I think the Zone system would work fine. Especially since as you are using it here, it is pretty much a slightly more nuanced theatre of the mind.
For example, if someone wants to enact a flank, and they are in the same zone as their both their opponent *and* their ally - hey presto it probably works. As you say, it might need a little more “can I do x” on the part of the player, and wait for the DM to say yes or no, which, while it does slow down PbP, isn’t world breaking…
Why the interest in PF1? Looking to finagle someone into running PF1 rather than S+W?
Hmmmm, that was not the plan, but now that you talk about it… I may do some finagling (if that word even exists).
Actually I am pondering changing this game into the PF1e ruleset, and wanted to hear everyone’s opinion about it.
I am not disliking OSwReign per se, but I don’t feel it is bringing anything new or particularly interesting to the table, apart from the ‘zone combat’ stuff, and the fact I am feeling everyone seems to be much less tied down to dice rolls in out of combat situations, whether social interaction or investigation, or whatever.
Apart from that, which is pretty good don’t get me wrong, I think I just feel more comfortable with PF1e as a ruleset in general, and I like the support afforded by the rules framework they put together. So perhaps we could have the best of both worlds, keeping the same attitude and behavior, but playing PF1e?
Now… The second half of it is the fact I detest how the multiplicity of options in PF1e is used for min-maxing theorycrafting builds which make Fighters or Rogues irrelevant, pile on bonuses to break the math, and conjugate illogical feats and traits for maximum efficiency without any regard for character fluff. That being said, I don’t think this would ever be an issue with this group, but you are still my test subjects MUAHAHAHAHA!! So this would turn into a Core Only PF1e game, with no Traits.
Thoughts?
I’m up for it. I’m a terrible min-maxer, by which I mean I’m terrible at it, and am just as likely ro make a completely hopeless character with…lots…of…flavor.
I’m happy with the current lack of trying to roll for every possible skill/social interaction/attempt to go to sleep in this game. It makes the narrative more pushed by character actions rather than players pushing the narrative by throwing dice and getting the DM to adjudicate the results.
Given I’m a human fighter, it won’t be much of a stretch to convert. Do we keep stats as they are? Regardless, I’ve been reading the “Is there a “Bad” stat” thread over in the PF2 Forums, and been wavering over my thoughts on just how to play low Wis, low Int characters - I think sometimes you could play such a character as of nominally average intelligence who just happens to be hopeless at the mechanical/game expressions/interactions of saves, skills etc. Which to be honest, seems to be how I have played Ārwulf, desires to set cottages alight notwithstanding…
Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!
Given I’m a human fighter, it won’t be much of a stretch to convert. Do we keep stats as they are? Regardless, I’ve been reading the “Is there a “Bad” stat” thread over in the PF2 Forums, and been wavering over my thoughts on just how to play low Wis, low Int characters - I think sometimes you could play such a character as of nominally average intelligence who just happens to be hopeless at the mechanical/game expressions/interactions of saves, skills etc. Which to be honest, seems to be how I have played Ārwulf, desires to set cottages alight notwithstanding…
Yeah, I would say keep stats as they are, and we’ll see if it ‘breaks’ anything.
Not sure I am following the idea for the low Wis and Int - can you give me an example?
PF1e is fine by me, Lewill should be easy to convert over enough. Any timeframe on this?
No specific timeframe - we are now waiting on Sly's post to continue with the fight. Let’s see how that one turns out, then as soon as we have some sort of ‘downtime’ we can port over the characters.
Still hoping to hear from the rest of the crew though ;)
PF1 is an old coat for me chief os no issues pulling that one on. Core is fine, but honestly think the strength of PF1 is its variety... and I love traits lol. Sly will be a Rogue working to Assassin prestige class.
Apologies - was convinced I'd posted in the fight - will get on that.
@OSGMO: Put simply, it is the difference between narrative, actual stupidity and mere ineptitude for the mechanical needs of Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma. Essentially, do I have to play my low mental stat character as a bimbo, rube, idiot-savant etc or can I play them as “well within the normal range” just without any acumen for skills (all three), Will saves (Wis) or social encounters (Cha). It came up in the now locked* “Is there a “Bad” stat thread” and made me think about it a little deeper.
* possibly locked due to the usual argumentativeness of posters but also claims that arguments about ableism and social “harms” of using numbers to define “intelligence” were made in bad faith but I’m not particularly interested in going down any of those rabbit holes…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, if Ārwulf dies in this battle, I get to roll up a new, non-pryomantic character!
@OSGMO: Put simply, it is the difference between narrative, actual stupidity and mere ineptitude for the mechanical needs of Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma. Essentially, do I have to play my low mental stat character as a bimbo, rube, idiot-savant etc or can I play them as “well within the normal range” just without any acumen for skills (all three), Will saves (Wis) or social encounters (Cha). It came up in the now locked* “Is there a “Bad” stat thread” and made me think about it a little deeper.
* possibly locked due to the usual argumentativeness of posters but also claims that arguments about ableism and social “harms” of using numbers to define “intelligence” were made in bad faith but I’m not particularly interested in going down any of those rabbit holes…
Got it. Well... This is a gray area right. When I started DMing I would hold up my players with things like those - 'Your character is too dumb to know that' or 'Your character is so ugly, no one is willing to talk to you' and stuff along those lines :D
It gets old fast, and shortly thereafter in my group we started doing it a bit differently. Fact is as editions progressed, mechanical disadvantages started becoming more 'granular', and you can just roll with those if you want - there will be negative reactions for a low Charisma, or Perception/other skills penalties associated to a low Wisdom and/or Int, etc, etc. Couple that with the 'option' for a player to roleplay it, and add depth to their characters if they want, and I think you have a pretty decent range of options to 'deal with' low stats.
From my end, I think they should work as guidelines in some cases and hard rules in others - if the guy with Charisma 6 every once in a while shines with a brilliant argument or post in a specific situation that's great, but if he/she constantly tries to be the negotiator/diplomat, it will probably not go well (but it is perfectly cool and can be really entertaining to make it a RP thing - maybe he is a brute but does not realize it?). Same thing with the low Int guy always trying to be the 'lead' in handling puzzle/tricks/investigations, so on and so forth.
I also tend to enforce encumbrance rules, because I got sick and tired of seeing people dumping Str.
Bottom line, I am not a stickler for what your stats 'say', but I trust there should be an 'unwritten agreement' between players and DM - if you do not want to play your character as a malformed brute because of your Charisma 6 that is fine by me. But don't try to play him as a charmed prince, and pretend your Charisma is NOT 6 (with the caveat I pointed out above). But if you keep at it, and roleplay it well, who knows? Maybe I will reward you with a Charisma bonus in some situations, or heck, maybe even a Charisma point if I am so inclined.
That all makes sense and pretty much aligns with what I’m getting at - it’s a fine line that provides possibility rather than devout stricture, but like any fine line there is a definite limit.
I particularly like the granularity you are open to providing as the GM, and the rewards (ability point) sound like plausible growth/evolution.
Happy New Year everyone ;)
Happy New Year gang - Lang May Yer Lums Reek as we say in this part o' Scotland.
Drawing a weapon is one of the things
you can do in tandem with your movement and action.
So if your question is whether you can draw and attack in the same round, I would say yes.
Happy New years to all. Hopefully the characters will still be around long enough to enjoy the adventure. :-)
As far as PF1... My first inclination is to decline as having two terrible stats in a game that uses skills is not fun... particularly as they are in two important interaction areas. I also got turned off on PF1 due to the ridiculous number of options available and the ability to unbalance things easily. I found that PF1 encouraged building one-trick ponies which is why I love PF2 as it encourages balanced characters and parties. In fact I've been fighting to get the others in my longest campaign on these boards. (Hi BD). to switch first to 5E then to PF2 without much success.
However,... I like all the players in this game and if it the consensus I'll give it a try.
Hey Darcy, I wouldn't mind a game of 5e myself, but opinions will differ hehe.
I will agree that PF1 without restrictions can get out of hand (hence I like the removal of Traits and Feats outside of Core), but why do you feel PF2 encourages balanced characters?
What reason is there in PF2 for example, for a Fighter not to dump Cha or Int, apart from the same reasons you would find in PF1e, and which boil down to the type and preference of the player, whether he cares about min-max and stuff along those lines?
If I may, the thing I find about PF2 is not so much as players are balanced (which they are) but more that you don’t have enough attribute bonuses around to…dump anything. You get 9 pairs of +2 to add to your character (okay, so maybe with flaws you get 10, but I think the Remaster is heading toward or has dropping/dropped flaws). That’s it. So really, you’re mostly heading toward “not being very broad” instead of “dumped Int or Cha or Str”. I’d much prefer rolling for stats, but the “tight math” of PF2 doesn’t really work as well - or so it is said. I’m fairly certain the “tight math” is for vanilla games and not for GMs who can tweak the system to accommodate the outliers of crazy things like “rolled stats that might be slightly higher or lower (or a lot)” than the default.
My biggest gripe with PF2 is that characters are a little cornered into what they can and can’t do, and the base attribute array I feel cements that. The Free Archetype variant is almost becoming the default as it lets characters branch out a little, but again, those attributes don’t let you go too far. Sure you get attribute increases, but they are more to increase what power/capability you have, not spread into other skillsets. And skills are another thing I find hard to cope with. Intelligence (as in PF1) determines what extra skills you start with, but gaining new skills I don’t get yet, nor at what rate they increase…
Mostly though, I think PF2 is a very elegant system that more than any other allows for the building blocks to be examined and adjusted.
Happy to hear scranford’s thoughts. But apart from this game and Daniel Stewart’s Lifepath concept, I’m all PF2 now.
And, as my earlier assertions about the prevalence of oldskool characters rolled using 3d6 with mental and physical deformities and generally being outlaws, vagabonds and ne’erdowells by either choice or happenstance, well, you get the picture. And that was before “Hindrances”. Our current party is a little…challenged! And I have no problem with that. Even with Ārwulf bleeding out on the ground before he got to set fire to the merest pantaloon.
Thank you for your perspective OSW. I was taking a look at character creation for PF2e and it reminded me you start with a 10 in everything instead of an 8. So that is basically how 'dump' stats are removed? By making sure no one has any penalties?
Our current party is a little…challenged!
I am not sure I agree with this assessment - I am not sure if the pace makes you feel differently, but so far you guys have been doing extremely well, and there has been no activity in which you have not met with success. You do not see it that way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I don’t mean mechanically, I mean socially. Woy’s thicker than the planks of the ship he used to ride, Ārwulf is a pyromaniac with a sideline in plague fetish, Calhoun wears a mask, Darcy’s a (currently) hungover klepto, Sly is borderline or actually sociopathic. Lewill is the only one “well within the normal range” and he’s….forgetful.
I’m having *absolutely* no problems with this game. I’m enjoying it immensely. Ārwulf’s doing great! Nothing he hasn’t done before…That reminds me, I better post for him…
I would argue that even socially, you guys have done well for yourselves. In fact, the only time things seem to not be going your way is when you decided to take the 'non-social' route.
[dice=Death Rattle, DC 10]1d20
”Klpth…..kkklpppb….glgggg….”
If you would be at 0HP then you would recover consciousness with 1HP, but yeah in this case I would say it should count as two successes towards the three needed to stabilize.
I would argue that even socially, you guys have done well for yourselves. In fact, the only time things seem to not be going your way is when you decided to take the 'non-social' route.
My point is, regardless of mechanics, we are a challenged bunch. It’s not a value/power statement. It’s a judgment of the way the mechanics (3d6), coupled with the ruleset (Hindrances) and the players (grogbeards) have in this case generated a coterie of misfits. But we’ve all seen the Breakfast Club, right? Just because the characters are challenged doesn’t mean they can’t succeed.
And I’m sure as far as Woy is concerned, this *is* the social route. Ārwulf definitely agrees. Most social encounters he has usually end up with him gurgling into his own vomit in some piss-stained alleyway on the outskirts of town…
If you would be at 0HP then you would recover consciousness with 1HP, but yeah in this case I would say it should count as two successes towards the three needed to stabilize.[dice=Death Rattle, DC 10]1d20
”Klpth…..kkklpppb….glgggg….”
Oh, is the three attempts a function of being at -2? So one success to get to -1, another to get to 0 and one more to 1 HP?
Or is it just at any time you hit negatives you need three successes to stabilise (and thus in this case stay at -2) but at least you aren’t going further down into the minuses? So confused…. (maybe you should read the rules OSW….)
If you would be at 0HP then you would recover consciousness with 1HP, but yeah in this case I would say it should count as two successes towards the three needed to stabilize.[dice=Death Rattle, DC 10]1d20
”Klpth…..kkklpppb….glgggg….”
Oh, is the three attempts a function of being at -2? So one success to get to -1, another to get to 0 and one more to 1 HP?
Or is it just at any time you hit negatives you need three successes to stabilise (and thus in this case stay at -2) but at least you aren’t going further down into the minuses? So confused…. (maybe you should read the rules OSW….)
Yep, you always need three successes to stabilize if on negative or 0HP. But if you are at 0hp, you would have a chance to actually wake up again. With 1HP. If you roll a 20.
I would argue that even socially, you guys have done well for yourselves. In fact, the only time things seem to not be going your way is when you decided to take the 'non-social' route.My point is, regardless of mechanics, we are a challenged bunch. It’s not a value/power statement. It’s a judgment of the way the mechanics (3d6), coupled with the ruleset (Hindrances) and the players (grogbeards) have in this case generated a coterie of misfits. But we’ve all seen the Breakfast Club, right? Just because the characters are challenged doesn’t mean they can’t succeed.
So do we think that rolling 3d6 down the line has riled your imagination in ways that starting with say... All stats at 10 would not? ;)
Do we think it is a good thing, a bad one, or just different?
In my opinion the way the math is treated is the difference in the games. to me the original releases of d20 (D&D 3.0/3.5, and Pathfinder 1) worked well in early levels, but it became very cumbersome (Especially for the GM to keep the math under control. Marry that with the number of unbalanced combinations available it became challenging to play and almost impossible to GM at higher levels.
D&D 5th attempted to fix this with the bounded accuracy which works, but to me it tends to become a game of trying to get advantage and avoid disadvantage, and as the game grew this remained the driving force. That's not wrong... but as options were added it became easier to both get advantage and cancel advantage. Also, the math while better did tend to creep at higher levels as the bonuses increased at a higher level than the challenges. In addition, as resources were used, the ability to balance encounters became more challenging.
Pathfinder 2E attempted to control the math as well, but instead of attempting to "suppress" it like 5E did they decided to adjust the math as you leveled up. By doing it this way a +1 bonus is as vital at level 15 as it is at level 1. Combine this with the (4) Levels of success and it becomes even more important as getting to that "Critical Success" becomes a goal as well as just succeeding.
This is what leads to the care with "Dump Stats". First of all, if you're proficient you add both your proficiency bonus and your level to these checks... so the ability modifier isn't the only bonus to these skills. You just get better at them every level. When you get skill increases you can either increase your proficiency in an existing skill or add a new one. In addition, the "downtime" rules allow you to retrain a skill you aren't happy with, or don't use. The fact that you can use Deception, or Intimidation to decrease the AC of your target becomes vital. We have a Barbarian in our tabletop game that was warned not to become a "One-trick Pony" but his experience with other systems caused him to not listen. I can't begin to count the number of times that another +1 or +2 would have resulted in a success or upgraded to a crit... but he continues to attack at -5, then -10, and gets frustrated. He took a CHA penalty, and no ranks in Deception or Intimidate, so he can't get that +1 without a lucky roll. At level three he plans on taking the Intimidate skill, now that he sees that utility is important in PF2. Even with his -1-ability modifier (Which I tried to talk him out of). he'll be at a +4 to intimidate. So, for that third action a +4 Intimidate is probably more effective than a -10 Melee attack.
The large bonus numbers can be a bit intimidating especially to those familiar with 3.0/3.5 or 5E, in play the difference between the numbers needed, and those available remain consistent.
In my opinion the way the math is treated is the difference in the games. to me the original releases of d20 (D&D 3.0/3.5, and Pathfinder 1) worked well in early levels, but it became very cumbersome (Especially for the GM to keep the math under control. Marry that with the number of unbalanced combinations available it became challenging to play and almost impossible to GM at higher levels.
D&D 5th attempted to fix this with the bounded accuracy which works, but to me it tends to become a game of trying to get advantage and avoid disadvantage, and as the game grew this remained the driving force. That's not wrong... but as options were added it became easier to both get advantage and cancel advantage. Also, the math while better did tend to creep at higher levels as the bonuses increased at a higher level than the challenges. In addition, as resources were used, the ability to balance encounters became more challenging.
You will hear no argument from me on this - the PF1e bloat is definitely a 'thumbs down' for me, and if I ever play 5e I hope it is also a 'Core only' kind of thing. At the end of the day, I really think a PF2 was really not necessary. Just grab PF1e, and start from scratch - maybe, just maybe, all the scaling issues will go away. No one really knows, because no one really plays the game like that anymore. And maybe, just maybe, DMs life would be much easier just because of that.
As for PF2, I will take your word for it scranford, but isn't that exactly what a one-trick pony is? Take Intimidate or else? He will be using that every single encounter, repeatedly, until he dies, right?
Won't that mean all Barbarians will be taking Intimidate, because it is 'the right way'? And you are gimping yourself if you don't take that option?
That is a (probably wrong) feeling I get with PF2e - that there are a lot of 'right/good' and 'wrong/bad' choices mechanically, which actually rob you from the apparent flexibility.
What if the player wants to be a Barbarian with low Cha, without Intimidate and/or Deception? Should he be mechanically penalized for that? Or should he have other options? That is something that always appealed to me in PF1e - you can make a Barbarian who Intimidates, or who trips, or who Cleaves, or who Whirlwinds, heck who is an Archer! It is (or was) amazing. Until they broke it :P But the game is still there, buried under all those splatbooks hahaha.
That is a good point... however what PF2 specializes in is its ability to not have to "Build" a character to do a particular thing. The Barbarian could utilize movement feats and skills (Acrobatics) to make the opponent "Off guard". He could use "Deception" to Feint and lower AC, he could use Knowledge skills to uncover weaknesses... and to be honest this particular Barbarian is designed to stand in one place and deliver blows... and he does a lot of damage this way... but could be more effective if he used one of the other options to ease his journey. It's not always most effective to just attack AC. Sometimes attacking the opponents Will save, or Athletics DC is more effective depending upon the foe's weaknesses. PF2 is also very much a game designed for a team of adventurers, not a group of individuals getting together to adventure.
We have an Oracle who uses much of his action economy to keep the Barbarian up and effective, and our healers are busy full time doing the same. You can build whatever you want in PF2, but your choices also effect the other members of the party and their actions.
In addition... even with limited choices of PF1 core... the math still breaks down at higher levels. I ran / played many PF1 games, and it was my system of choice until 5E, but for my style of game at about level 7 the rules got in the way of the story...and I'm a story-based GM.
Almost any game system can be effective with good players, and GM's I just find that PF2 takes far less work to GM. If something seems unbalanced in play, then it's probably being misused, so find the rule and fix it. And the consistent math throughout the level advancement makes it easy to rule.
Thanks a lot for the insights scranford - that goes a long way for a noob of PF2 and 5e like me.
Agree it's a very interesting discussion.
Guess I'm in the minority in that I liked the bloat that 3E and PF1 gave us - the selection box of choice and mechanisms to create PCs that while are both say Half-Elf Rangers, the trait, archetype, racial options and feat choices available could make them feel very different.
Having played a Dwarven Spell-slinger thru the whole of the Shackled City AP here on the boards will echo Scran and say that the maths involved at high levels is fearsome and enthusiasm killer, but those "Basic to Expert" levels were a hoot and I'll always bat for PF1 due to the intrinsic familiarity with the system.
5E and PF2 experience has been limited, but 5E made more sense to me in terms of a "feel" for the game, whilst PF2 repeatedly just felt like a video game made tabletop. I'll caveat that with this very much is based on my impression for the game, and while no doubt its not accurate one, but my gut feel has not inspired me to try the game again.
Guess it also boils down to what makes sense or feels right for a player etc as much anything else? This comes from someone who loved playing MERP and SpaceMaster back in the day - two monstrous systems, but again made sense to me and felt right. Others like Traveller and Marvel Super Heroes I just never clicked with.
Like any system if you skin the character from an optimising stance rather than tieing in choices/picks/etc based on role-play and flavour then those PCs will be pretty hollow and likely not last the distance from a player investment point of view.
Who knows lads, I'm probably not making much sense lol... Know PF2 is a quality system, but at this juncture my next games will be C&C and WFRP 1E - so probably says more about me than the system lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, to echo scranford, an Intimidate Barbarian is just one of *many* “builds” you could try in PF2. And with the right mix of class and archtype you could diversify even further. I find it rather broad, and while not as broad as PF1 I’m fairly happy with it.
I also want to make a point about PF1 here on the boards. With *this group* and using Core (or even open slather!) I’m pretty sure that *even if we make it to mid, if not high level* I’m not sure things would get too out of hand. I barely know how to stay conscious most of the time. And that’s in real life… I just feel we are mature enough and open enough to restrain the worst the ruleset unleashed…
I would also echo Black Dow on the “feel” of rulesets.
Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer never grabbed me. Maybe it was the people who introduced them to me, or the intrinsic nature of the rules - or the plain fact that the two principal authors of the IP kinda pissed me off. Same with Doctor Who - while I liked the early years of the TV show the game seemed…off somehow. Could have just been the people playing it.
I loved MERP and Rolemaster, and the absolute deadly nature of their critical tables. And had a lot of fun in small areas of Middle Earth doing absolutely nothing that had anything to do with Rings of Power and that suited me fine…
Played quite a bit of various Palladium games (a lot of TMNT) in high school, but that was a function of that time and place. I probably wouldn’t go back.
I did play MSH, but agree the FASERIP mechanics aren’t for everybody, and almost cried when they introduced them into a later edition of Gamma World.
Have never really played WFRP, and don’t really understand the differences between the rules, but the vibe of the setting really calls to me. A small shoutout here to the often overlooked Dragon Warriors ruleset. Yes it was basic, and fairly generic, and was contained in paperbacks the same size as Fighting Fantasy books, but it was strangely compelling, and only got more interesting across the six books I collected.
Also never played Traveller. Just didn’t know anyone who did, though my brother did play it a bit when he first got into RPGs. Same with Storyteller/WoD games - no-one I knew played them.
So the feel is really important. And that feeling is hard to shake. So I get it, Black Dow, your in-built feeling about PF2 is real, but I will add that although I was reticent to switch I eventually did, and while it isn’t as rich as PF1 I’m now at the point where I have played enough to get a handle on the system (by no means mastered) and can now stand on a mountain (or plateau) look back to PF1 and forward to more PF2 releases and say to myself “I’m in a good place, and it definitely looks to be getting better.” And the truth is in my experience.
My new favorite class in PF2 (apart from the Thaumaturge for sheer options) is the Rogue. Being able to essentially “Flank” with myself by feinting (creating the off-guard condition, that used to be called Flanked) as well as having all the skilly stuff to by thiefy and roguey is priceless. And I *never* played a Rogue in PF1. It just seemed too…I dunno complicated. PF2 actually seems to me to be rather simple, but complex, rather than complicated. My biggest challenge is undoing all of my PF1 knowledge. But again, I’ve nownreached that plateau where PF1 is far enough away that I can see where I am now and appreciate it. I might one day even play a *gasp* caster!
Doesn’t stop me from being able to enjoy PF1 tho’.
I would argue that even socially, you guys have done well for yourselves. In fact, the only time things seem to not be going your way is when you decided to take the 'non-social' route.My point is, regardless of mechanics, we are a challenged bunch. It’s not a value/power statement. It’s a judgment of the way the mechanics (3d6), coupled with the ruleset (Hindrances) and the players (grogbeards) have in this case generated a coterie of misfits. But we’ve all seen the Breakfast Club, right? Just because the characters are challenged doesn’t mean they can’t succeed.So do we think that rolling 3d6 down the line has riled your imagination in ways that starting with say... All stats at 10 would not? ;)
Do we think it is a good thing, a bad one, or just different?
Hmm. Good question. If I were to be honest I would say, after 40+ years of gaming….it’s a….gnnnn…..mmmm….primitive thing. From an early era. Which still works, within its parameters.
Definitely different. But that is being politic. 3d6 works for a certain kind of game. And that kind of game will necessarily have different limits. In that halcyon era, you were apparently lucky to make it to second level, where apparently people would then name their characters. I always named mine from the get go, foolish bean that I was. And yes we died a bit. But 4d6 drop the lowest came in fairly quickly, and while deformities and aberrations could exist, they were rare, and our characters were, at the very least, robust. Even if you couldn’t always be a paladin. But weirdly, I never wanted to be one, unless I rolled the necessary stats. And even then I wouldn’t always.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess it also boils down to what makes sense or feels right for a player etc as much anything else?
Yeah, I fully agree in the end it all boils down to that.
And lets face it, usually the games we have discussed here tend to have a few things some like and a few others some don't like. And I think it is probably like that in most cases.
Being discontent with the current state of PF1e made me start looking around, not only at retroclones, but also at 'new-er/ish' games which had been popping in the market without me even noticing it, and that has been a great thing. Heck, it even made me go sort of full circle to look at PF1e with a different perspective (the whole 'core-only' thing).
I had to move away from the Paizo Forums for it, but I have been a part of an AD&D game and learned that the rules are all over the place and sometimes REALLY hard to find - but in that mish mash there are a lot of surprising things I never even knew were a part of AD&D. Also joined an AD&D2e game and arrived at the conclusion it might encourage more stat dumping than I thought (for example, Wisdom 5 is just very slightly worse than Wisdom 14 if you are not a divine caster). Joined a DCC game and felt like it might be too railroad-y for me. Joined a Shadowdark game, and my eyebrows rose when everyone was upset at my Fighter because he was suspicious of Goblins, but when the goblins asked to attack the hobgoblins everyone was fine with it. Joined a BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia game, rolled a 2HP Elf and was pissed, but then I just didn't give a crap and played him like I wanted - a fearless frontliner - and had a blast! I am part of an Old Swords Reign, and discovered I need more rules? :D
And the list goes on. Many of the games I joined are not 'alive' anymore, but I still got something out of trying the different systems. I thoroughly enjoy the process, and learn about the things like and some others things I do not. That's helpful for me to select what I want to be a part of next, and what I do not.
Bottom line, I intend to keep on joining games (within my limit of course). While waiting for a certain Night Below game I have been hearing about on the grapevine :)
I also like trying out game systems, and have tried many of them over the years. I also find that the makeup of your players has a great impact on the enjoyment of the game. I love the Gumshoe system... but have only found one other player in all my time that enjoy's this system as much as I do; and it doesn't adapt well to PbP. I currently have the following systems as my go to.
1. Main Fantasy - Pathfinder 2e. I love the fact that all the different conditions and abilities turn everything you thought you knew about the things facing you on your head. No longer do the common conceptions about abilities, weaknesses, and lore hold true. (Who knew Troglodytes could occupy the same square to attack and get a bonus).
2. Old School - Castles & Crusades. When I crave non-complicated mechanics games this is it. Old school feel and module conversion is simple... but mechanics are updated and make sense.
3. Sci-Fi. - Fading Suns. To be honest I haven't found a Sci-Fi game system that I really jive with, but anytime I run the Fading Suns Universe I am thrilled. Just wish I could find a system that matched what it evokes in me. (Playing around with Heros & Hardships, and a NWoD conversion, but no time to do so.).
4. Main Modern - Tie between New World of Darkness, and Gumshoe. Both appeal to different types of gamers, so depending upon the genre and players involved I can go either way. I like NWoD due to the ease of adjustments... add or subtract a few d10's to adjust, but I really like the fact that in Gumshoe if you go the right place to find a clue then you get it... no rolls... but combat is a little too abstract for me. I need to find out a way to combine the two.
5. Other - I really want to like AGE and Savage Worlds, but though they both read fantastic, I've found that running them doesn't work out as well as I expect. Maybe due to me not being as familiar with these systems. As far as settings go... Iron Kingdoms, Midgard, Golarion, Arcanis, Palladium, Midnight, Fading Suns... and so many more. Guess I'm a Settings Whore.
I think by using Disengage + Dash, he would move about 60'
In general as a suggestion to all, I would say if you have a 'conditional action', it would perhaps be better to just post it to keep the game moving. Examples:
Woy: 'If I can draw my weapon and attack in the same round, I do that' - then post the attack and damage rolls. 'Otherwise I do option B'
Sly: 'If my thrown dagger will reach the deputy, I throw it' - post attack and damage rolls. 'Otherwise I do option B'
And so forth.
Also please try to avoid double posts, if you can still edit your previous one.
I also like trying out game systems, and have tried many of them over the years. I also find that the makeup of your players has a great impact on the enjoyment of the game. I love the Gumshoe system... but have only found one other player in all my time that enjoy's this system as much as I do; and it doesn't adapt well to PbP. I currently have the following systems as my go to.
1. Main Fantasy - Pathfinder 2e. I love the fact that all the different conditions and abilities turn everything you thought you knew about the things facing you on your head. No longer do the common conceptions about abilities, weaknesses, and lore hold true. (Who knew Troglodytes could occupy the same square to attack and get a bonus).
2. Old School - Castles & Crusades. When I crave non-complicated mechanics games this is it. Old school feel and module conversion is simple... but mechanics are updated and make sense.
3. Sci-Fi. - Fading Suns. To be honest I haven't found a Sci-Fi game system that I really jive with, but anytime I run the Fading Suns Universe I am thrilled. Just wish I could find a system that matched what it evokes in me. (Playing around with Heros & Hardships, and a NWoD conversion, but no time to do so.).
4. Main Modern - Tie between New World of Darkness, and Gumshoe. Both appeal to different types of gamers, so depending upon the genre and players involved I can go either way. I like NWoD due to the ease of adjustments... add or subtract a few d10's to adjust, but I really like the fact that in Gumshoe if you go the right place to find a clue then you get it... no rolls... but combat is a little too abstract for me. I need to find out a way to combine the two.
5. Other - I really want to like AGE and Savage Worlds, but though they both read fantastic, I've found that running them doesn't work out as well as I expect. Maybe due to me not being as familiar with these systems. As far as settings go... Iron Kingdoms, Midgard, Golarion, Arcanis,...
1. I consider myself convinced scranford, and will continue to give PF2e a go.
Still trying to find a 'Core' 5e game though ;)2. As above, and also from BD's opinion, I will take a second look at Castles & Crusades. I keep hearing good things about it.
3,4 - My go-to for all of these would be GURPS. I have played it in cyberpunk, supers and fantasy settings, and it held its own VERY well. Nowadays I would limit the options a lot (that's why stuff like Dungeon Fantasy exists) before even beginning, and would start with simple combat, then evolve to more complex options like facing and so forth.
5 - MERP/Rolemaster are something I really would like to find a way to play again. That and 4e. I also think Vampire, the Masquerade is a game which lends itself very well to PbP, due to the emphasis on layers upon layers of plots and intrigue and roleplay (even though back in the day I played my Brujah pretty much like a D&D Fighter :D), but curiously I have never come across a successful game based on World of Darkness.
Bottom line, I intend to keep on joining games (within my limit of course). While waiting for a certain Night Below game I have been hearing about on the grapevine :)
I see what you did their mate ;) Hoping to have some news on that front this weekend - stay tuned :)
Have you looked at the Castles & Crusades Players Archive? It collects all the classes and races from other books in one place.
Have you looked at the Castles & Crusades Players Archive? It collects all the classes and races from other books in one place.
I did mate - but ended up getting a bundle on DriveThru that covered the "core books" - Player's Handbook, Castle Keeper's Gude and Monsters & Treasure. Wasn't convinced enough to spring for the Archive given I wasn't 100% on if C&C was what I hoped it was (it was).
Thinking for Night Below should be enough with core (but again any input from someone more versed in the system would be appreciated)?
Speaking of the aforementioned campaign - I'm working on finalising the overarching setting - at present the old TSR UK Pelinore setting (as featured in Imagine magazine) is the frontrunner. Really just to give us a grounding on pantheon, rough setting info etc as the game will mostly be focussed on Haranshire and its Underdark.
So with that in mind am looking for rough gauges on who would be interested in this game and/or my 1E WFRP Enemy Within (which is also taking shape).
For C&C Night Below I'm thinking a party of 6+ will work. Enemy Within 4-5 (I've already got one seat filled with an old pal from the boards on this one) - however won't be turning anyone away if their fancy either/both.
Hijack away - good news!
Definitely count me in for Night Below if there is a spot. And I will gladly join for WFRP also, just with the caveat I am not familiar with the system at all.
Caveat is noted chief and seat(s) are yours should you want both. Been some 30 odd years since I ran WFRP 1E myself so we'll all be on a learning curve regards crunch. The main thing will be the setting - it was grim dark before there was such a thing :)
I’m definitely in for Enemy Within. Steep learning curve for me. Been trying to find 1st ed. WFRP books on eBay etc, but they are rare and expensive…
Night Below I’ll throw my hat in the ring too, I’ll download the free older edition of the rules and see what I think and then get back to you…
@BD: Am also replaying Warhammer Quest 2 on my iPad - it is set in Middenland (and Reikland and Talabecland if you pony up the dosh). It uses Str/Int/Dex/Spd and Action points - is any of that comparable to WFRP or is it an abstraction for a CRPG platform?
Which I probably would have seen if I had gone to the Character Creation link in your Campaign tab instead of straight to the Player's Guide...
Yep. Ok...will have a look...[EDIT]Character generation is so fun and archaic! I'm definitely looking to play a Wood Elf (with all the problems that might bring in rural areas...) Just sad they can't become druids. So many fun thematic options for Careers....There is so much on offer I actually am having trouble deciding between Warrior/Ranger/Rogue and Academic!!! Unheard of for me![/EDIT]
(Castles and Crusades: Night Below) Actually, I'm reaching my limit. I'll bow out of contention for Night Below. I may watch from the sidelines and come in later if a) you lose someone and b) I like C&C.
@BD: Are you planning on running both games? I sometimes feel my hands are pretty full, just running one, and playing in a few :P