DunjnHakkr's page

They're not codes of law.

Circular logic. They're not codes of law BECAUSE they allow the DM (not the players!) to change rules, when required.

You propose blatant CHEATING of the DM, in order to save silly players butts (you think this won't be evident...but it is..players realize theire PCs can't die and will be bored to death) and/or to punish them (for whatever reasons) but however you are against a dynamic approach to a given ruleset ?!
Where's the point in randomizing events, when you de-randomize them anyway, whenever they don't "fit" ?

Regarding your opinion on preparation: Well... I am the kind of DM who runs open world sandboxes, which are probably 1000x more complex than the regular "PC-at-center-of-the-universe-campaign", so I simply CANNOT account for all possible situations that might arise during campaigning. Thus is happesn, that a change in the ruleset or on-the-fly-adjustment is necessary to conserve both in-world logic and/or game balance.

Plus, I am used to ruleset, that allow for much more freedom (and power to the judge (which term I prefer over "game master") than modern D&D.
A good judge will know how to use this power in a responsible manner

Oh, and please don't quote out of context. The second sentence, was the more important part, regarding DM's being always right.

Imo, a good DM doesn't run a "story". He runs and maintains a world. The players create their story, through their deeds and exploration.

However, sometimes rule changes MUST be done, to maintain said consistency, not to kill it. For example, in the vast amount of 3.5 rules, a loophole has been discovered, which would enable a Lvl 3 Wizard to destroy the planet in a few seconds or so. (Yes, I remember there was something like this, not sure however, if it was wis 3.5 or 2nd)

Jerk ? No. You are EXACTLY the kind of DM, that I would LOVE, and id be happy to play with ^^

No fudging, butt-saving, scaled-encounters or pussified "player empowered storytelling". Just let the dice fall, where they may, and continue this way.
The world needs more DMs like you !

However, sometimes, the players will still have luck, no matter how stupid their actions are (like the above situation), even to the extent that a "BBEG" is no challenge at all (imagine they crit 4 times in a row, and your guys keep rolling nat 1's)
In these cases, also: Let the dice fall where they may. Tell them they had incredible luck, and that their action were totally stupid, but grant them their victory. If they continue that way, they will die soon enough >:)

All D&D rulebooks from the beginning until now ? ;-)

The thing is: The DM is the one with most work. A good DM will create an interesting and consistent gameworld to explore (yes, modern gamers will insist, that he will rather create a "story"...)
And thus, he needs the flexibility to adjust rules on the fly, when he feels, that they will somehow disturb the logic or balance of said world.

However, I am a strong opponent of "rule of cool", or "change rules for the story", as well as fudging dice and similiar cheating or meta-gaming.

There's a good saying:
The DM is always right.
What the DM says, goes. However, when he says enough stupid sh*t,
his players go as well.

(or at least the should do so)

I also hate when GMs change rules on a whim because they haven't thought things through and some development doesn't fit what they want for their story ("Oh no! They get a critical hit! That villain is supposed to escape, but this will kill him! Fast, I rule that you can only crit your own race!").

Same here, along with this whole story thing.

However, it is well within the rights of a DM to change rules, even without notifying players. But that is not necessarily what makes *good* DM. The latter, will only change rules in order to maintain a consistent and fun game-world for the players to explore.
And Mary Sues/invincible "story npcs", are probably the opposite of "consistency"

This kind of "ensure fun is distributet is equal shares" is just too high for me, sorry.
I personally (!) don't get the whole "spotlight" and "fun" thing. I don't need to "shine". For me, fun arises, when the GROUP as a WHOLE succeeds (heck, even if it fails, as long the DM+other players are entertaining and stuff). But maybe im just 30 years behind, in regards to tabletop gaming.
In my opinion, the wizard has utilized a good tactics.
Maybe the fighters could have used torches on the web, when the foes had crossed the middle of the entangled area.
Regarding multiple summons: As long he has statblocks of what he summons at hand, I don't either see a problem here. Slows down the game a little, though, but you can't blame the player here. His job is it, to survive, in the first place.

If a single character is monopolizing the spotlight in combat, he should get what he so richly deserves : enemies focusing on him and only him and using any and all ability to weaken him, even if it involves "metagaming" on the GM's part (such as enemies ignoring another character who just wounded them just so they can get a shot at the Uber-character).

Even if it involves meta-gaming as DM ? Thats utterly bad style... Mindless undead focus firing ? Exactly that kind of DM is what will RUIN my fun (along with those, who continually save the PCs butt (esp. when theyre PCs of their "pet players"), when theyre at the brink of death).

EDIT: Okay, just noticed Ghouls actually arent mindless. So focus fire is a valid tactic, that should have been employed. My above statement regarding DM-metagaming in general is still true, however. Never do something, that you DONT want your players to do. Even if you can make up a lame excuse on the fly.

.

Harsh..maybe...but IF it makes sense - ingame and tactics wise - then it should be done. Same for hungry animals or ghouls, which will continue to attack helpless foes (= eat them)

However, CDC in an ongoing combat seldom makes really sense. Most of the time it is a better play to ff on the healer.

There was a post earlier about the GM just playing the NPCs and governing the rules of the universe. That is so far from the truth of what a GM should be.

A GM is a story teller, a fortune teller, a historian and a magician all in one. The role is to draw your players into an imaginary world and paint them as vivid a picture as possible. The world should challenge them to solve the mysteries of the world and move the Pathfinders forward in their goals. A GM that just sits and reads the modules to the players is not engaging them in the story. I have never, yes never, killed a player at my tables.

I knock a lot of people unconscious and le them sweat it out while their team mates tr to work around and save them. If they make a stupid choice, I make them suffer and then send them on to the next step in the adventure. The game is for both the players and the GM to have fun. Remember that, it is about having fun!

So... you know "the truth", for every gamer, world wide, yes ?

Okay, you never killed a PC. Fine
...and on the long run, players realize, they cannot die, they are even only knocked unconscious when they make mistakes (= they realize the DM has to fudge the dice, because sometimes you will also die when you make everything perfect)...and that they are always the center of the world, and (if the DM is incredibly bad) they also realize that they cannot leave "the plot"..... and eventually they become BOOOOOORED *yawns*

Now, I have another perception, of a "good DM". And that is definately NOT that of a "storyteller":

your GM isn’t called a “storyteller” for

a reason. He or she isn’t telling you a story with you cast as the
protagonist. (...)
The GM creates a world—you create a character who wants something.
It’s up to you to go out and get it. Story is the result of the game,
not a process within it.

Greetings,

First of all, I want to answer the question above:
The answer is "never", as long you're a player.
Rules-lawyering is bad style in general.
However, "golden boy petting", is bad style as well.
But you cannot counter bad style, with bad style, right ?

Now, some thoughts regarding my immediate foreposter(Nick Bolhuis), which do not necessarily have to do with this thread:

First, I want to state, I am a seasoned DM, running games for well over 25 years now, with great success.
One thing I have figured out for myself is: LET THE DICE FALL, WHERE THEY MAY.
Such a kind of "fudgy" DM-style, as outlined in your post, does in my opinion incredibly suck. Even if it is so subtle and "elegant", that no player might notice it. Even if it is solely with the intent, to enhance fun and challenge for everyone.

There seems to be a certain number of DMs who have kinda "control issues". They feel the need for perfect control over what happens in the world - this may be very good intentions: To ensure fun and challenge is had, to ensure, there is a "thrill".
But there are other sources of "thrill"...especially (!) when the DM lets loose his grip, and lets the dice fall, where they may.
The thrill may well derive from the unpredictability, from encounters with large level-variance (not scaled to group level), and several other methods. This is then genuine, and it is even a thrill for the DM, not only for the players.

When players have an easy time via luck or something, that this kind of DM has just overseen, he will most likely either bend rules, or change the enemy resources or dice rolls.
Again: It is all well meant, but still, this is imo the fun-killer number one.
Players with a streak of luck, will eventually run into a deadly situation, which is more than challenging, so no need for lame railroading or rules bending here. It always happens like this, trust an experienced sandbox-DM ;-)

Especially when specific decisions made by players, are rendered worthless (e.g. the group cleric casts Resist Fire on the group. the evil enemy wizard should have memorized fireball. But then, to "increase fun and challenge" this is changed to lightning bolt. The consequence may be an entertaining fight, this is fine. But on the long run, even the slowest player will realize, that somehow fights always end up "entertaining" and challenging, indepentant of the groups strategy or tactics.

Or - as an allegory for all CRPG Fans out there - this is why "MORROWIND" is 1000times better than "OBLIVION"

Another aspect, which is closely connected: there are no "scene breaking" abilities (either, they are "game breaking" in general, then they have to dealt with OoC and in a reasonable fashion... OR they should work as intended). Scenes should be the result of interaction, not interaction the result of pre-planned scenes (which may not be "broken") In-world logic/consistency should the one and only reason to change rules. This of course may include balance, but only in cases, where the balance would affect the campaign globally (i.e. not only in very specific cases or encounters)

If a wizard casting Web is dominating the game to such an extent then I question the rest of the party's competence. I play melee characters some of the time, and if I see those things coming at me I'll ask the Wizard to slow them down and funnel them in. If the Wizard can stop them in their tracks then I'll pull out my ranged weapons instead. In fact I'd be annoyed if the Wizard *didn't* do that if he had the spells available. I sure as hell wouldn't complain about it!

If the melee characters just want to get straight into the fight every single time then the enemies aren't scary enough. The wizard should hold back and let one or more of the front line characters die as a result of their casual disregard for danger, so that next time they might appreciate him more...

I'd happily play a melee character alongside his wizard, doing exactly what he did. I'll just switch into bodyguard mode, or sweeper. I only stop having fun when other character's tactics are so counter-productive that we'd be better off without them. I've been faced with that on occasion.

+1

Well, he is using his build according to plan. Web vs. Ghouls was good play, because Ghouls can be very annoying in melee. Of course, this is stupid in the given situation, because it hampers the others abilities. But there is nothing you can do about it, which doesn't fall into the category "arbitrary punishment"

I personally don't understand, why everyone has to "shine". If I were one of the melee-guys, I would have had absolutely no problem with above tactics. D&D is a team game (for me), so when the team succeeds, everything is fine (as long there are equal shares in rewards and loot of course ;-))
Next time you play together, you could run a module, that favors melee, maybe.

You could have given some bows to the mob, though. Using fire(magic) to burn down the webs, maybe ? Dispel ?
But I dunno the module

Jesus Christ...so much text. Calm down a bit, guys ;-)

Probably myself, lol...no character got me into such frustration (independant of campaign or DM), than the paladin. It's safe to say, I hate playing D&D paladins the way they are concepted per default.

Basically, they are party-incompatible with many types of other characters, including rogues. Soem people would say this makes "interesting RP situations", but for me it is important that a party is functional and can work as a team. Plus I do neither want to meta-game (e.g. "look away" when the rogue does, well, rogue-like stuff), nor would I want to give or accept lip service only. So, over time, the only acceptable consequence is to cease the cooperation with said rogue (or druid, assassin, whatever)

Furthermore, Paladins can run non-stop into situations, where you would actually have to write a philosophic dissertation, in order to resolve an in-game situation appropriately.

Plus, due to the extreme strictness, that is required regarding adherence to both Law and Good, often a different understanding of certain aspects between DM and player is guaranteed...see the initial post, where it is basically medieval vs modern concepts. Another example: Some think a Paladin has to be a pacifist, others think, he merely has to ensure not to use "dirty" fighting technique. Again others say, he may basically not inflict lethal damage upon any living being. May a Paladin kill orc-children, that proof evil upon detection ? What about red dragon hatchlings ? (not even talking about situations, where Good and Law conflicts each other...)

Likewise, as DM I would rather accept a player wanting to play a chaotic evil misanthropic serial killer, than I would accept a default-paladin.
If I were to change the official Paladin (which of course I do in my home games), I would make him only required to devote to Good, and only forced to adhere to laws which feature human rights et cetera.

Normally makes sense. Many DMs meta-game, and yet it is an issue that seems only be brought up with players.

But this situation is different: When a player wants to leave the campaign, the death of her PC can be dealt with in a narrative fashion (imo)

And that interpretation is a good one then, should the unfairness really have taken place (which is most often only the players very own perception. I myself have been multiple times accused of cheating/unfairness and arbitrary PC-killing, but nothing could be more far away from truth than that, since I let the dice decide 100% of the time)

Strictly by rules, a paradoxon is created, anyway: The book says, the DM can ignore any rule as he desires. So he can ignore the rule "DMs cannot cheat". Which I most certainly do, as I consider DMing a honorable task. Furthermore, the "golden rule" applies to me here as well: I do not want my players to cheat (in fact, when they do they will get booted at once), thus I do not cheat either.

Well then its IMO okay that it does normal damage (or maybe rule it does auto-crit, but not auto-kill)

But if there is no need for a "game" aspect, why not take Greyhawk or the Realms, and play in them without rules (or with minimum ones, such as when something is uncertain there, a coin is flipped or so)
Why then bother buying and learning the rules, when they are actually only in the way of the desired play style ?

(It's funny that I bring this example...but I for my part did in fact buy the Pathfinder rules, for the reason stated above: No one today will still play AD&D)

An infamous example where 3.5 mechanics failed the story telling is with one of the Crimson Throne issues. *slight spoiling coming* Off stage, NPC A moves up to NPC B and points a crossbow at NPC B's head and fires. In the description, this is described as a killing blow (which amazed everyone when NPC B not only survives but doesn't seem to be very injuried).

Now in the mechanics, there are no "called shots", so no shot to the head. A crossbow shot isn't very lethal to most characters with a couple of levels. NPC B wasn't helpless so the shot was a coup-de-grace. etc....

The PCs' interaction with the game world made such a storytelling inconsistent with what the characters knew. This is an example where the game mechanics failed to aid a storytelling aspect.

This ("programmed plot") is not an example I care about, but out of curiosity: Does NPC B be aware of the attacker ?

When I DM, I would still feel as if I'm cheating, when I fudge rolls or ad-hoc alter stats to increase or decrease the "challenge".
Doesn't matter whether it is to save someone's ass, or to punish a stupid (but lucky) action. I simply don't do it, and I consider this honorable.

That's why I don't do it. I don't care what the rulebooks says (and the best thing about this: the rulebook gives me even the right, not to care about what it says, he he)

IF a fellow DM runs a game, and fudges behind this screen, and I don't notice it - fine. But once I feel my characters ass is being constantly saved, from lethal situations, then the game will get dull and boring and pointless for me. "no risk - no fun", it's a simple as that.

Of course, it's all meant well and with best intents (and that's why I wouldn't bring it up as an issue, since I know what effort a DM takes), but I will plainly lose interest in the game, on the long run.

<irony>
Similarly, when I run a game, where I accept fudging - as a DM - I could not be truly proud of killing characters anymore
</irony>

What exactly you mean by "re-flavor" ? Of course, in MY game of Pathfinder, such a strict distinction would not exist.

However...I see a lot of people here on the boards enjoy sticking to "RAW", which basically comes down to the ultimate divorce between those two aspects.
What makes me concerned about the seperation, or the RAW-only-playing, is that clever ideas, that do not adhere to "RAW", can't be realized, or require a Feat or so.

(sorry for editing)

Oh, and what I forgot@Laithoron

(...)such a capricious act by a fellow GM to be deplorable.(...)

(...) having one's dice pouch stowed in... "an uncomfortable place".

(...)If that happened to one of my characters though without that expectation being set first, you can bet your ass that there would be a problem.

(...)

See, you should be a little bit more tolerant. I respect, that you enjoy being told a story, and you don't want your character be killed.

I also don't say "oh, if I get railroaded, and this expectation is not set out first, you can bet your ass that I will take his story-book and put it in....an uncomfortable place"

@MendedWall12 et al: PF is clearly designed for a multitude of styles, but the "storytelling" aspect is prevalent in most published modules and also in the rule books already.
But I would not throw it together with D&D in general. Let me give another quote, from OSRIC (the "modern" first edition AD&D ruleset which is under OGL)

(...) your GM isn’t called a “storyteller” for a reason. He or she isn’t telling you a story with you cast as the protagonist. (If you want that, try one of White Wolf’s games.) The GM creates a world—you create a character who wants something. It’s up to you to go out and get it. Story is the result of the game, not a process within it.

Regarding balance:

All in all a peaceful and (nearly) dull area, if it weren't for those few places.

I actually like to start a sandbox-campaign with such an area of "mercy", which can take the PCs to level 3 or so, with not too many deaths. (Of course, deaths will occur there, too, but not so frequently)
And I will surely apply that idea once again, should I be hosting a game for younger players.

After that, they have at least rudimentary means of surviving/escaping superior foes and encounters (more hit points, access to spell level 2, and in AD&D1 the fighter would get his first increase in attack rating at this point).

In PF/DnD, fluff and mechanics are estranged, one might even say divorced from one another on an intrinsic and fundamental level.

Thats actually also one of the things, that feels "just not right" to me. To be honest, I have - having gamed with new people for the first time in about 25 years - heard a sentence being said such as "well, but thats only fluff".

Fluff ? Is that the name of your pet ? I was pressed to ask.
Distinction between "crunch" and "fluff" was highly irritating for me, when I played modern D&D3 for the first time.
But here again, you can most definately not say that this is true for D&D in a general fashion, since this distinction did not exist in First Edition times.

Rofl.

Reminds me of a certain GAZEBO, for some reason ;-)

An even better cure, might be - after some rooms with regular illusions - some semi-illusional ("shadow") floor, which - when disbelieved - actually vanishes and has a nasty spikes pit or something beneath it >:)

Definately illusion. Oh how I love them.

However, this leads to paranoia, when used too much ("I disbelieve the entire room!")

Personally I think if you roll dice to determine things then you accept random variation. Furthermore I don't think it's a bad thing.

You will look back and recall those crazy swings either fondly or ruefully, and that speaks to it being poignant and worthwhile. I feel that DMs that 'fudge' those dice rolls cheat their players out of those experiences.

Agree with that to about 90%.

Sometimes, however, dice - especially random tables of any sorts - produce largely absurd results. These are situations, when common sense should apply.

However, fudging dice in combat, or changing parameters on the fly (such as changing the BBEG's spell selection from Lightning Bolt to Fireball, just because the groups cleric has buffed Lightning Resistance to everyone...or like one of the posters above just to "heal" the BBEG because the groups fighter has critted him to near-death), is a no-go. When I DM, I don't want my players to cheat and do things like that either, so I don't do them as well. What's the point in the Resist Energy spell after all, when the DM does this ?

To make things "challenging" is important, but even more important is, that those challenges are truly authentic. The thrill and excitemet (for me) derives in large parts also from the uncertainity. Sometimes there is just a cakewalk, other times you have to run for your lifes.
Sometimes there's a TPK, other times the foes die without any chance to react.
That's why there are dice, critical hits, natural 1's and fumbles (if you use them, I certainly do...along with houserules for massive damage and devastating/decapitating crits (using "exploding" confirmation rolls)) - they make things a bit unpredictable.

Also, I am not a big fan of strictly encounter scaling to party level, but that's another issue.

Should I have changed anything or fudged it?

Definately not. Either make NPC stronger in advance (before the game), or let them behave smarter (using ingame reasoning!). But in a case like yours: just let them players have their (dumb) luck.

Plus, when it ever comes out, it ruins the trust in DM.
Just my opinion.

You disagree with what? Hard will saves or touch attacks?

I disagree with the generalization, that all optimizers just want to have an "easy time".

What I mean is: When I optimize, then I want meatgrinder-modules, that serve as a "benchmark".

Of course, I can adapt to a different mode of play as well. This was written from an optimizers point of view, and I deeply enjoy optimizing in games such as Pathfinder.

Just an idea:

Have one session (inform the other players before, though), set up as kind of parody. But a subtle one !

LEt him succeed on all of his actions, let him have his revenges, and so on. Play NPCs as they fall on their knees and revere the endless wisdom and strength of said player.

Do everything, that he "wins", but to such an extent, that it is becoming a farce more and more.

(Then, after he has hopefully learned his lesson, such as, that the game will get plainly BORING when you "can't lose"...then you can explain later, that it has only been a dream or something)

Regarding him attacking other PCs: Make this impossible. It's well within your rights.

Gallard Stormeye wrote:

In most cases, people that optimize do so because they want to have an easy time.

Then they whine at how easy and stupid modules are.

AS an optimizer, I want to have it hard as possible, to test out LIMITS.

At Topic.
Freelancing is perfectly okay ! Better than rail-roading or boring fights, in any case.

However, things like "oh, I will just heal the BBEG full" should not be done, as they are OBVIOUS to the players.

Phnrei, who are you talking too ? Because I don't value my taste over the others (isn't that why it's called "taste" ?). Moreover, I understand, that my taste is probably old-fashioned, and not that accepted anymore nowadays.

Now, regarding your juxtaposition of narrative and mechanic, I think you mix two things up: The other extreme of "narrative focused" is not "mechanics focused". It's rather something like "open-ended" or "nonlinear", where the story is result of player-actions (within a given enviroment), without a plot, that has to be followed.

So, what I look this game at, is more "storycrafting".
No pre-determined plot is "narrated", but rather the plot evolves through players action, on the basis of what is present in the game-enviroment.
The DM's job is just to provide the enviroment, bring it to life as it's being explored, and to administer it impartially, plus sometimes a clever improvisation here or there, and this way great stories are crafted (instead of "cool stories are told")

IF every fight or encounter is always well-scaled to the party, this is in my opinion completely nonsense. Why should the whole world level up with the party ? Makes no sense to me. The characters aren't the center of the plot or world, they are just inhabitants like everyone else.
IF every death is pre-planned by the DM, such as "only in the epic fight, against the big bad evil guy, is where you CAN actually die", then every other fight will be plainly boring.
The random orc, who can crit you do death with his rusty greataxe, is just part of the fun, for ME.

To me, there are plainly two possibilities:

a.) She has played fair, did not fudge rolls, did not meta-game, and the monsters/opponents had logical ingame reasons to ensure definitive death.

b.) She has'nt played fair and/or did fudge rolls and/or did meta-game (i.e. the monsters couldn't have naturally known or estimated your ability to revive stuff, etc.), and/or the monsters had no logical ingame reasons to ensure definitiv death.

This leads to either of those conclusions:

In case a.) she's a good DM, and you're either a bad or unlucky player.
In case b.) she's a bad DM, and you shouldn't play with her again.

To me, it's a plain and as simple as that.

Okay, to be honest: For the last 20 years I haven't played at any convention/tournament, SO maybe get something wrong.
But normally at such events, there is a kind of "head judge", who has a higher authority than the DMs, and can superseede his/her rulings.

Personally, I think that coup de grace and similiar actions, to ensure the definitive death (in the middle of combat), are about 80% of the time just tactically nonsense, as mostly it's better to focus fire on the remaining healers.

Problem is with some dice, that they are problematic to roll openly. For example, when searching for trap/secret doors, moving silently, or hide in shadow.

It's problematic, because it always provides players with more information, than their characters could obtain.

However, to establish a level of trust, it's certainly a good idea, for some rolls (such as combat rolls or enemy saving throws)

I personally think, that everything that involves additional effort/work, just to stop a slightly bit of "meta-gaming", is just counter-productive.
Best thing: just ignore it. I personally come from a game, where, for example, no such things as Skills existed. So, a certain degree of meta-gaming was inevitable to keep the game smooth and fun.

Then of course, things like phantom-rolls, getting out the MM/FF (making aching sounds and taking about 20 dice, faking that I would roll out the HP of the said "monster")... and so on, are pretty much standard.

But they will probably not work that often. For example, the first time I did the MM trick (about 20 years ago ;-)) the players all quickly stated "umumum, i drink that potion." "whaa..i cast Mirror Image" "omfg ! i hide in shadows" etc.
They quickly learned their lesson, hehe.

I've seen a lot of players get hostile or defensive over random chance deaths, and that kind of negativity can do wonders to bring a game to a screeching halt.

I think when this happens, there must be a misunderstanding. Probably the players think, their death was arbitrarily put upon them, such as "Rocks Fall Everyone Dies". It might help to clarify then, that their deaths were result of their actions and/or dice rolls (whichever is applicable)

A DM, who intentionally kills characters in a meta-game-fashion, is a big ass-hole imo.

A DM should always remain as IMPARTIAL as possible.
If that favors the players - thats fine.
If it kills them - thats fine as well.

No "fudging" in order to SAVE, nor in order to PUNISH players, should ever take place.

Therefore, I like the term "Judge" a lot more, than (Dungeon/Game) "Master".
Like the judge in a soccer game, for example.

I think, I will just try the other way round: I will start my own game with modern (3rd Edition / Pathfinder) ruleset, and state how it will be like (style-wise) and see if I can find players for that.

Now what im looking for, is PF/3rd Edition compatible material for:

- good random tables for encounters, sites, cities and more (like those already in the Pathfinder rulebook)
- hex-maps such as these in "Wilderlands"-Products from Judges Guild (if anyone remembers those..), they can also be generic
- mass-combat rules

I like Golarion quite a lot so far (from a players perspective), so maybe that will serve as the game world.

Maybe this stuff deserves another thread, not sure about that.

Rock Falls of course sucks, but it never was an issue at our table.

However, of course, there are situations like: A group of first levels, wanders into a hex, which clearly contains e.g. an adult dragons home.
Chance(=the dice) determines the dragon is awake and hunting.
Then its "pseudo-Rock-Falls" - maybe the players THINK its arbitrary, but of course its not.

But even when they make mistakes, there should NEVER be a 100%-fail-chance. This is btw the whole philosophy of saving throws (says AD&D (1e) DMG).
For example, they kill an NPC merchant at noon, in a heavily populated part of a city. Then i would still roll a small chance (like 1% to 5%), that no one has seen it.

(Of course, this chance is higher, when an Assassin does this job alone)

To be honest, we never played those (i think)

What we definately had in at some point, was the T1-4 (Village of Hommlet, ToEE), this was during a time when I was DM.

Also White Plume Mountain was in there. There also were several other modules I dont remember for sure.

Our campaign world was basically homebrew, and also in large parts it based on the "Judges Guild" stuff, which was partially for OD&D. For example, Wilderlands of the Fantastic Reaches.

However, when we used modules, they would often not be more than mere adventure hooks, which were sometimes followed, sometimes not (and in the latter case, the module was not played)

Sometimes, only certain aspects of modules were played or used, like a single dungeon here, or a single encounter there.

I also view the "Gygaxian" way as kind of "story-based". But the big difference here is: While in the modern games, the story seems to be already pre-planned...on the other hand, in the old-school ones, the story it is actually the RESULT of the characters (inter)actions with the game world. The world itself will however also work without the actions of the player characters in a perfect way.

Of course, it is a lot of simulationism involved on the DMs side. Resources, political powers and so on, are sometimes a pain in the arse to keep track of, especially as the game world grows and grows both in actual (fleshed out) size, as well as in detail and depth.

This seems to be an upside of storytelling-based (campaign) game, at least from a DM's point of view.
We also had at times a game of Traveller, where those aspects where even more dominant than in AD&D.

Of course, for single scenario/module play, the differance between modern and oldie may not become that evident.

But its definately NOT all about meat grinding and hack+slash (and this is also not the point, where I see a big difference). We had especially when the PCs reached higher levels, often played entire sessions spinning political intrigues, without a single combat, for example.

I dont see the problem here, the character has not violated his alignment, has he ? Maybe they are simply not that keen on in depth moral-decision-blabla-roleplay ?

To find that out, you will have to talk to them as players. But after all, its your game. So IF you want to have those elements in, just STATE it openly, so they know it ! If they have a minimium amount of empathy, they will adapt to it !

You say it, for the biggest part ! Thanks for sharing ur thoughts.

However, the "low level of personal attachment" thing has not been the case. The opposite actually !
It was indeed true for new created characters, but those surviving will eventually become epic heroes too, involved with politics or kingdoms and so on. But then, it feels "real", not "narrated", when you play that guy from the very first (or even zero) level on - with the actual risks of losing everything that are very present.

Again, I have troubles finding the right words.
Maybe I should just dont think too much about it, and rather adapt to new styles..

Hello there !

I just want to write a bit about the problem I am currently facing, and I hope that I can make it a bit clear (my English sucks incredibly):

Im playing and DMing for nearly 30 years now. Most of the time that was by the AD&D ruleset (the very old one, First Edition).
Now, my gaming group has unfortunately broken up a while ago, due to people moving out etc.
Thus, I started to look for a new group. I bought Pathfinder rulebook, and I liked it (it was not totaly new however, because I had the opportunity to play a bit of 3rd Edition D&D few years ago).
I also quickly found two groups to join as player.

But when I then played a few games, with each of them, I soon realized that the way the game is played (in both) is "foreign" to me.
It is not about rules itself. Its more that, people seem to understand the game more like a "cool movie" or a "cool story", which players are expected to follow.
Also, basically all monsters or enemies were just "scaled", so we could defeat them in battle. No player character has ever died in those few games I have played so far, and I think the DM has altered a lot of die rolls to prevent this.
It all seemed to stress on the "coolness" and "story".
It doesnt "sound" terribly wrong, and it was also some fun, but there was no "thrill" for me.

On the other hand campaigning with my "old" group was a lot focused on exploration, strategy and also thinking and improvisation.
Many characters would die, especially at lower levels, even if no mistakes are involved, because there happen to be foes that are more powerful, and new characters always beginning at first level.
You just cant know, if you ever leave that dungeon alive, for example, and that what made the thrill and excitement for us (or well...at least for me)
World was open and independant of PCs unless they interact (the DM however would have had a hex map so there is an orientation), and one could freely wander it, with a constant steam of detail being added by the DMs (basicaly everyone has DMed at one point or another)
In a similiar fashion, player characters would develop over time (if they survived), and more and more background details would be fleshed out.

I dont know if I could make clear, what I actually wanted to state.
The main question for me is: Can you understand this ?
Maybe I just had "bad luck" with the groups I have tried so far. Of course, having a group - no matter what style - is better than having NO group.
But i wished there were more players, that enjoy the game the way I enjoy it.
So what you think, will I have a good chance of finding more players with a similiar taste... or would you regard this "old fashioned" ?

I tell the player "if you do that, so-and-so party member will be affected" and "would you rather do it this way?

If the player says "I'll get into position to make a sneak attack on the next turn", then that's what happens

@Are: Then you probably make things VERY easy for the player(character)s. Again, as long as everyone has fun, and your campaign is focused more on story telling, there is everything alright with it :-)

I was just talking, about the problems we (my long term gaming group) had the long time, when we weren't using miniatures.

Seriously: There can't be enough.
Buying a pre-made campaign setting, I don't feel "obligated" to copy it 1:1 anyway, but the more ideas, the better...

However, unnecessary complication (e.g. in inter-cultural/inter-species relations and politics) is not that useful.

When a new and long-term campaign starts, we usually play out the youth of our characters, and how they got to know each other, and dedicate a single session to this.

However, as the campaign is in progress, not that much time is invested in playing out these details. Of course - the occasional tavern or camp fire scene is played out. But not for a significant amount of time in relation to the whole gaming session

she Suggestions, or Dominates, or Charms or whatever she has available at the moment, to get some rich guy/girl (she doesn't care) to donate some and/or all of their money to her. (Lawful Neutral, with Evil Tendancies)

I don't know anything about Golarion yet, but isn't it against the law in most (civilized) places to do that ?

I do not mean to be offensive I just never look at D&D as a tactical game. I know they have pushed for a more tactical experience. It is strictly my bias I am working with.

My major issue with tactical maps is that I play a great deal of wilderness type campaigns. I seldom use dungeons any more and if the map is not detailed how I feel it should be then it bothers me.

I know the game was based off of a wargame. When I use mass combat rules I use miniatures but for stanadard adventures with a 6+ player group there is barely enough room for books and players much less maps that would represent an encounter starting at 200'+.

However I have been swayed by some posts and may try a dungeon crawl using miniatures to see how the players react to it.

Again no offense intended I am just sharing my bias.

Btw how do people represent wilderness adventures with flying creatures? Like dragons straffing etc.. trying to get idea and see a different point of view.

Okay, got it. No offense either (just wanted to clarify, that the use of miniatures, is as old as D&D itself (which emerged from Chainmail wargame) is, thus nothing "new" - however, during 2nd Edition AD&D, it became less popular, and miniatures weren't even mentioned in the PHB (or only very briefly). This was due to the shift towards more storytelling of the game system at that point (either because it was "hip" at the time, or because the "new" TSR were aiming at a different style than that of good old Gary...i dunno)

REgarding the rest of your posting.
There is no need for accurate representation. No need for a "tactical" map.
I also dont use a "tactical" map in my games (e.g. no grid, i hate it).
Most often only a sketch is involved, where coins, tokens and sometimes miniatures are placed. (Sometimes - when epic fight will very likely take place in the next session, I also craft a real diorama, with wargaming terrain and such, but this is definately not the standard)

For us, it just serves as a visual aid to represent position, ensuring more fairness and equal combat perception for both PCs(players) and NPC/Monsters(DM)

And for me - personally - it enhances imagination, not vice versa. Because there is now more free space in my head to fill out exciting details of the battle.

Then again, it all depends on the campaigning style. IF your campaign is strongly plot- and storytelling focused, and PCs very seldom actually die, then it may not be needed, and your judgement as DM may still be enough.
In our games however, there is a high rate of PC death, due to its very nature of being open-world sandbox (so, no encounter is ever "scaled" to an APL or something).
Thus, a fair and neutral medium for battle has proved to be crucial.

PS: For flying creatures, just represent the elevation (in 5-ft-intervals) through a counter, e.g. a d10 or so

Yea, it seems to be an issue with particular players - this is also my personal observation.

Now, by no means I am a doctor, but maybe it has something to do with AD(H)S ?

Just a speculation.

Sadly, Invisibility is not a Least invocation. You have to wait till 6th level for Lessers (choose from flying, invisibility, Charm Monster, etc).
See invisibility is a Least invocation though.

Yea, right.

Still, its a level 1 (!) character with:
- "See Invis" at will for 24h and unlimited use,
- "Detect Magic" at will for 24h and unlimited use
- At-will ranged TOUCH attack for 1d6 damage

That, in 3.5, its really the best kind of a Level-1-character imo

And there are other "least" invocations I dont remember now, also ones which will duplicate second-level-arcane magic.

I have learned to be quick and decisive. No arguements about where people are. I am running the game period. My players accept this.

If this is okay for your players and fun for everyone - then its all perfect. But maybe they would even like it better with a visual aid (need not to be miniatures or grid) ? Why not try it out for a few battles and see how it goes ?

I (who is DMing since 1985 and First Edition AD&D, and by no means a "newer" player(Gygax himself loved miniatures in his games)) will get a serious stomach ache, when something like this happens:

DM imagines situation A ("the orc group is at the second pillar", meaning the second from north)describes it,
but player gets the picture of situation B (for example thinking he means the second from south) due to a misunderstanding, e.g. - nuking his comrade to death with area spell,
- firing poisoned arrows on a target he thought was still not engaged in melee battle with a comrade (= arrow may hit comrade, and poison these days was instant death upon failed save)
etc., or zillions of other situations that arise, when position is solely up to the DMs mood

God, how often has this happened to us in the past... and how happy I was, when 3rd Edition brought (more "offensively") up the idea to use tactical battlemaps. It was like a rebirth for all of us, and an increase like 500% in fun.

Well most feats are still in good use. I still use attack of opportunities, tumble, acrobatics etc.. Just never played with minis and maps.

The same of course is true of opporunity attacks: The NPCs are always at a huge advantage when the DM determines the exact position on a case-by-case basis, instead of a neutral medium.

Btw.: Visualization (as a tool to ensure more fairness, and to synchronize the imagination of the players) has NOTHING do to with RAW-fetishism. By no means... and nothing I hate more than "but according to RAW..."-arguments

There is in my opinion a bit of intolerance and prejudice in your words (="minis are newschool" (which is utterly false), "minis are RAW-fetishism", "minis decrease imagination" and so on)

@Valgerin:

What I personally realized about "player stupidity" during the campaigns I've been running is this:
In a game, that takes entirely place in the head/imagination, it is sometimes required to make sure, everyone has grasped and understood the information/description the DM gives. Of course, there are absent minded players, or just plainly bad players (in terms of adventuring strategy, not talking about roleplay in general). But very often the actual problem, is either a lack, or (more often) a disparity in/of information (or the "shared imaginary space", as some might call it) between the DM and player(s).... or between player(s) and player(s).

Especially when a "stupid" player, who does a lot of "mistakes", suddenly becomes brilliant, after the DM begins to patiently repeat the pieces of information...it is a good indication of where the fault lies. And although it is often described as "living your character", it is never possible by 100% to gain the whole perception of an actual person alive in the campaign world.

Regarding killing of PCs:
It should never be the DM to kill characters.
It should be the NPCs and monsters, which are controlled impartially (!!!) by the DM.

Impartially = neither taking their side and desiring to kill the PCs, nor having a wrong sense of "compassion". The DM is merely a judge.

But without character death possible ? No fun and eternal boredom (for me).

The trick, however, as I mentioned, is that the PCs are not the center of the (campaign) world. Keying events to the presence or absence of the PCs without logical reasons, or "DM-metagaming", will make it hard to remain impartial.

the house rule was that, if the character got into negative HPs, they required that many days bed rest, and couldn't adventur

Its actually not a house rule, but official 1st Edition ruling for negative HPs :-)

Hah, good (and gritty!) old times

To me, pure character-roleplaying without tactics, without exploration, without combat...is just BORING.

The other way round is not directly boring, but gets dull quick.

A good mix is THE way to go.

(and again, don't set "roleplaying=character play", because the term "RPG" encases also tactical combat and optimization

Yea right, that was it (Clothing, +2d6 on Eldritch).
Its been a while since that adventure ;-)

There also were gloves with daily charges for additional nova blasting capability. All in all it was an extreme fun and effective character to play, who kept steadily nuking/AEing, when the sorcerers spell slots had already been looong soaked dry to the very last cantrip.
What also proved EXTREMELY useful, was one of his invocations, that cast a dimension door at-will(unlimited use per day), and leave an illusion behind.
A bit shorter, than the original dimension door, but nonetheless an extremely good transportation method in the underground, often more useful than the regular dimension door because of the illusion.

Also, the warlock is probably the best class on Lvl 1 in whole 3.5:
at-will ranged-touch damage, at-will detect magic, at-will effect that duplicate 2nd Level spells...(Invisibility at level 1, at will !)

Again, someone who puts "roleplaying" on the one side of the equation, and then the typical terms like "character developement", "storylines" and so on on the other.

Note, that roleplaying can be presented in the context of this game..from tactical miniature combat of so called "characters" who are actually mere carriers of statblocks...
to reckless optimization /w CHA-dump that can recite the rules asleep
and so on.

That's all "roleplaying", and some people tend to have fun the one or other way.

The actually worst thing, isn't really a lack of "roleplay", but a lack of tolerance for other styles of gaming