|
The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies...
Just for a counterpoint, though I know that's commonly considered part of the AD&D style, the groups I played with never played that way. It was always plot/character driven and as low on lethality as later versions.
So that's not
Oh, how our perspectives change!
A few characters died in my games, but I don't think my AD&D campaigns were particularly killer. If a PC died, it was usually because they did something stupid. That all changed circa 1984 when I ran Ravenloft. Part of the fun of that game was killing characters off capriciously, or better still, having Strahd turn them into his vampire thralls.
I remember announcing this change to my players. I told them I was running the game "video game style".
I was being sarcastic. I honestly find this pining for the worst part of Old School design, purposefully leaving rules to DM adjudication and control for the sake of "creativity", idiotic.What I want is a more rules light system that limits the players build options. That way, their creativity is limited to finding creative ways to interact in the world that I at arbitrate as the DM.
I'd much rather have discussions with my players about their creativity when I control the rules, than when they can simply point to how a boom says their power works.
You, sir, have expressed the main reason why people get into Dungeon World.
You should check it out. Links to it are in earlier posts by me in this thread, including two free-to-use and totally legit online publications of the rules.
Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.
|
The main thrust of this is not 'Why is Pathfinder bad' but 'what can we do to recapture the feel of D&D'. The very fact that you are taking this as an adversarial position says quite a bit. Pathfinder isn't bad, it is different we want to regain something Pathfinder has lost not take away any of the fun you are currently enjoying.And, i think it is very possible to regain some of the feel of Old School D&D and still play PF.
That's where I'm wanting to head. I am working on one of my players who hasn't had the experience of an older edition (where without a rule for everything you got creative, albeit subject to the arbitrariness of the DM). It's trickier for him to express at the table and act outside the script of the pages of the book, and I notice he looks to the character sheet and confines of the rules for all that his character does. Without turning this into a MMO debate, my comparison is that he's been introduced into a form of table-top gaming where he feels like it's a console or keyboard. If there isn't a key or button, it cannot be done.
I am in the process of running him and our PF crew through a 1st edition converted Tomb of Horrors (with two old timers who have vague memories of it). Say what you will about lethality, but as we've pushed through, I've seen more creative guesswork on solving the various challenges than with prior standard modules. There's a novelty to having no "knowledge" check to explain everything, wherein you have to experiment, test, and you aren't guaranteed a successful results. It's my theory, based on AD&D play, that there's more sense of accomplishment by creative resolution than by simply a successful die roll or a "take 10." Certain elements have their purpose in certain situations, but the rules should never replace the need for player ingenuity. We'll see if everyone agrees once we're through...
|
I was being sarcastic. I honestly find this pining for the worst part of Old School design, purposefully leaving rules to DM adjudication and control for the sake of "creativity", idiotic.What I want is a more rules light system that limits the players build options. That way, their creativity is limited to finding creative ways to interact in the world that I at arbitrate as the DM.
I'd much rather have discussions with my players about their creativity when I control the rules, than when they can simply point to how a boom says their power works.
You, sir, have expressed the main reason why people get into Dungeon World.
You should check it out. Links to it are in earlier posts by me in this thread, including two free-to-use and totally legit online publications of the rules.
Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.
There is no discussion if, any time a player disagrees with the GM on how things work, the latter is considered always right. Granted, this would make for the lightest set of rules (ie, none). But since when is less rules a greater goal for the game than people having fun ?
The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies...
Just for a counterpoint, though I know that's commonly considered part of the AD&D style, the groups I played with never played that way. It was always plot/character driven and as low on lethality as later versions.
So that's not
Oh, how our perspectives change!
A few characters died in my games, but I don't think my AD&D campaigns were particularly killer. If a PC died, it was usually because they did something stupid. That all changed circa 1984 when I ran Ravenloft. Part of the fun of that game was killing characters off capriciously, or better still, having Strahd turn them into his vampire thralls.
Yes, "Killer DMs" were the exception, not the rule. Gygax wasn't a Killer DM, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.
Then it's an ethos that I find absurdity. It's just shifting more game control to the DM, for the sake of control, in the name of creativity.
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.
AD&D and most old school games weren't rules light, they were rules unsaid. The rules for crafting magic items being a perfect example of this. It wasn't rules light.. It was just entirely up to the DM how magic item creation and spell research was going to be handled. By that DM, with those players, and for however many sessions or campaigns that the GM saw fit.
If you want to talk about bringing back certain mechanics, like classes leveling up at different rates, then I'm all game, but don't bring me this garbage about increasing player creativity by increasing the number of rules GM gets to create.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?
Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?
Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?
Every rule, law, ordinance, etc. unless it is specifically granting more agency to the people involved (and sometimes even when it does) is also limiting, restricting, or eliminating some element of the same. That is the nature of rules and laws.
Having more mechanisms can allow more agency. It can and usually does restrict it. There are several threads I can point to regarding rules running into the hundreds or thousands of posts regarding how a rule restricts this or that player choice.
Rules do not make creativity. Interaction, improvisation, and agency create the nest where creativity can grow and be nurtured.
Note: Please forgive any bad spelling no spell check.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?
Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?
Is it really creativity to pull a clearly defined ability (well, sometimes...if you FAQ it repeatedly over a couple of years and dozens of threads pop us asking why the ability is so poorly defined) out of the books and say "I do this".
Also, rigidly defined rules can do more to limit a character than allow him to think creatively. In pathfinder, lots of the cool stuff you can do is locked behind feats, often with other feats as prerequisites. Something you could do just by trying it in older, more rules-light version is likely to get you a "No, you can't do that, you don't have the feat. But you can try it again in 8 levels, after you take the prerequisites and then the feat".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no discussion if, any time a player disagrees with the GM on how things work, the latter is considered always right. Granted, this would make for the lightest set of rules (ie, none). But since when is less rules a greater goal for the game than people having fun ?I was being sarcastic. I honestly find this pining for the worst part of Old School design, purposefully leaving rules to DM adjudication and control for the sake of "creativity", idiotic.Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.
Here's the first rule of "rules light GMing" - think of this as the Rule Zero text.
I'm not intending to rag on Pathfinder for this counterexample, but it's common in a lot of games, and it's a particular sore point when I play.
Pathfinder Knowledge Skills.
You've got this scenario, it's got three paths for the players to succeed, all three paths can have information gathered or gleaned through knowledge skills.
And the consequence of failing a knowledge skill is "Well, um, you don't learn anything new."
When players are aware that They Must Pass A DC 25 Knowledge Check (or Diplomacy check) or the plot gets constipated...everyone goes "I aid another on, yeah, that character who has the best modifier."
This is an example of not following Rule Zero.
What possible interesting consequence happens from failing a Knowledge check? In most Pathfinder games? There aren't any; plot constipation is the enemy of interesting. The GM should ask for a library research montage if that's the only consequence.
In a lightweight RPG, when I have a scene that requires a Knowledge-type check? I always write out one or two options for consequences if they fail on my notecards.
Because nothing is as much fun as the characters failing the Knowledge skill on the Cult of Urgutoz The Defiler, getting the McGuffin...and then completing the cultist's ritual for them, thinking they were destroying the McGuffin.
Especially as the ending scene of a session.
Rules Light means using the fewest possible rules to define something, and letting players have some creative freedom in describing how they're getting the effect and modifier.
Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.Then it's an ethos that I find absurdity. It's just shifting more game control to the DM, for the sake of control, in the name of creativity.
Question - do you ask your players to describe what they're doing in a game? Or do they do it without prompting? Or are you primarily a player and not a GM?
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.AD&D and most old school games weren't rules light, they were rules unsaid. The rules for crafting magic items being a perfect example of this. It wasn't rules light.. It was just entirely up to the DM how magic item creation and spell research was going to be handled. By that DM, with those players, and for however many sessions or campaigns that the GM saw fit.
If you want to talk about bringing back certain mechanics, like classes leveling up at different rates, then I'm all game, but don't bring me this garbage about increasing player creativity by increasing the number of rules GM gets to create.
I agree that AD&D wasn't rules light. Note that I'm generally advocating for Dungeon World, which has a lot of the 'feel' of AD&D, with a much more manageable rules load.
Let me ask you this: What's the benefit of having a player-accessible magic item creation rules set? How does this make the game more fun to play, mechanically, and how does it support the underlying fiction?
Would you play a magic-item-creating character if, each time you created an item, you had to make a caster level check against a DC 25 target, or have your soul replaced with that of a Chaotic Evil Abyssal Duke? And that it didn't matter if you were making a +1 Spear or a +5 Dragonbane Thundering Falchion? (The difference in preparation time might make a difference...) but each time you tried it, there was a risk that your character wouldn't just die - but would become a crazed plot wrecking NPC in the hands of the GM?
What if all the magic items in the world were the result of wizards and other casters making similar bargains? How does that shape the underlying fiction?
I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?
Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?
People have commented on that earlier in the thread and probably better than I can but:
It's not the kind I prefer. It takes place outside of the actual game for one thing. In game, it tends to lead to "I didn't take that ability, so I can't try that", sometimes enforced in the rules. It tends to lead to people searching their character sheets for a mechanism to deal with the problem, rather than improvising something from the situation and the world around them.
Oh no, my players want to use their character's powers and abilities to solve a problem, or are limited to to the options their character provides. How horrible that they'd manage to roleplay because they rollplayed.
Edit: And often the pile of complexity doesn't actually add to their options. It just encourages them to focus more on one option since they can boost it to ridiculous levels and that's often more effective than being a generalist.
The team based nature of the game encourages specialization. If there are four sorcerers, they're going to focus on different areas of magic because generalizing would be wasteful.
|
|
I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?
Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?
People have commented on that earlier in the thread and probably better than I can but:
It's not the kind I prefer. It takes place outside of the actual game for one thing. In game, it tends to lead to "I didn't take that ability, so I can't try that", sometimes enforced in the rules. It tends to lead to people searching their character sheets for a mechanism to deal with the problem, rather than improvising something from the situation and the world around them.Edit: And often the pile of complexity doesn't actually add to their options. It just encourages them to focus more on one option since they can boost it to ridiculous levels and that's often more effective than being a generalist.
It's funny how metagaming is so utterly derided on these forums...until it comes to this.
It's funny how metagaming is so utterly derided on these forums...until it comes to this.I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?
Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?
People have commented on that earlier in the thread and probably better than I can but:
It's not the kind I prefer. It takes place outside of the actual game for one thing. In game, it tends to lead to "I didn't take that ability, so I can't try that", sometimes enforced in the rules. It tends to lead to people searching their character sheets for a mechanism to deal with the problem, rather than improvising something from the situation and the world around them.Edit: And often the pile of complexity doesn't actually add to their options. It just encourages them to focus more on one option since they can boost it to ridiculous levels and that's often more effective than being a generalist.
Hey that's legit metagaming lol, look I think it's utterly ridiculous to have players not discuss what they want to be, and try to round out the party in the creation process. Players who show up at the table with a character in hand without consulting the rest of the party would likely piss off the players who strived for a group dynamic at the creation process. Maybe it's different how you play, but I know that isn't really considered metagaming at my table.
Well, I could just show up with Pun-Pun
I mean, it's being creative, right? And it sure as heck isn't relying on GM fiat!
Power to the Players, man! Power to the Players!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no discussion if, any time a player disagrees with the GM on how things work, the latter is considered always right. Granted, this would make for the lightest set of rules (ie, none). But since when is less rules a greater goal for the game than people having fun ?I was being sarcastic. I honestly find this pining for the worst part of Old School design, purposefully leaving rules to DM adjudication and control for the sake of "creativity", idiotic.Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.
Here's the first rule of "rules light GMing" - think of this as the Rule Zero text.
I'm not intending to rag on Pathfinder for this counterexample, but it's common in a lot of games, and it's a particular sore point when I play.
Pathfinder Knowledge Skills.
You've got this scenario, it's got three paths for the players to succeed, all three paths can have information gathered or gleaned through knowledge skills.
And the consequence of failing a knowledge skill is "Well, um, you don't learn anything new."
When players are aware that They Must Pass A DC 25 Knowledge Check (or Diplomacy check) or the plot gets constipated...everyone goes "I aid another on, yeah, that character who has the best modifier."
This is an example of not following Rule Zero.
What possible interesting consequence happens from failing a Knowledge check? In most Pathfinder games? There aren't any; plot constipation is the enemy of interesting. The GM should ask for a library research montage if that's the only consequence.
In a lightweight RPG, when I have a scene that requires a Knowledge-type check? I always write out one or two options for consequences if they fail on my notecards.
Because nothing is as much fun as the characters failing the Knowledge skill on the Cult of Urgutoz The Defiler, getting the McGuffin...and then completing the cultist's ritual for them, thinking they were destroying the McGuffin.
Especially as the ending scene of a session.
Rules Light means using the fewest possible rules to define something, and letting players have some creative freedom in describing how they're getting the effect and modifier.
This has everything to do with the GM's skill and nothing to do with the rules system.
Then it's an ethos that I find absurdity. It's just shifting more game control to the DM, for the sake of control, in the name of creativity.Question - do you ask your players to describe what they're doing in a game? Or do they do it without prompting? Or are you primarily a player and not a GM?
I ask my players to describe what they're doing based on the actions they're taking, and to make decisions based on the abilities/stats that their characters have.
I agree that AD&D wasn't rules light. Note that I'm generally advocating for Dungeon World, which has a lot of the 'feel' of AD&D, with a much more manageable rules load.
Let me ask you this: What's the benefit of having a player-accessible magic item creation rules set? How does this make the game more fun to play, mechanically, and how does it support the underlying fiction?
As a DM I have less work to do, and can justify any disagreements with the player by pointing to the rules insteas of coming off as arbitraty. As a player I know what I can expect, and can justify any disagreements with the DM by pointing to the rules.
It also means that I can simply point to the rules and ask the person who wants to craft it to do the math himself, instead of having to do all the work then. The more my players can learn from the game on their own time the less I have to explain to them
Would you play a magic-item-creating character if, each time you created an item, you had to make a caster level check against a DC 25 target, or have your soul replaced with that of a Chaotic Evil Abyssal Duke? And that it didn't matter if you were making a +1 Spear or a +5 Dragonbane Thundering...
Having rules in place doesn't prevent me from having interesting home few ideas like this, and trying to implement them into the game. What it allows for is for me to let my players know ahead of time that we're doing somehjng the game designers didn't expect, as well as have a fallback option I the rules don't work out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I could just show up with Pun-Pun
I mean, it's being creative, right? And it sure as heck isn't relying on GM fiat!
Power to the Players, man! Power to the Players!
1. The player is then killed by the GM's Pun Pun because the GM cn create one whenever he wants, too.
2. Pun Pun ruins the game for other players, so it's a s~**ty thing to do if you want to give power to players, plural.3. Pun Pun actually does require a bit of GM fiat, normally in the form of the Djinn not messing up your wish, which they always do.
4. Poorly conceived rules are causing problems because developers didn't foresee certain interactions? What a surprise! I guess we should let the guy eating Cheetos come up the rules instead.
Every rule, law, ordinance, etc. unless it is specifically granting more agency to the people involved (and sometimes even when it does) is also limiting, restricting, or eliminating some element of the same. That is the nature of rules and laws.
Having more mechanisms can allow more agency. It can and usually does restrict it. There are several threads I can point to regarding rules running into the hundreds or thousands of posts regarding how a rule restricts this or that player choice.
Rules do not make creativity. Interaction, improvisation, and agency create the nest where creativity can grow and be nurtured.
Bad design creates problems, I agree. I also agree that I have rules doesn't guarantee for more creativity. However, as a player I prefer to know what game I'm getting into, and have players who can know what the rules of a game are without me having to tell them. I also prefer to trust the judgement of he game developers when they make rules than to trust myself or players around me. If there is a problem I can change it with he others.
Note: Please forgive any bad spelling no spell check.
No worries. Forgive my delay in responding to you. My computer is dead and im using my phone.
|
|
There is no discussion if, any time a player disagrees with the GM on how things work, the latter is considered always right. Granted, this would make for the lightest set of rules (ie, none). But since when is less rules a greater goal for the game than people having fun ?Sarcasm or not, it really is a good expression of the design and play ethos. In most rules light games, there is an implicit design mindset that the entire game is a discussion.
Rules as Interpreted versus Rules as Written will always be there. Shorter rules sets mean that everyone can keep them loaded in short term memory.
Since when is more rules a greater goal for the game than people having fun?
It is not. Which likely means that, contrary to what many people believe, more rules enable more people to have more fun ;-)
Rules Light means using the fewest possible rules to define something, and letting players have some creative freedom in describing how they're getting the effect and modifier.This has everything to do with the GM's skill and nothing to do with the rules system.
Incorrect. System matters a fair bit in this.
The question is whether or not you're playing Mother May I based on your OWN creativity, or if you're playing Mother May I through the intermediary of a freelancer trying to generate 3,000 words for a nickel a word under a two week deadline crunch, then filtered through a development team that's trying to get this into print by their deadline crunch...and most of this won't actually be playtested before it's published.
Yes, I publish games. I have seen the sausage being made.
The more rules you add, the more hurdles the GM has to navigate to say "Yes." Because if he lets one person bend a rule, and players expect rules to be held with the weight of legal precedence, he's just made all other rules suspect and open to question.
"Seek not control, nor multiply laws;
The cracks in the system are virtues, not flaws."
What you get for a play experience is a Venn diagram showing the overlap between three sets:
What the game system rewards (how can you spend your advancement to be better in the game?)
What the GM rewards (what plot elements and story arcs your GM puts before you will shape how you play your character.)
What your players reward (social activity, building on what you describe in the game.)
One of the things that many modern, rules light systems do, is try to tie the game-system rewards to player interaction.
I agree that the robust system allows more fun, in that it's a thrilling set of mechanics to play an RPG in. I think the problem for the "dem rules" crowd is that unfamiliarity with the rules makes it a bigger hurdle than for people who are up on it. I remember that when I was playing with an older school GM he was using wonky mechanics in the game like facing and 2nd ed backstab, it was a mess, an inconsistent mess to boot; too bad because the RP, world, plot stuff was amazing but I could not cope with his unfamiliarity with the rules and have fun with that game. He viewed the rules as the enemy, without trying to see the other side, the reason why facing is stupid is because people aren't meant to be looking in a single direction during a turn, that's what perception is for. A fair GM tries not to arbitrate as much as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then it's an ethos that I find absurdity. It's just shifting more game control to the DM, for the sake of control, in the name of creativity.Question - do you ask your players to describe what they're doing in a game? Or do they do it without prompting? Or are you primarily a player and not a GM?I ask my players to describe what they're doing based on the actions they're taking, and to make decisions based on the abilities/stats that their characters have.
As a DM I have less work to do, and can justify any disagreements with the player by pointing to the rules insteas of coming off as arbitraty. As a player I know what I can expect, and can justify any disagreements with the DM by pointing to the rules.I agree that AD&D wasn't rules light. Note that I'm generally advocating for Dungeon World, which has a lot of the 'feel' of AD&D, with a much more manageable rules load.
Let me ask you this: What's the benefit of having a player-accessible magic item creation rules set? How does this make the game more fun to play, mechanically, and how does it support the underlying fiction?
Um. Keeping track of the latest broken s%#+ and errata coming out of Paizo and all the third party publishers is LESS WORK than re-using a smaller set of mechanics?
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
And if you're disallowing Pun-Pun (which I agree with), you are being arbitrary. If you're going to be arbitrary anyway, why not work from a baseline of trust in the GM and trust in the players?
It also means that I can simply point to the rules and ask the person who wants to craft it to do the math himself, instead of having to do all the work then. The more my players can learn from the game on their own time the less I have to explain to them.
I've played in three Kingmaker games. Every single one of them imploded when players could start manufacturing +1 weapons and selling them at 100% markup, and could start manufacturing their own Wondrous Items.
When I was asked to GM it, I specifically told players "No magic item creation." I explained why. The players decided I was being arbitrary. Kingmaker didn't get run.
This is why I don't actually feel that "rules as written" are worth the Talmudic pride of place that so many people give them. You're still playing "Mother May I." You just have something written by a freelancer at a nickel a word as your legal precedent, rather than something of your own creation which might be a better fit for the shared fiction...assuming your GM accepts that you're a possible collaborator, not a bug to be squished.
And assuming you have a GM who isn't out to wreck their own game.
Would you play a magic-item-creating character if, each time you created an item, you had to make a caster level check against a DC 25 target, or have your soul replaced with that of a Chaotic Evil Abyssal Duke? And that it didn't matter if you were making a +1 Spear or a +5 Dragonbane Thundering...Having rules in place doesn't prevent me from having interesting home few ideas like this, and trying to implement them into the game. What it allows for is for me to let my players know ahead of time that we're doing somehjng the game designers didn't expect, as well as have a fallback option I the rules don't work out.
In another thread, you wrote:
Bad design creates problems, I agree. I also agree that I have rules doesn't guarantee for more creativity. However, as a player I prefer to know what game I'm getting into, and have players who can know what the rules of a game are without me having to tell them. I also prefer to trust the judgement of he game developers when they make rules than to trust myself or players around me. If there is a problem I can change it with he others.
I've been one of those developers. I've freelanced a fair bit. I publish games, I sometimes hire freelancers. I know what a production treadmill looks like. I know how many ideas simply get "Yeah, that can't possibly be a problem." and get published.
You are much likelier to get bad design out of heavy and complex rule systems than out of lighter weight ones, because the more you try to nail down the corner cases, the likelier it is you create Pun-Pun levels of abuse.
Or even more manageable ones like Gunslingers killing everything in sight once 7th level hits and they're firing at +13 versus single-digit touch ACs.
Or Witches spamming DC 34 Slumber Hexes. Ever seen a dragon fall to its death, mid-flight? :)
Or (shudder) the 7/7/7/16/14/20 Paladin/Synthesist-Summoner tromping through your plot in Eidolon Power Armor.
The benefit of a simple system is that it's MUCH easier to spot that something is game breaking.
I agree that the robust system allows more fun, in that it's a thrilling set of mechanics to play an RPG in. I think the problem for the "dem rules" crowd is that unfamiliarity with the rules makes it a bigger hurdle than for people who are up on it. I remember that when I was playing with an older school GM he was using wonky mechanics in the game like facing and 2nd ed backstab, it was a mess, an inconsistent mess to boot; too bad because the RP, world, plot stuff was amazing but I could not cope with his unfamiliarity with the rules and have fun with that game. He viewed the rules as the enemy, without trying to see the other side, the reason why facing is stupid is because people aren't meant to be looking in a single direction during a turn, that's what perception is for. A fair GM tries not to arbitrate as much as possible.
The flaw that you've highlighted is that the rules did not support the fiction you were expecting.
I've played many an EXCELLENT RPG with facing.
I've also played RPGs where maps are an approximation. I prefer how DW handles that sort of thing, because it's simple, it lets players describe cool things, and it gets out of the way.
Quite honestly, trying to describe Dungeon World combats to someone who's expectations are d20-style Initiative single-file action tracking...until you've played it, it sounds like gibberish.
And once you've played it until it "clicks," you'll try incorporating some of its tricks into your Pathfinder game.
And if you're disallowing Pun-Pun (which I agree with), you are being arbitrary. If you're going to be arbitrary anyway, why not work from a baseline of trust in the GM and trust in the players?
Trust is earned, and Pun Pun is a violation of that trust. Making a broken character is easy, especially when mixing/matching abilities/powers from 3.5 and PF, which besides the backwards compatibility rhetoric, exists on two different power equilibriums. I can trust players to the extent that they have proven willing to cooperate with the game, and if they make a game wrecker like Pun Pun, it's not arbitrary to ban hammer the s*** out of it.
Wow...this is quite a thread. I don't have the time/inclination to read the whole thing (nothing personal!), but I do want to say one thing to the OP:
If you're looking for an AD&D-like experience, you might want to check out either Castles and Crusades or Dungeon World.
I agree that the robust system allows more fun, in that it's a thrilling set of mechanics to play an RPG in. I think the problem for the "dem rules" crowd is that unfamiliarity with the rules makes it a bigger hurdle than for people who are up on it. I remember that when I was playing with an older school GM he was using wonky mechanics in the game like facing and 2nd ed backstab, it was a mess, an inconsistent mess to boot; too bad because the RP, world, plot stuff was amazing but I could not cope with his unfamiliarity with the rules and have fun with that game. He viewed the rules as the enemy, without trying to see the other side, the reason why facing is stupid is because people aren't meant to be looking in a single direction during a turn, that's what perception is for. A fair GM tries not to arbitrate as much as possible.The flaw that you've highlighted is that the rules did not support the fiction you were expecting.
I've played many an EXCELLENT RPG with facing.
I've also played RPGs where maps are an approximation. I prefer how DW handles that sort of thing, because it's simple, it lets players describe cool things, and it gets out of the way.
Quite honestly, trying to describe Dungeon World combats to someone who's expectations are d20-style Initiative single-file action tracking...until you've played it, it sounds like gibberish.
And once you've played it until it "clicks," you'll try incorporating some of its tricks into your Pathfinder game.
My point was that we were playing (supposedly) a PF game, and there is a reason why facing isn't in the rules, and a reason why you threaten all areas, and a reason why something approaching the backside of your mini doesn't render you flat footed; he didn't know those reasons and I didn't want to play in a game whose rules I couldn't grasp (especially under the pretenses of playing a PF game) because it was all sloppily put into a system that already covered that contingency by saying that a player can look around and see anything without cover or concealment naturally, and is flat footed under a specific set of circumstances.
Btw, I was actually playing a rogue in that game and would've benefitted greatly by the GM's mistake of making facing rules but it wasn't the game I sat down to play, so I wound up not enjoying it.
And I'm all for a rules-light as I've stated previously; but much like D&D Next is doing, the rules-light should integrate fully into the the big boy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, trying to describe Dungeon World combats to someone who's expectations are d20-style Initiative single-file action tracking...until you've played it, it sounds like gibberish.So give it a shot. :)
I get the basic gist of Moves, but I don't quite get how an actual combat would flow. The examples I've looked at all seemed to be more individual: How to handle one Move and the results of it.I guess my biggest question is: Is there something in the mechanics that
addresses making sure everyone gets to act, if not every round (since there aren't rounds?), at least often enough to keep active. Spotlight issues, essentially.Without initiative, or some similar mechanism, how does it handle keeping track of who's doing what in larger combats?
The fact that you're asking that question is sort of like saying "But without the numinous ether, how does light propagate?" But I'll give it a shot.
Dungeon World combat is more like question-and-response metric.
There is no guarantee that the every player will get as many actions as every other player, plus or minus one, but it tends to work that way without mechanical reinforcement.
Each time the GM says something, he is putting a specific character in danger. The character then describes what they're doing in response to the danger. There will be three possible outcomes: The character succeeds (what they describe happens), the character partially succeeds (what they describe happens, but...), or the character fails (what they describe didn't happen, and...).
If the character completely succeeds, that danger is usually neutralized or harmed; if there's another aspect of danger coming up, the GM then threatens another character.
If the character partially succeeds, the GM uses what that character said as their response to frame the next element of danger, which is usually directed at the next player at the table, or the player the GM thinks is closest or is more dramatically appropriate to send the fun to.
If the character fails, the GM usually gives them a hard choice, and ALSO makes the next element of danger threatening another character more dangerous or risky because of what the first character failed at.
Pretty much, the GM is asking "What do you do?" to each player in whatever order suits him, but once he gets a response, he moves to another player...and by spreading the love around, you're ALSO letting the players have a little bit of time to come up with snappy and cool descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@AdaAstraGames
Taking a system that someone else created and tweaking it when necessary, when your players can look it over to spot problems, or he dev can fix them is less work than having to do all that and also create all the rules.
Excuse me if I don't shed a tear for players walking away because you told them about rule changes they didn't like before the game started. If you don't see the value of a player being able to go to any table (with friends, at organized play, or virtual), or for a DM to be able to sit down in front of any group and know how they expect the game to work, I don't know what to tell you.
You're also going to have to harder than the examples you provided to show me a broken character build. Try Wizard 20.
@theJedf
If the DM already has that much power, than he doesn't need complete control over creation of the rules too.
And I'm all for a rules-light as I've stated previously; but much like D&D Next is doing, the rules-light should integrate fully into the the big boy game.For the sake of someone learning step-by-step and planning on eventually playing the more complex version, that's a not entirely unreasonable position ... but calling it "the big boy game" implies that the rules-heavier version is more evolved and mature—which is unadulterated crap.
When people stop subtly and not-so-subtly trying to imply their preferences are cooler and better these discussions will become much more fruitful.
Ok it seems like what I said was misconstrued as a shot at playing a simplified system, which is not the case at all, I just wanted to say that the folks at PF shouldn't just cater to the simplicity crowd and try to integrate the two play-styles. I seriously meant no offense to anyone advocating the rules-light version; I just called it the big boy game as short for the actual game. I seriously think that it was totally projecting to feel slighted by my terminology, as I meant no offense at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you're disallowing Pun-Pun (which I agree with), you are being arbitrary. If you're going to be arbitrary anyway, why not work from a baseline of trust in the GM and trust in the players?
Trust is earned, and Pun Pun is a violation of that trust. Making a broken character is easy, especially when mixing/matching abilities/powers from 3.5 and PF, which besides the backwards compatibility rhetoric, exists on two different power equilibriums. I can trust players to the extent that they have proven willing to cooperate with the game, and if they make a game wrecker like Pun Pun, it's not arbitrary to ban hammer the s*** out of it.
Is it the fault of the player that Pun-Pun is legal, or the fault of the developers that the rule system has grown so baroquely complex that it's possible to build Pun-Pun in the first place?
It reaches farther back than Pun-Pun.
I've played many a game with That Guy. The one that shows up with a character who's 60% more effective than the rest of the party. Combined. Were it not for action economy, he'd solo the module. (And when it's a Summoner, not even action economy holds them back...)
That Guy (tm) tells everyone else that HE'S doing nothing wrong, it's THEIR fault that they can't make a character as awesome as his, because, clearly, the RULES allow it, therefore it's right.
In reality, he enjoys the intellectual challenge of making a build. He gets a creative rush out of it. He may even get mad props and "Way cool, man." He gets his validation by soloing the BBEG in the Surprise Round.
The reason I prefer lighter-weight systems is that the simpler the system, the easier it is to spot that something's a game breaking monster.
Indeed, a lot of people who dislike simpler systems dislike them because of that feature. When making a game breaking monster is trivial, there's no challenge in doing it...and that means that, well, gasp, they have to actually care about what other players are doing with their characters.
Dungeon World and its ilk aren't "onramps" for a heavier system. They're feature complete among themselves.
They focus on a number of things like "Get the players involved in everyone else's character creation, and get all character creation done on the same session as you start the adventure."
You're also going to have to harder than the examples you provided to show me a broken character build. Try Wizard 20.
Broken characters are ones that are so much more effective than the ones around them that you can't make a challenge for the entire party without killing off the rest of the party to challenge the other guy, or the other guy makes all the encounters cakewalks.
And, yes, I told them I wasn't allowing item crafting, and I GM'd something else when they decided they didn't want Kingmaker without item crafting.
I ran a short campaign where they had to protect the heir to the grand duchy from multiple assassination attempts, while discretely figuring out who was trying to kill him with summoned devils.
In Cheliax.
Where devil-summoning isn't exactly unique, and there really wasn't a shortage of people looking to turn the little dukelet into a grease spot.
Incidentally, if they could also persuade him to be a better person there were some added bonuses. Self-centered Lawful Evil entitled nobles that the party is protecting are so much fun to roleplay. :)
They failed in persuading him to shift his alignment...they pretty much hated him from session 4 through the end of the campaign 4 months later, when they brought the severed heads of the person(s) behind the plot, including that of his uncle the Paladin (Oops. Long story), got thanked, got paid, told the Duke that, no, his generous offer of a barony to run was...not in their best interests, and probably a political nightmare for him to boot.
And then they sailed to Sargava, bought a plantation, retired, and told the gate staff that any parcels coming from Egorian were to be incinerated before being opened, and really, please, bring Calyxar over to manipulate the charred ashes with Pilfering Grasp, because, really, we pay you well, but we don't pay you THAT well.