The Old Timer Community Thread


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Seems like somehow, at some point, "the thrill of near-constant success" replaced "the thrill of risk". I remember being terrified for my AD&D characters' lives pretty regularly, and feeling a certain delight in doing something I knew to be dangerous. You'd lose a character to it now and then, of course, but that was the cost of the thrill. It's pretty rare for me to feel my PF character is running any real risks - unless the GM deliberately designs an encounter as a player-killer, which somehow feels more unfair than when high risk was just part of the system...

This.


@ Kydeem: Well, not all groups or players are guilty of entitlement, fortunately.... But suffice it to say I was sufficiently traumatized by my last group (bunch of slef-entitled egotistical spot light hogging whiny... *deep breath*), so I kind of approach TTRPGs with a slight bias these days. I know it's not healthy, and consciously I know most TTRPG groups are pretty fun fellas, but it's still screwed my, well, our perception (it was my GF's first and only group), and I HAAATE it. (she does too, but I felt that was obvious).

I'm hoping we can find a good group to fix that, lol.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
More my problem is the whole level appropriate concept. Some wild animal has been killing villagers and live stock and the militia can't handle it. "An advanced feral dire bear?!? We're only 2nd level. We have no chance of killing it." Look if something can't be stopped local guard it is dangerous. They could have stopped a regular bear. You may have to spend some time digging a pit trap, run away a few times, gain some allies, or even go away and come back after you've gained some levels.

This illustrates the combat as war mentality real well. The party shouldnt assume every encounter will be an apropriate challenge for them. Either you risk death by trying to even the odds, or you leave be and find someone your own size.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Haladir wrote:
...Those "build guides" over on the Advice board really rankle my feathers.

Incidentally, feathers usually get ruffled, not rankled. But hey!... they're your feathers. They can rankle if they like.

Just chipping back in with another "old fogey" complaint about expected survival rates. Seems that the average player now reckons that he "deserves" to survive, no matter how boneheaded his so-called decision-making process is. Of course, the trouble there is that as much as I love to see fools die, you have to figure out how to deal with the fact that your player's going to be mighty bored until you can bring in a replacement (or raise him from the dead, the ease of which irritates me as well.)

Seems like somehow, at some point, "the thrill of near-constant success" replaced "the thrill of risk". I remember being terrified for my AD&D characters' lives pretty regularly, and feeling a certain delight in doing something I knew to be dangerous. You'd lose a character to it now and then, of course, but that was the cost of the thrill. It's pretty rare for me to feel my PF character is running any real risks - unless the GM deliberately designs an encounter as a player-killer, which somehow feels more unfair than when high risk was just part of the system...

The thrill of risk would be transplanted to such games as Dark Souls and that series. I like to think it continued nicely through the Fighting Fantasy books by Livingston and Jackson and has always hung around.

I miss that thrill. So I recreate it for my players.


Pan wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
More my problem is the whole level appropriate concept. Some wild animal has been killing villagers and live stock and the militia can't handle it. "An advanced feral dire bear?!? We're only 2nd level. We have no chance of killing it." Look if something can't be stopped local guard it is dangerous. They could have stopped a regular bear. You may have to spend some time digging a pit trap, run away a few times, gain some allies, or even go away and come back after you've gained some levels.
This illustrates the combat as war mentality real well. The party shouldnt assume every encounter will be an apropriate challenge for them. Either you risk death by trying to even the odds, or you leave be and find someone your own size.

Agree, but sadly some players don't want a serious risk of death.

I've also thrown the large feral animal at my players when they are very low level and seen how they take it. Once they rushed a very nasty bear at insanely low level. The bear incapped two of the three party (and they got a crit and good hits off before they went down) before the final standing player took it out with an excellent bit of shivving. They needed to rest for many days, but it was a damn good start to the game. Glad they jumped at the risk and the thrill!

I think we have made real ground here in the constant success vs. thrill of death ideas.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Haladir wrote:
... I'm actually with JJ on this-- I never liked psioncs, and wished it had been treated just as another kind of magic-- if at all. ...
I'm completely at the other end of the spectrum. I wish the arcane and divine magic was treated like the DSP psionics system.

and if it were done that way, it might please a few folks like yourself, but people would walk out on Paizo the way they did on WOTC in favor of the next company that gave them the "old school game they wanted.".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:


This illustrates the combat as war mentality real well. The party shouldnt assume every encounter will be an apropriate challenge for them. Either you risk death by trying to even the odds, or you leave be and find someone your own size.

This +1. Our TT DM let us know long ago that we shouldn't expect to be able to slay every monster we come across. If we're dumb enough and not tough enough and we get killed then that's on us.

But I wouldn't play with a DM that had a house rule that stated 'Expect to Die, Horribly' either. That makes it seem like its player vs DM and a player will never win that war.


Honestly, back in the day, there wasn't much difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. I remember an encounter in White Plume Mountain where you had to know something about prime numbers or you would end up very dead very fast-- what adventurer is going to know about prime numbers?

When the DM rolled on the wandering monster table, and got a purple worm or a Type VI demon, and the PCs were 5th level, the players knew enough to run, and fast. However, properly role-played, PCs might not know if the foe is an appropriate challenge, and might try to fight a round or two... which would be a death sentence.

I like to offer enough challenge that death might be a possibility, but I don't ever want to have a TPK... unless the players are doing something particularly stupid.


LazarX wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Haladir wrote:
... I'm actually with JJ on this-- I never liked psioncs, and wished it had been treated just as another kind of magic-- if at all. ...
I'm completely at the other end of the spectrum. I wish the arcane and divine magic was treated like the DSP psionics system.
and if it were done that way, it might please a few folks like yourself, but people would walk out on Paizo the way they did on WOTC in favor of the next company that gave them the "old school game they wanted.".

Oh I know it will never happen. The mechanical system used (not necessarily the powers described) in DSP Psionics just seems to come closer to what people think of, what is in the movies, and what is written in novels about magic users.

But I'm always kinda amazed at how many people really don't particularly like the spell system, but stick with it cause that what it is. They like DnD/PF, they can find groups to game with, and it works even if they don't like it that well. So since the want to play PF they play with that spells system.

It is actually a good sign. It works well enough and is easy enough to learn that even the guys that would prefer something else for their magic don't leave for some other game. If they really hated it, it was too clunky, or difficult to learn they probably would be losing people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
This illustrates the combat as war mentality real well. The party shouldnt assume every encounter will be an apropriate challenge for them. Either you risk death by trying to even the odds, or you leave be and find someone your own size.

True, but many I've gamed with recently seem to think that way. Thus my 'expect to die' rule, which I'm paraphrasing when I say it like that. I have explanations after every rule, which in this one's case, is "Dumb things lead to dumb deaths, including but not limited to: Taking on a monster you can't beat, insulting a despotic royal and sleeping with his wife, and trying to find out what properties black powder has when introduced to a dragon's stomach with the Spark spell, among others"... Live, lived examples, one and all...

I actually love when I'm playing and the GM throws something huge we can't beat at us. Means I run the hell away and have something to work towards to beat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Pan wrote:
This illustrates the combat as war mentality real well. The party shouldnt assume every encounter will be an apropriate challenge for them. Either you risk death by trying to even the odds, or you leave be and find someone your own size.

True, but many I've gamed with recently seem to think that way. Thus my 'expect to die' rule, which I'm paraphrasing when I say it like that. I have explanations after every rule, which in this one's case, is "Dumb things lead to dumb deaths, including but not limited to: Taking on a monster you can't beat, insulting a despotic royal and sleeping with his wife, and trying to find out what properties black powder has when introduced to a dragon's stomach with the Spark spell, among others"... Live, lived examples, one and all...

I actually love when I'm playing and the GM throws something huge we can't beat at us. Means I run the hell away and have something to work towards to beat.

Agreed except for one caveat. The current rules make it nearly impossible to run away from anything dangerous enough to run away from. Unless of course you are willing to leave at least one behind as bait. But most groups don't want to do that right off the bat, so they will attempt some sort of fighting withdrawl. With the huge damage short fight aspects of the game, that can easily become a TPK before you realize it.

It seems rare that you can learn an encounter is too tough to win, too tough for a fighting withdrawl, and something you can get away from all quick enough to not already be dead.

There are exceptions to this.
There are a few dangerous opponents that are slow or tied to a location.
There are a few GM's that understand the chase scene rules and use them well.


How did this thread escape the notice of my weird amalgam of Spider-Sense and Sauron's Burning-Eye until now!?!

What's been covered so far?

Art. New art is better. Somebody (Haladir?) linked the David Sutherland art for PC races from the AD&D PHB. Laughable when held up to Wayne Reynolds's Iconics. That said, David Trampier (R.I.P.), Jeff Easley, Larry Elmore, et al., meant so, so much to my lifelong love of Fantasy RPGs. They will always be viewed favorably by me. "Well, it either allows a magic-user to throw the various Bigby's hand spells, or it's a +2 backscratcher. So far we're not sure which..."

Wealth by Level. I'm an old gamer, therefore WBL is stupid. Nothing follows.

I think that's all for now. I'll keep a (god-)eye on this thread and chime in from time to time, now that it's been dotted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssian wrote:


What's been covered so far?

Don't worry about bringing things up again, most of us can't remember further back than 5 minutes ago anyway ;)


Matt Thomason wrote:
Don't worry about bringing things up again, most of us can't remember further back than 5 minutes ago anyway ;)

Haha. Ok, fair enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abyssian wrote:

"Well, it either allows a magic-user to throw the various Bigby's hand spells, or it's a +2 backscratcher. So far we're not sure which..."

For 30+ years I have longed to throw that into a treasure pile.


Bill Lumberg wrote:
Abyssian wrote:

"Well, it either allows a magic-user to throw the various Bigby's hand spells, or it's a +2 backscratcher. So far we're not sure which..."

For 30+ years I have longed to throw that into a treasure pile.

Alas, my friend, Bigby isn't OGL. Throw it into any home game hoard for sure, though!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember the cartoon in the 1st ed DMG where the heavily armoured warrior has jumped into the arms of a wizard because he's scared of a litle rust monster. The expession on the wizards face is priceless.

It was in the section that allowed you to randomly generate a dungeon corridor by corridor, room by room, random monster by random monster. We thought that was role-playing back then.


Random. Generators.

These are 2 words that younger gamers seem to lose their minds over. "A WYVERN?" one player exclaimed; they were APL 2. It was on my random generator for wandering monsters. It was the most powerful, but it was on there, and I rolled it.

Sometimes life throws you a wyvern, deal with it.

Also creating things. Younger gamers are amazed that I come up with the adventures I do. Well I might come up with the ideas, but most of the actual crunch comes from tables: random weather, what's in the next hex, even the old random dungeon generators from the 1e DMG.

Seriously, so much writer's block has dissipated in the face of a half dozen random generators. Heck, my current homebrew was nearly ALL random.

I grabbed the Gamemastery Guide and rolled up a terrain type for where to place a major city. I randomly rolled the stats of the settlement as well. Then I grabbed a sheet of hex graph paper out of an old binder and started in the middle. I went out in all directions making random rolls for the terrain. Finally I filled in some details like a river and some interesting individual features.

I think if more people used random generators there'd be a healthier respect for running away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started playing in 1981 through school-friends (a lot of whom still play and have passed it down through the generations). We played relentlessly with the energy of youth, weekend sessions, late night sessions (read all night) and taking turns at each others houses.

First game was AD&D, first love was Runequest and Glorantha, often flirted with Chivalry and Sorcery, Traveller, Aftermath, and got married to Rolemaster (1).

I prefer campaigns, players buy into their characters more and the 'real immortal' elements of roleplaying happen to these characters, the stories that get handed down, the epic fights and deaths, etc.

I also prefer rolled stats and character histories (both as a player and a DM) point buy is too cynically formulaic for my tastes (I also can handle having poorer stats than the next guy without it limiting my involvement in the game). It helps each character feel 'unique' even in a rules framework way.

And finally we tend to play mainly low level, character driven games, so I've never had a 20th level character and so capstones, epic levels etc. never enter my thinking. I think the groups I play in just found high-level play more about the rules and ultimately less fulfilling.

Anyhow, I've bored you enough, welcome!


Haladir wrote:

I'm actually with JJ on this-- I never liked psioncs, and wished it had been treated just as another kind of magic-- if at all.

I hated psionics way back to 1st edition AD&D. If a PC actually made a psionics check, then the rest of us knew that he'd regularly be engaging in psionic combat one-on-one with the GM every session or two. And if that happened, the rest of us might as well walk over to the pizza joint down the street and play pinball or Defender for an hour..

Yeah, that's why I still hate Psionics.


strayshift wrote:

I started playing in 1981 through school-friends (a lot of whom still play and have passed it down through the generations). We played relentlessly with the energy of youth, weekend sessions, late night sessions (read all night) and taking turns at each others houses.

First game was AD&D, first love was Runequest and Glorantha, often flirted with Chivalry and Sorcery, Traveller,

Same here. Played nearly all weekend.

Few can remember C&S. Most just failed their sanity check.....


I started with AD&D sometime around 1983 when my dad introduced me to it. He had been playing with friends for several years by that point. We upgraded to 2nd ed when it came out all the way through the revised edition. We didn't go overboard buying all the books, just the ones that caught our fancy for specific features.

After our Pathfinder session last Saturday, we were talking about rules differences as we almost always do. My dad still prefers OD&D while I think AD&D was the best version released. One of the other guys in the group and I came to the conclusion that if 2nd ed had included the weapon mastery charts from OD&D it would have been the perfect rule set.

The biggest problem my dad has, and I mostly agree with, is that as rule sets get more mechanics heavy the imaginative aspect decreases. People using diplomacy skill rolls instead of actually playing out an encounter for example. Now instead of saying "I want to do X," people end up saying "What feats/skills do I need to do X?" I know this is just a generalization, but spending time on the Paizo fora more often than not gives me an increasingly negative outlook on the future of the hobby.


^ It is played that way by some (unfortunately) but I see plenty of gamers doing both, rolling the dice and playing out the results. The game only needs to be as rule heavy as you want it. Thankfully there's plenty of games offering a 'theater of the mind' play style which requires lots of imagination.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


I played through the original Tomb of Horrors, and saw the module afterward. The main corridor was so full of traps that even the people who made them couldn't survive walking down their own corridor. The preponderance of traps seemed so stupid. If they really didn't want you to go there, just brick it up!

It was bricked up, so-to-speak.

scenario spoiler:
Each of the entrances, including the two false entrances, was filled with sand that had to be dug and/or crawled-through.

As to why so many traps, there is an in-game reason, as well as a metagame reason.

The metagame reason is that sometimes people just like trying to shove their way through meat grinders. That's a style of play. No sense getting upset by it.

The in-game reason is that Acererak is a freakin' sadist and enjoys messing with people to the point of death.


Acerak (spelling?) was definitely a nasty shock...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of... I'd like to quote someone from another thread, and I have a question about it..

Quote:
In modern D&D, character death is viewed as a failure on the part of the DM. Very different than the old days where surviving to "Name Level" was actually a big deal

When the heck did this happen? I've always run and played with the assumption that character death would be a very real possibility. Thus, Rule 2 in my games (Expect to die, Horribly/Stupid plans lead to stupid deaths).

Maybe that's why I get so bored I keep jumping characters these days? I may not sacrifice combat effectiveness, but as games continue to be easy, I keep making characters that are easier and easier to kill...

Hell, I enjoy my characters dieing. Gives some fantastic story potential! Let the GM raise my fighter was a Death Knight or maybe something soulless. I'll come back with a character that's a member of my last one's family, and is questing to save their soul from some archfiend or something.

All I know is... I hate when my characters die doing some awesome martyr thing to save the day... And the DM just randomly revives me without asking me. THAT seriously peeves me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, I expect to challenge the players and I've done my job if I provide an enjoyable, difficult adventure that challenged their brains and tactics leaving the players to barely scrape through just about intact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
Acerak (spelling?) was definitely a nasty shock...

I had a player with a quasit familiar make it all the way to the end, and Acerak. They get to him, do a lot of damage and he still doesn't die so he announces in character "HOW DO YOU KILL THIS THING?" Another player looks at him and says "why not just ask your pet? you get 6 questions a week right?" He'd never used the Commune function of his familiar so I'd forgotten about it.

They were given specific instructions. That's how Acerak finally died in my game... after 3 runs through the ToH!


In my game, Acererak ate a honking big explosion from one of his own traps a few rooms back. It was... Sort of obvious. :-)


Yeah Artie, I get the whole "no death" thing. I hadn't experienced it and thought it was an urban legend on the forums for a while. Then I had some players who were literally horrified by the death of an animal companion. Suddenly when they realized the threat of death was real in my games they were so skittish and paranoid. Not in a fun way but in a "I'm not really having fun but I'm trying to stay with the campaign" way. Unfortunately my GMing style after that just wasn't a match for these players and they left my table soon after.

My current campaign I warn all my players at their intro to it: "Many of your characters will die. This campaign is lethal as it's a megadungeon with lots of smaller quests and exploration besides. Resurrection is a possibility so if you like this guy and want to keep him, you can. But death is an inevitability, a foregone conclusion. I'm not saying this to scare you but rather so there's no misconception: I'm not a killer GM but there are things in this game designed to kill PCs and they are included in my game."

In total I've had 2 character deaths in 2 levels. They've both been accepted with a mixture of gratitude and awe. I don't take them lightly and both have had the opportunity to come back though neither took it. I use a lot of random encounter tables with a high end of CR at APL +3; on top of that I don't pull any punches. Monsters and villains are played with their own motivations and while sometimes it's to capture, other times its to destroy. Since my rolls are in the open in combat there's no mistake - sometimes the monster hits and deals 15 damage when you're at 1 HP.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Speaking of... I'd like to quote someone from another thread, and I have a question about it..

Quote:
In modern D&D, character death is viewed as a failure on the part of the DM. Very different than the old days where surviving to "Name Level" was actually a big deal

When the heck did this happen? I've always run and played with the assumption that character death would be a very real possibility. Thus, Rule 2 in my games (Expect to die, Horribly/Stupid plans lead to stupid deaths).

Maybe that's why I get so bored I keep jumping characters these days? I may not sacrifice combat effectiveness, but as games continue to be easy, I keep making characters that are easier and easier to kill...

Hell, I enjoy my characters dieing. Gives some fantastic story potential! Let the GM raise my fighter was a Death Knight or maybe something soulless. I'll come back with a character that's a member of my last one's family, and is questing to save their soul from some archfiend or something.

All I know is... I hate when my characters die doing some awesome martyr thing to save the day... And the DM just randomly revives me without asking me. THAT seriously peeves me.

My belief is this happened when the DM-centric rules of AD&D were replaced with the player-centric rules of 3.x. My group plays the way you and Mark Hoover play. We try to hold back a bit if a TPK is imminent, but they do still happen from time to time. We tend to keep kill counts. I think I've hit the highest running Shackled City.


DrDeth wrote:
Haladir wrote:

I'm actually with JJ on this-- I never liked psioncs, and wished it had been treated just as another kind of magic-- if at all.

I hated psionics way back to 1st edition AD&D. If a PC actually made a psionics check, then the rest of us knew that he'd regularly be engaging in psionic combat one-on-one with the GM every session or two. And if that happened, the rest of us might as well walk over to the pizza joint down the street and play pinball or Defender for an hour..

Yeah, that's why I still hate Psionics.

Oh, I agree the original psionics seemed to be designed more for a 1-on-1 game rather than a group. it was very clunky, didn't work that well, and took forever.

I was talking about the new version from DSP. It is nothing like that.
.
.

Simon Legrande wrote:

...

The biggest problem my dad has, and I mostly agree with, is that as rule sets get more mechanics heavy the imaginative aspect decreases. People using diplomacy skill rolls instead of actually playing out an encounter for example. Now instead of saying "I want to do X," people end up saying "What feats/skills do I need to do X?" I know this is just a generalization, but spending time on the Paizo fora more often than not gives me an increasingly negative outlook on the future of the hobby.

I would agree there is some of that. Especially for beginners. I think as people keep playing with encouragement/examples from the GM and fellow players, most will open up more and start trying things out.

I think it also more of an inclusive thing that allows more people to play. There are more varied types of personalities playing the game now than there used to be. Many of the people that I know who refuse to role play anything (just want to name a skill and roll the dice) simply would not have played in our groups back in basic D&D.

There are some very loose - rules light systems out there. They seem to attract only the frustrated actor type players. I don't like those systems nearly as well. I would still give it a go if my group wanted to try it, but I like knowing what is possible/likely not just trying to guess what the GM might imagine is possible/likely this day.


@Mark- That megadungeon sounds like hella fun Mark. I think I'd enjoy that one very much. While I'd go into it with the intent to live, I'd view the fact of character death as a possibility to try out a new concept. Provided the character isn't integral to whatever quest/exploration/party make up at the time. I've got about.... Oh... 70 or so concepts/theorycrafts in the works, and more just keep popping up as I find new races/archetypes/etc. I'll probably only get maybe three of them into a game in the next year?

@Simon- Most likely... To be honest I kind of miss the DM being the one to quite literally control everything. I was much less worried over what stuff I was taking, what gear I had, and much more into just playing the dern story.

That said... I do tend to avoid TPKs whenever I can. I'll admit to almost knee-jerking at it and fudging some rolls when I miscalculated how wicked certain creatures could be... I try not to, but I've learned first hand how bloody hard it is to keep a months or years long campaign going when TPKs happen. If I've overestimated the PC's potential, I'll hold back a bit. Maybe that one won't flank, this one will find something about the fighter smells tasty, instead of the squishy rogue that's about to poke it in the rump for massive damage.

Of course.... If the PCs rush head long into a Mythic Dracolich's lair with hordes of evil minions? No mercy for Leeroy Jenkins.

Seriously though. Pretty much everyone in this thread sounds fun to game with. Just makes me seethe a bit more about last Saturday.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:

...

Seriously though. Pretty much everyone in this thread sounds fun to game with. Just makes me seethe a bit more about last Saturday.

There are bad groups out there. (There are threads devoted to describing them.) Well I guess it would be better to say there are group mismatches out there. They have fun gaming their way and it is not your way.

When you find yourself in one of those mismatches, don't let it get you too down. Just keep looking (online if nothing else) until you find a group that fits your style well enough to have fun.

Problem is finding them. The solid stable groups tend to be and remain full most of the time. The groups that are always looking for new members tend to be those with 'issues' that many people find objectionable. That's why they're still looking.

I've been using PFS events to find players. After I've played (or GM's) a few PFS scenarios with a guy I can usually tell fairly well if he is going to mesh with me and my group. If yes, then I invite him to our next home game. If no, well then I will occasionally see him at other PFS events and no big deal. There are only 1 or 2 people that I actively try to avoid sitting at a table with them.


Started in 1982 aged 8. My brother's friend's mum DM'ed B2 Keep on the Borderlands using the Basic Rules AND the ADnD Dungeon Master's Guide! I was told to play a halfling and dutifully did, not really understanding much of what was going on but gratified to be with my big brother and his high school buddy playing some magical game of mystical warriors and savage legendary beasts.

Most memorable moment was when we found the minotaur's treasure in the Caves of Chaos and neither the DM nor us couldn't work out whether there were three gems worth a few hundred gp each or a bunch of gems worth millions altogether. Gotta love commas and spaces....

I DM'ed a lot for my brother and me, and wrote adventures almost from the get go, there was even a point where I played a party of PC's myself and DM'ed using the random dungeon generator in the back of the DMG and made wise decisions (or unwise if that seemed more in character) for players AND monsters.

* Funny thing about random generators - that dungeon made a LOT of sense in terms of cavern and room size and proximity to others, as well as the monsters within. Sure I made a lot of executive decisions but they all flowed very simply and easily and the whole thing made a lot more sense than many adventures I have seen published.

I also used the event generator from 1e's Oriental Adventures - it made THE most gripping series of events that made sense in order, and it was all just random die rolls BEFORE I even wove a story around it.

* Fond memory - when the paladin rode a wheelysled from the Barrier Peaks spacecraft over Nosnra's feast table in the Hill Giant steading. My brothers party is still paused somewhere in D1-2 waiting for their players to pick them up again decades later.

* My brother and I still use Beek Gwenders, Fonkin Hoddypeak, Redmod Dumple and Faffle Dweo'mercraefft as secret brother' cant but our favorite of all time is Snigrot Dogroot from N1. That is a stellar adventure. Cultists!

* I agree that uber-optimised characters are incredibly boring to play with and their players are rarely modest or understanding. This has been borne out by experience. I would not know how to optimise to save my life, though I have been tempted to study a build thread then just as quickly shuddered realised that even if I did I still wouldn't understand what I had.

* I have no empathy for games in which the threat of death is non-existent. It maybe because I like having a new character. Which is not to say I do not invest in my characters - I do, and I roleplay them to the hilt. Or belt. Or whatever they are wearing.

* As an aside, someone mentioned the cartoon in a Dragon magazine where the 1st level character is wearing a pot on his head. I never saw that, but my favorite is where these very simply attired fighters with basic weapons and armor are rather nervously eyeing a pair of brutal looking warriors with every conceivable bludgeoning, hafted, bladed, chain linked weapon. More armor spikes than an armor spikes thread, and one is obviously a half-Orc or some exotic race. The basic characters are saying -" I bet they are Advanced. " Too funny. Loved the DMG cartoons about the DnD players playing Papers and Paychecks.

* Lots of folk wax lyrical about Appendix N or whatever it is - the one with the list of reference books. Most of the books in that list aren't interesting for me, though I have a soft spot for Conan (likely somewhere near my femoral artery, Cimmerian) - for me the Appendices I like are the random tables of dungeon furnishings, laboratory equipment, city dwellers. Talk about Esoteric Incunabula (my homage to Unearthed Arcana). I knew so many different terms - even if some of them meant nothing to me - trull, doxy, strumpet etc. The Paizo GMG page with assorted nomenclature is a poor shadow of those Appendices...

* Anyhoo, it's been nice reminiscing. ;)


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Haladir wrote:

I'm actually with JJ on this-- I never liked psioncs, and wished it had been treated just as another kind of magic-- if at all.

I hated psionics way back to 1st edition AD&D. If a PC actually made a psionics check, then the rest of us knew that he'd regularly be engaging in psionic combat one-on-one with the GM every session or two. And if that happened, the rest of us might as well walk over to the pizza joint down the street and play pinball or Defender for an hour..

Yeah, that's why I still hate Psionics.

Oh, I agree the original psionics seemed to be designed more for a 1-on-1 game rather than a group. it was very clunky, didn't work that well, and took forever.

I was talking about the new version from DSP. It is nothing like that.

I know the DSP stuff isn't like that-- I've read a friend's copy. DSP did a fantastic job with the material. It's a Pathfinderized version of the 3.5 Psionics system. (Which itself is essentially the AD&D 2nd Editiion psionics system.)

My problem with the 3.x psionics system is that it effectively duplicates the effects of the regular magic system with completely different and incompatible game mechanics. This is a philosophical issue I have with game design: I don't think that a game should have multiple different game mechanic systems that do more-or-less the same thing.

But further discussion of psionics systems would be thread-jacking. Let's either start a new thread or join one of the many existing ones to continue, if you're so inclined.


I started with the D&D blue box back in 1979 when I was 10. My Godmother's oldest son had played before, and he was DM. He introduced his brother, myself, and my older brother to the game. We had a party of 4 (3 PCs and 1 NPC). I played the thief, my brother the wizard, my younger Godbrother the fighter, and the NPC was the cleric. We eventually moved onto the AD&D 1st Ed. hardback books later that year. We got a lot of things wrong (my thief has 18/00 strength), but it was a fun learning experience, and it left a strong impression on me. Of all the past times that I have been involved with over the years, this is the only one I've stuck with.

D&D led to many other games: Gamma World, Boot Hill, Traveller, Star Frontiers, Call of Cthulhu (Which I still love, but never get to play), but D&D (and now Pathfinder) was the one I always went back to.

There have been things I have liked and disliked about each edition's rules, but I think I really started to enjoy the game once the class restrictions were eliminated, and you could basically play anything in any class. That just seemed to make more sense to me.

I love a good heroic campaign. My job is to make it tough and challenging, but I don't like to go after my players, unless they do something blatantly stupid ("I poke the dragon with a stick to see if he's really asleep"). I've always been of the opinion that if my players walk away from a session saying "Wow, we barely got out of that, but it was a lot of fun," then I've done my job.


Mark Hoover wrote:

Yeah Artie, I get the whole "no death" thing. I hadn't experienced it and thought it was an urban legend on the forums for a while. Then I had some players who were literally horrified by the death of an animal companion. Suddenly when they realized the threat of death was real in my games they were so skittish and paranoid. Not in a fun way but in a "I'm not really having fun but I'm trying to stay with the campaign" way. Unfortunately my GMing style after that just wasn't a match for these players and they left my table soon after.

My current campaign I warn all my players at their intro to it: "Many of your characters will die. This campaign is lethal as it's a megadungeon with lots of smaller quests and exploration besides. Resurrection is a possibility so if you like this guy and want to keep him, you can. But death is an inevitability, a foregone conclusion. I'm not saying this to scare you but rather so there's no misconception: I'm not a killer GM but there are things in this game designed to kill PCs and they are included in my game."

In total I've had 2 character deaths in 2 levels. They've both been accepted with a mixture of gratitude and awe. I don't take them lightly and both have had the opportunity to come back though neither took it. I use a lot of random encounter tables with a high end of CR at APL +3; on top of that I don't pull any punches. Monsters and villains are played with their own motivations and while sometimes it's to capture, other times its to destroy. Since my rolls are in the open in combat there's no mistake - sometimes the monster hits and deals 15 damage when you're at 1 HP.

Very much my approach too, there is an expectation also of forward planning, dialogue and co-operation. E.g. You have no rogue? Well I'm sorry but at some point there will be traps and locked doors/objects. I suggest you discuss how you respond to these...

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Best memory playing as a ten year old GM with the D&D white box together with paper and pencil - no figures or grids:

"You are surprised by 35 Berserkers hiding in the corner of the 10' x 10' room you just entered."

Those were the days.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chocolate Thief wrote:

Best memory playing as a ten year old GM with the D&D white box together with paper and pencil - no figures or grids:

"You are surprised by 35 Berserkers hiding in the corner of the 10' x 10' room you just entered."

Those were the days.

I'd be surprised too!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my very first AD&D adventure (1st ed) (I'd been DMed through a solo T&T adventure before; otherwise this was my first role-playing) I was the only player and both the DM and I were 13. I started with a fighter/magic-user/thief 1/1/1 half-elf and he was the only character.

Looking back, the DM was extremely soft on me but I didn't know that at the time.

In one dungeon I went from 1/1/1 to something like 13/13/18. I can't remember sleeping. The DM also felt that non-human maximum levels were stupid, so didn't use them.

At one point I opened yet another door. I saw three white dragons in a 10-foot square room. I said 'Paralyse, paralyse, paralyse!' and knocked three charges off my Staff of Power, my genie scooped all their treasure into his bottle and I closed the door, moved 5-feet to the next door and opened it.

I saw a room full of 100 hobgoblins. I didn't ask how big the room was. I closed the door, remarking that they probably didn't have any good treasure. I don't know if they ever noticed me; they certainly didn't pursue me. Perhaps the sight of a lone half-elven warrior with a pseudo-dragon familiar was too scary. : /

BTW, this was the same character (and same DM) that successfully solo'd the Tomb of Horrors and got the Hand of Vecna for his trouble.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

At one point I opened yet another door. I saw three white dragons in a 10-foot square room. I said 'Paralyse, paralyse, paralyse!' and knocked three charges off my Staff of Power, my genie scooped all their treasure into his bottle and I closed the door, moved 5-feet to the next door and opened it.

I saw a room full of 100 hobgoblins. I didn't ask how big the room was. I closed the door, remarking that they probably didn't have any good treasure. I don't know if they ever noticed me; they certainly didn't pursue me. Perhaps the sight of a lone half-elven warrior with a pseudo-dragon familiar was too scary. : /

BTW, this was the same character (and same DM) that successfully solo'd the Tomb of Horrors and got the Hand of Vecna for his trouble.

And the kids these days think they know what gaming is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have played D&D since 1974.

Loved every edition of the game except for 4e, which I tried but didn't really like. Pathfinder is the version of the rules I like best and will stay with, though I will maybe check out D&D Next, if nothing else, to see how the game I've played since '74 has been evolving.

Someone asked me how long I been playing and I said since 1974. They asked how much time does that represent. Didn't really think about it at the time but I was curious just how much time I have spent playing D&D and did a mathematical exercise based on my play habits. I have figure out that as of the last few months, I have played 5000 hours, most of that time as the DM.

And I have had a blast almost the entire time. Sure, there was the occasional game session where circumstances or personalities around the table made the game a chore rather than a pleasure but for the most part, I have enjoyed nearly every moment.

I have played other fantasy RPGs over the years. Runequest, check. Rolemaster, check. Tunnels & Trolls, check. Gurps, check. Chivary and Sorcery, check.

Any one remember Powers and Perils by Avalon? Check. Hands up anyone one who played Dragonquest by SPI? Check.

Some interesting 'facts' about myself.

Most players I have DMed in one play session - 14 (this was 1e/ early 2e where the concept of a party size was not the default 4 or 5 people it is today but how many people you could get around the table, or in this case, into the room)

Number of characters KIA while I was DM - 134. I put skull stickers from a halloween sticker set on the back of my DM screens for each character killed. Not because I am a killer DM and wanted to bragging rights but as a visual reminder to players that my campaigns have consequences. A new player at my table once asked me, upon seeing the skulls, if I was a Killer DM. I told him, no, my game has consequences and my campaign is not run in the land of the Care Bears nor are we playing My Little Pony. Usually defines the expectations right there.

A Original Member of the Rat Bastard DM Club. Yep, I've been around since being called a Rat Bastard was what DMs aspired to. I live for the rolled eyes, the head and face palms, the looks of anguish on faces and the many expletives I have heard over the years. I still get called a Rat Bastard by my players every now and then, so my membership is still in good standing.

Number of characters I have played in one shots, conventions, and campaigns, but mostly campaigns - 67 Yes, I play whenever I can as being the sole DM can get tiresome after a while. At times, I am DMing in one campaign and I am a player in someone else campaign at the same time. Keeps me fresh. And there is some character concepts that I want to play but probably will never get to, since I have so many.

Number of characters of mine that have died since 1974 - 3. Yes, 3, as odd and as unlikely as that is. I play my characters very tactically, with an awareness of my surroundings and a uncanny sense of when I am getting in over my head. I call it playing within my character's capabilities. Others would call it risk management. Gamers in groups that I have played with over the years call me 'charmed luck' or having a horseshoe up my arse.

On that note just above: The Sole Survivor Award - 23. The number of times the rest of the party has died leaving me the sole survivor. In one campaign, I was sole survivor three times. It is not unusual at the end of the campaign for me to be the only original character, with all the other characters having died at least once.

APs completed either as a player or as the DM:

Age of Worms
Savage Tide
War of the Burning Sky
The Drow War
Rise of the Runelords
Curse of the Crimson Throne
Second Darkness
Legacy of Fire
Council of Thieves
Carrion Crown
Jade Regent
Serpent's Skull
Shattered Star
Skull and Shackles

APs that didn't finish due to circumstances or in progress:

Reign of Winter - (In progress)
Shackled City -(early nearly TPK with me as sole survivor. Players didn't want to continue so different campaign)
Kingmaker - (players didn't like for some reason and dropped the campaign halfway through)

This post is probably too damn long as it is. Thanks for reading for those who toughed it out so far with my ramblings. I may post later of some of the more memorable moments I had in 40 years playing this wonderful game.


Black Moria wrote:
I have played D&D since 1974.

That is an impressive Gamer Resume, Black Moria. Thanks for sharing. *tips hat*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was one of those mythical pure players, who introduced himself to the game, back in 1984. No one showed me the game before I picked it up, I taught myself everything. The Red Box was that good--it was honestly possible with that, to go from never-seeing-the-game-before to DM. I was a DM before I ever became a player.

Oh, how the very concept of planes of existence warped my brain for weeks when I first heard about it!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I was one of those mythical pure players, who introduced himself to the game, back in 1984. No one showed me the game before I picked it up, I taught myself everything. The Red Box was that good--it was honestly possible with that, to go from never-seeing-the-game-before to DM. I was a DM before I ever became a player.

I had the same experience, albeit, 1985.

Shadow Lodge

I noticed that some people said that they played the game Traveller, so I'll mention here something I ran across. There is a kickstarter for a tv pilot for a spinward marches traveller show.

Has anyone else seen this?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/d20e/spinward-traveller-tv-pilot


Black Moria wrote:

I have played D&D since 1974.

Loved every edition of the game except for 4e, which I tried but didn't really like. Pathfinder is the version of the rules I like best and will stay with, though I will maybe check out D&D Next, if nothing else, to see how the game I've played since '74 has been evolving.

I have played other fantasy RPGs over the years. Runequest, check. Rolemaster, check. Tunnels & Trolls, check. Gurps, check. Chivary and Sorcery, check.

Any one remember Powers and Perils by Avalon? Check. Hands up anyone one who played Dragonquest by SPI? Check.

(Gives secret Grognard handshake)

I started playing & DMing in 1974. Possibly the first Dungeon in CA.

Invented the Thief class.

Published the Manual of Aurania in 1977 (there was an earlier printing)

Neve replayed Rolemaster, played the rest and many more. Bunnies & Burrows. Both Gygaxes & Arnesons own later published competitors.

Powers & Perils was horrible, but looked great.

For Roleplaying I still like AD&D, but can't find a game. 3.5 is OK, as long as it doesn't get out of control or too high level. I have one "on hold' 4th Ed game, which since we have a great DM is pretty cool.

Mostly I play and prefer Pathfinder.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

I noticed that some people said that they played the game Traveller, so I'll mention here something I ran across. There is a kickstarter for a tv pilot for a spinward marches traveller show.

Has anyone else seen this?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/d20e/spinward-traveller-tv-pilot

I haven't seen the Kickstarter, but I'd watch that show.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Invented the Thief class.

That would indeed put you in the "old timer" category!

151 to 200 of 476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The Old Timer Community Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.