/PF is Heroic roleplaying, 1e/2e(?) was Sword and Sandal, back when warriors had large but proportioned muscles and no women owned tops!
|
|
Hey, like I said, the grid has always been a part of the game. But are you really gonna try to deny that it isn't 100% more firmly entrenched within 3.X than it has been in any other edition since Arneson and Gygax decided to call it "dungeons & Dragons"? Cos if you are, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.*opens his 1E/2E PDFs, ooogles all those gridded maps*
Not in the 2e core rules combat section you don't...
And in 1e I seem to remember them suggesting using hexes not squares...
PI?
I'm surprised no one answered this...
Pi as in 3.14. For some reason, I know a lot of people that like to make puzzles based around pi or finding multiples of pi. It's irritating and not clever.