Karl Hammarhand's page

Cian grounded his spear butt first, "The honor is all mine I am sure, Cian MacLir at your service." he replied grasping Caramir's hand firmly.

"I'm sure the gentleman just remembered his manners," Cian said with a smile.

"Good to see you up and about," Cian said with a smile to Okrin, "Let's not have any more laying about in the middle of the day without the excuse of hard work, good wine, a pretty lass, or stout hand-blows. None of which our barbarian friend provided. It was naught but clumsy dancing as far as I could see."

"Morrigan it is a temporary dirtman encampment. Most last a day or a season. I believe they take it as bad fortune to stay in on of these long. Usually, camps like this are used by miners, loggers, or other temporary types."

Cian wrinkled his nose, "and they no nothing of proper sanitation."

Perhaps they have not been coming to the summer gatherings? Very important event and no one misses. The high king has to do his duty with the queen and all that.

Okay this is me trying to get this right. My first post with an alias.

Jaelithe wrote:

(Think on how unpopular the offhand demise of Tasha Yar was on TNG.)

So, given the popularity of Game of Thrones, I can assume that GRRM would never kill off major characters...

GRRM needs a serious editor. He's a good writer but quickly comes to hate his heroes. He actively kills everyone with a soupcon of decency and heroism as quickly as he can unless they're victims. He sure loves victims and villains. Heroes? Not so much.

beej67 wrote:

**

"Oh great adventurers, my name is Sorcerer Steve, and I wish to hire you to guard this treasure on its way to a far off land by boat!"

"Why don't you just teleport it there yourself?"

"Because it's 100 tons of antimagiconium."

"Because it's an artifact, notoriously unreliable to teleport."
"Because it's a zoo, with over thirty species of exotic animals."
"Because I will be tending to over twenty other plots of mine while you minions get minioning."
"Because this is a decoy, you stupid patsies."
"Because I don't know teleport."
"Because I've never been there."
"Because I pay little peons like you to do these things, so that I am not assassinated by my enemies who are moving to counter my actions in the world."
"Because the land you are taking it to is hostile towards those of magic, and I am building up their trust in me. Be careful in displaying your power openly, Wizard Willy."

beej67 wrote:

"Oh great adventurers, my name is Pirate Pete, and I wish you to join me in my mission to waylay a boat filled with fabulous riches on the way to Sorcerer Steve!"

"Why doesn't he just teleport his stuff around by himself?"

"Because the rich and powerful do not deign to dirty their hands with manual labor like you and I. Viva la rivoluzione!"

"Because the treasure is the princess, Steve's spoiled niece, and she is decidedly unwilling to travel. We will kidnap her and force the king to abdicate and hold elections. Viva la rivoluzione!"
"Because this treasure is a golden statue 169 feet tall, in obvious contempt of the proletariat's fear of the number 13. It's capture shall allow us to fund the people's struggle against the bourgeoisie, as well as destroying the symbols of their oppression. Viva la rivoluzione!"

beej67 wrote:

"Oh great adventurers, we are Pete and Steve! We wish you to join us in stealing a great artifact from Evil Eggbert!"

"Why don't you two just scry on his location, teleport to him

...

So you think teleportation for cargo transport is viable and makes economic sense. Because it does if I ever start running a campaign I'll limit the magic unless I want magically transported cargo. In which case I'll simply embrace it and make it part of the lore of my campaign.

Class warfare?

I cannot see a single reason magic could not transport cargo cheaper over the long run that a real ship. Except for reasons of the setting but forbidding it would require some serious hamster spinning.

With the amounts and magnitude of magic thrown around regularly simply setting up a 'point to point' teleport system would be trivial compared to other magical items/spells. Set up your teleport area outside the city bring it in through customs regularly via a bonded area or simply walk it the two miles or whatever using mules.

Longshoremen? Bribe them to sit on their behinds all day and move cargo on and off the teleport area or give them cushy jobs moving the cargo via mules. Railroads used to do similar things all the time. Thieves or assassins? They are just as willing to accept cumshaw. Rival shipping companies? If they can't afford their own magical transport they probably can't afford the price of an assassin who can beat their assassins or to beat the bribe already paid to the 'assassins guild' or however they are organized.

There's really no reason it couldn't be set up. And be a permanent money maker for the caster/crafter. Pay them a set fee per use worth say half the regular cost of transporting. Leave something for their heirs something that could keep paying forever. Someone would do it just because it hasn't been done if for no other reason. Maybe Joe the Wizard is sick of making vorpal blades of snickersnacking. Maybe he owes his sister a favor, maybe he just wants a simple way to make money.

Just my 2 coppers.

andreww wrote:

That would be a great idea except for the part in AD&D where it wasn't really true.

Druids levelled really fast, Wizards did in the mid levels, Clerics and Fighters were close, Rangers and Paladins got the shaft despite not being that much stronger than the base fighter (especially where weapon specialisation entered the equation). Thieves levelled fastest but were pretty much terrible as a single class and only really worth bothering with as part of a multi class combination.

A friend and I loved our thieves, and we made them work solo for many years. They are best teaming up with melee, but you could trust them to scout a bit once their skills went up a bit on the d100 table.

Also that glorious early game where you are trying to steal everything you can in the cities so you can level prior to the dungeons, ha ha. Great times, a very fun way to encourage player action outside of dungeons.

Cleric thief or cleric assassin it was like the Swiss army knife and Leatherman multitool of 'Expert Treasure-Hunters'.

Mark Hoover wrote:

Want to recapture some of the essence, least from times when I PLAYED 1e/2e?

1. roll 4d6, take the best 3; no re-rolls and apply all rolls AS rolled. This means: you show up wanting to play a paladin; you end up rolling up a m-u with a 4 dex and a 12 Int as your highest stat (it happened)

2. If you're a level 1 spell caster cast 1 spell. That's it, just 1. No cantrips, scrolls or what-not at level 1... just that spell.

3. Learn to debate. Get REALLY good at it. Learn math, physics, history and study a lot of science. Be ready to quote not only game rules but also debate those rules with A LOT of passionate, real-world numbers/examples

4. Talk to NPCs. No, don't roll anything (Charisma is basically there to fill space on your sheet), just start talking and hope you impress your GM.

5. Learn to impress your GM. Not just in the game (see 3 and 4) but find out what his drink of choice is; buy him food; laugh at his jokes. This will pay dividends in rulings later.

6. Invent telepathic transmission. This is the only way you and your GM will see EXACTLY the same thing when he's describing the action. Otherwise see the post above about the mapless fight scene.

7. Manage disappointment. You won't be building your character; they will change as the game changes. Sometimes you will die, fail a save and turn to stone, be put to sleep, charmed, or otherwise transformed in some way beyond your control. You have far fewer resources to not only prevent these changes but to reverse them when they occur. Accept the change.

8. Don't get attached to your PC. For the first 3 levels don't even name them. Even after that make sure you've always got 5 backups ready to go at a moment's notice.

Quite amusing, but I've got a big reveal for you.

Fight scenes don't actually require maps.

:O

Yep, just describe features, what is relevant, and distance. I rarely use maps anymore, just describe distance and make a note of it. Always relying upon grid maps and boards is for...

I still encourage guys to draw their character or paint a miniature if they like and I even sometimes use them to give the character an idea of where they are if they are not good at visual spatial stuff but a die works just as were there. I encourage them more to write a backstory if they want and I do reward them for it.

Kthulhu wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?

If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?

DrDeth wrote:

It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.

And then DrDeth developed a split personality.

Those two are in no way contradictory. Really.

I why do you think they are?

You have a player who is a socially inept introvert, but he really wants to play a charismatic bard, why not? Sure, maybe he'll struggle a bit, or even a lot, but why penalize him for trying?

As long as he's trying and wants to play it's the GM's job to help. It's hard to do a party 'face' right if you don't have some social chops.

I was a 'party face' once in a game where I was bargaining the shop keepers down and smooth talking the natives and the DM said, "Stop, your charisma's not that high!"

Sometimes mercy requires killing. Some creatures or people are too dangerous to allow to live. You have to determine what your god demands. Deserving mercy is always called for false mercy for those who have not repented their ways or only regretted being caught is never called for.

You used to be able to tell what a paladin would do in any given situation without bothering to ask. Weird how much that's changed.

DrDeth wrote:

Just like we don't have too many Theoretical Nuclear Physicists who are also Major League baseball players.

Yeah, it's not like Ted Williams (3.85 GPA, Amherst College), one of the greatest hitters in MLB history, could also have been a decorated military officer and veteran of two wars, IGFA hall-of-famer sport fisherman, philanthropist, and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient.

Just as it's absurd that a self-made printer invented bifocals and the lighning rod, and brokered a treaty with France that enabled us to win the American Revolution.

But, seriously, arguing it's hard for a person to be good at optimization and roleplaying is a lot closer to saying that it's rare for a supermarket checkout clerk to be good at both scanning AND bagging (note that they're both part of the same job).

You do realize that you had to use Ted Williams and Ben Franklin as your examples and that they are two hundred years apart. What, no Leonardo da Vinci or Teddy Roosevelt as examples? I know there are plenty of guys out there like Socrates that's why no one talks about guys like that.

It's not to say they don't exist but you might as well have listed Teddy Roosevelt, author, crimefighter, martial artist, rancher, big game hunter and the only person to hold the Medal of Honor and be President of the United States.

They're vanishingly rare. I know my brother was a genuine polymath.

Roleplaying and numbers memorization and crunching don't even have 'G' factor intelligence in common one uses right brain the other left generally.

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

When I play I make it clear the place for rules lawyers is not my table.

Smart, tactical players who know the rules =/= rules lawyers.

At this point, I think we've fallen back to the Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone knows the rules and enjoys a smart, tactical game doesn't mean they don't know how to roleplay. And vice versa. The game was designed to incorporate both perspectives, and good GMs and players will know how to do both well enough.

No it's a false dichotomy again. No one suggested (as far as I am aware) that smart, tactical players are rules lawyers. Smart tactical players are not rules lawyers. It can be a joy to have a table full of 'smart, tactical players'. I was responding to a poster who laid out their GMing style. I did so by giving my one deal breaker (other than honesty and by God I hope that is still understood by everyone). I did not say nor have I ever said or implied somebody who understands the rules is a 'rules lawyer'.

Sorry but I am unfamiliar with the 'Stormwind Fallacy'. I can tell you what a 'no true Scotsman' is or a 'strawman argument' but Stormwind is something I have only run across here.

RDM42 wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

You could also say that the DM can simply make a judgment call, freeing the player from taking the chandelier feat. It's a matter of whether you prefer rules-heavy (as you clearly do) or rules-light, and slant your argument to subtly or not-so-subtly favor one over the other.

I also have played a number of games with both the kind of dm I trust implicately and who gets excited when the players do awesome or crazy things, and the kind of dm that is easily frustrated and can get resentful over such things and make it harder to trust his judgement calls. I think the first kind of dm thrives in a system that requires alot of judgement calls, and the second kind functions better in a highly codified system.

Just saying that I have seen both sorts as players too. There are layers who don't like there to not be an explicit rule for everything and who resent you making it up on the fly.

That is also certainly true, there have been rules laywers since the dawn of dnd. And 40 years of experiences with dms(some not all) not making consistent or fair on the fly rulings has not eased this issue. Some players are better suited to such things then others. The same thing applies. Its easier for a larger portion of people to play a game that is highly codified then a game that is often dependant on dm rulings.

Myself I like a game to be one or the other. Either it is designed to be abstract and take in narrative elements from both player and dm, or for the game to be highly codified. I dont like it when there are very specific rules for some situations and not for others. I like to know ahead of time what I can and cannot do, rather then playing mother may i with the dm at the table. That sort of thing is as frustrating as it is a time waster.

It is harder to learn and play a game with more rules than fewer. More rules may make certain situations less dependent on sound judgement but you still have to follow the rule.

You set up a false dichotomy. A game does not have to be 'highly codified' or 'often dependent on dm rulings'. A game can be highly codified and often dependent on dm rulings or lightly codified and require almost no refereeing at all.

Pathfinder is highly codified. The rules are continually being added to. Nothing is going to change that. Does that make Pathfinder easy to learn or play? Fewer rules means more people can learn and play. And will do so. If I drop a thousand plus pages of rules on someone how many will simply say, 'no'? Now if I drop three or four pages of rules on someone how many will say 'no'?

How many people can learn the rules to 'tag'? Everyone above four years old. How many can learn all the rules of baseball? A bright ten year old can learn enough to play, a bright twelve year old can learn what an infield fly rule is. All the rules? It takes less than 150 pages to print out the rules to baseball and many, many people find baseball too complicated to follow. Nearly 600 pages for the core rule book alone? How many people are going to find it too complicated?

However back to the original question. Many people don't like allowing GM agency or fear it for some reason and that appears to be much of the objection to 'the essence of AD&D'. Many are afraid that more GM agency means less player agency (it doesn't).

Many here simply do not want to play the way the game used to be played or have it mixed in with unpleasant social memories of one kind or another. Some are very pleased with themselves that they have achieved 'system mastery' of somewhere north of a thousand pages of rules if you include supplements, etc. and feel any simplification a threat to that.

I can understand that. There are many things I enjoy doing well and if they were easier more people could do those same things well.

That's okay not everyone is going to want to play with the essence of AD&D and some of those people are going to do anything they can to dismiss the idea, deny there ever was such a thing, downplay the difference between the essence of ad&d and Pathfinder or denigrate those who want to find that difference (that's not a reference to you Kolo I've wandered further than I intended again).

Some of us can agree on what the essence of ad&d was. Those that do and want to add it pathfinder ought to be given the chance.

First instinct is to say, thank the gods you haven't already started playing. I recommend a re-roll. But I'll say there's also the pressure on you the DM to be able to say no, just don't play that way. Don't be an orc or something that would make charisma a -3 or worse. "Cool concept" & other arguments be damned, a 2-4 charisma would be a beyond miserable creature to play. No party wants to play with a creature that's basically a crude hunchbacked troglodyte with little will to do anything. Just to keep certain features in mind, I'm gonna toss up this part of the definition too:

SRD wrote:

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance... A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

That said, it's possible if you reaallly trust the player. Reserve the right to write the character out should anything go awry. But it's tons more reasonable for the "concept" to not be done in the first place. G'luck!

No! Keep that score. Do you know how rare a '2' is? Do you have any idea of the roleplaying potential. Embrace that '2', a two charisma is the invisible guy at the bus stop. The one that no one wants to sit next to or talk to. He's the guy that girls don't even pretend to lie to. They simply do not respond when he speaks. He's 'Mr Cellophane' people will walk right by without ever acknowledging he exists.

Embrace that rage against it. Force your horrible, bland, unpleasant self on others.

houstonderek wrote:

Amen. Some of my 1e games had quite a bit of "epic". Those "epic" combats just took up WAY less time looking stuff up and adding a zillion modifiers (stuff that is decidedly not "epic", quite draggy and boring, actually).

That's where rules bloat gets in the way of the story. AD&D wasn't anywhere close to perfect, but there wasn't a lot of mechanics to get in the way of an epic story. If the 1st level gamer wanted to throw acid at the roof of the building to weaken the rafters to smash a rampaging basilisk that he has no chance of beating in a traditional "grid-based" combat, that's a whole lot more epic than stopping play and flipping to page 2xx to argue the relative hardness of each rafter, much less finding the rules for "cave-in" once, if ever, the ceiling falls. This may simply be a matter where a DM steps in, adjudicates "normally the acid splash is too weak to do real damage to treated wood, but termites have been working on the building along with some exposure to weather over the years. The ancient rafters give a creak and groan...you'd better think about finding something to hide under..."

There's also something non-epic about being engaged in the middle of battle with the Death Knight Lord Sinister who has razed the local church atop his flaming nightmare steed, and stopping play to recount "...ok so I get a +1 from bless, a +1 from prayer, a +2 from blessing of fervor, a +1 from (oops, that's a morale bonus, doesn't stack with bless, scratch that), a +1 from haste, a -2 because of the shaken effect, did I count that +4 for the Potion of Bull Strength, (no wait, that should only be a net gain of +2 because of my strength already)...so I hit AC 30. No wait, I forgot that I had activated a swift action to gain a temporary +2, I think that's a class bonus so it counts...(and now another player indicates his abilities grant a bonus so long as they're in proximity), and was bard song playing? What's that grant again? Hold on, I lost my count on...

If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D

If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.

Seems nobody can exactly agree on what "old school feel is"

I've never played oldskool so I have no experience but reading this I've read the following
*unclear rules*
*less rules*
*more RP*
*less RP*
*more unique magic weapons*
*traps that kill rogues 75% of the time*
*elf was a level, so that is good*
*every elf was EXACTLY the same, so bad*
*game was more fun*
*DMs had more power oldskool*
*DM's had less power oldskool*
I have yet to see a single OBJECTIVE TRUE statement other than things like Elf was a class and isn't now...I have also learned from this thread
*Dungeon World is old school*
*Dungeon world is a narrative game, and you might as well play a diceless game or just flip coins*
*Pathfinder isn't old school because you have to optimize*
Oh and my favorite....
*old school characters died less*
*old school characters had lives measured in hours*

Did you play AD&D in the seventies? I can understand your confusion if you did not. No one who didn't will get the essence of that earlier game because even if you played AD&D today the conventions of games/gaming/ and RPG rules have altered the expectations of people. Some people are hostile to the idea that Pathfinder might not provide everything that AD&D did. Some people are confused by the concept.

Unless of course you're not genuinely trying to find the essence of AD&D, in that case using bullet points of every contradictory point in a thread hundreds long is trying to boil a cat whole to get a kitten. All that ever does is give you an ugly mess.

Kthulhu wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

AdAstraGames wrote:

We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."

Not cool, AAG. Dial the condescension back from 11 to maybe 5 or 6 and we can still talk.

Also, the whole world is not as obsessed with DungeonWorld as you are; the thread was originally talking about AD&D, if you'll recall.

How dare he show even a tenth of the amount of condescention you routinely show when you regularly relegate the entire history of D&D prior to the d20 system as being nothing more than "Mother May I?" Everyone knows that only you are allowed to express condescension of that level!

Indeed. I also never played with my mother, so never got to utter that phrase. She would have made an excellent barbarian though.

I did play my first session with my mom. I believe she was an elf.

I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?

Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?

Every rule, law, ordinance, etc. unless it is specifically granting more agency to the people involved (and sometimes even when it does) is also limiting, restricting, or eliminating some element of the same. That is the nature of rules and laws.

Having more mechanisms can allow more agency. It can and usually does restrict it. There are several threads I can point to regarding rules running into the hundreds or thousands of posts regarding how a rule restricts this or that player choice.

Rules do not make creativity. Interaction, improvisation, and agency create the nest where creativity can grow and be nurtured.

Note: Please forgive any bad spelling no spell check.

Given enough time, I'm so anal in prepping that it hurts. If I'm running an AP, I know I'm going to end up modifying the hell out of it to fit the ongoing campaign anyway.

ADVENTURE TEXT:

I buy it in PDF and then paste the whole thing into Word.

I rewrite the intro/hooks in the form of bullet points relating to previous sessions.

I add/delete/revise whole sections as needed.

I import all the Bestiary stat blocks that aren't included, so I don't have to flip for them during the game.

I redo all the stat bocks to make them as easy as possible for me to run (notes & comments), and swap out feats, etc. or outright totally revise monsters/NPCs as needed.

I change all text to one font/shading, descriptive stuff to another, stat blocks to another, and notes to myself to still another, so I can tell them all apart at a glance.

I increase the font size for easy reading at the table (I'm gettin' old and can't always read 9-point or whatever).

I include spaces as needed for "X"ing off consumables, tracking lost hp, etc.

Print the new text for use in the game.

MAPS & OTHER:
For potential fights in complex terrain with multiple enemies, I might draw out a scale battlemat, but I run most combats without miniatures.
I usually have maps of the surrounding area, city maps, etc. already drawn, and make sure I get those out. Also, notes about the city/area, including encounter tables, NPC notes, etc.

PCs:
For the PCs, I keep a one-sided sheet that lists things like their passive Perception scores, their Init modifiers, and lots of room for notes.

NPCs:
For NPC dialogue that's likely to be important, I practice their lines in-character. I might rehearse the same lines a dozen times in different voices until I'm happy with them. Sometimes I draw sketches of them and/or make up bits of backstory that aren't important but help them come to life in my mind.

OTHER:
I stock a lot of beer. For non-beer drinkers, I try to find something they like, but isn't totally...

Have you sought professional help? ;>)

The bard from Gamers. The guy who kept getting killed.

Maybe we can petition Paizo to make their next Dragon's Demand style mega-module something to appeal to the old-school 1E/2E players and introduce the younger generation to some of what we've discussed nostalgically. These might include:

1. Rolling for character creation, or at least somewhat random character creation. Something I've played with is having players roll 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange as desired, and if one player rolls particularly well that set of rolls becomes the array for everyone. Then each player replaces on stat with 15+1d3. This captures some of the 1E/2E character creation, where you might have one really good attribute that is not a prime attribute.

2. Greater range of encounters. My observation is that modern encounter design keeps EL within +3/-3 of APL. If that range is increased to +/-5 or 6 that changes how PCs approach encounters. It encourages conserving resources, and makes an easy encounter something of a relief. This might help the fighter shine, the fighter doesn't have many limitations on using abilities or feats a certain number of times per day.

3. Less optimization and customization for the first few levels. I'm a big fan of PF customization and optimization, it makes the game generally more fun and a lot more player friendly for the first few levels. But limiting spells known and spell selection for the first 3 levels forces players to be creative for a few levels, especially with use of spells.

I'm sure there are more (and probably better suggestions) for recapturing the feel of AD&D. I prefer PF to AD&D by a lot, but there were a lot of fun things about AD&D (I wouldn't go back to spheres of influences for cleric spells, rolling for spells known at 1st level, or not learning spells as a magic-user when leveling up).

I am a fan of pathfinder. I love aspects and dislike others. I know the game could have a more sontaneous and organic combat/opposed action system. I love some of the character creation options. The fact you must have standardized magic items and quickly doesn't sit well with me and I believe that is a symptom of the one of the challenges the developers must overcome. I completely understand that when some people hear others may find parts of the game they are comfortable with to be detrimental to the game and the hobby they will have a visceral reaction. We must remember our goal is a fun immersive game with an organic feel to the world. Goodnight and good gaming to all.

AdAstraGames is correct, I have been perusing Dungeon World and it does exactly what he says. Captures the old school feel with a simple and very robust rules system that deliberately includes everyone in collaboration and play. It also links players through in game bonds that means the characters have a backstory together.

If a Pathfinder 'Beginners Box' or Pathfinder light achieve what these guys did they would dominate the oldschool and newer market without trying.

One of my biggest pet peeves is players who constantly talk in game about how, "that's how we used to do it in x edition". And it's usually some stupid cheese build from 3.5. If a game/scenario is engaging enough for me, I really don't want to be distracted by your tales of the '100 peasant rail gun'. :/

A group should be about having fun. Unfortunately, as in the example above somebody's idea of fun is to interrupt the suspension of disbelief (deliberately or not) it makes it much harder to play.

I love immersion. I want to feel like I'm slogging through the rain in a dark ghoul haunted forest or creeping down a dusty cavern with unnameable horrors just around the corner. But that's just me.

We've been over this and over this.

If you see no disparity, you're obviously playing the "right" way.

From what people have explained to me and from my own experience, this involves a large amount of DM fiat, gentleman's agreements, and/or houserules, so all the "evil optimizer theorycrafters," if they play using straight RAW, are clearly the ones playing the WRONG way, because they do end up with a disparity.

It's a shame that everything you need to know to play the right way isn't spellout out in the core rulebook, but c'est la vie.

Absolutely, If you and your friends are having fun playing any game you are doing it right.

What I'm wondering is why so many people are complaining about Pathfinder's 'rulesy' nature and how modern RPGs are badwrongfun for taking aspects that they enjoyed from their older games, while posting on a modern RPG's forum and supposedly play that modern game. I have no problem with other people having different opinions about their games, however, those games still exist, tweak them to your liking or play pathfinder the way you want to; I don't see the reason to make snide offhand comments against attitudes you don't like, be it 'MMORPG terminology, optimization, having more defined rules, etc...'

I happen to prefer having a stronger rules set, I like to know that I'm playing within a certain set of rules and that everyone is on the same playing field. I've been burned too many times by GMs that basically require you to convince them for anything you get, so whoever was the better talker/manipulator got what he/she wanted. That really bugs me, I assume that I am working from a certain framework and expect the GM and players to work within that framework, if that framework is being broken I really feel like I should be told something about what to expect instead of being forced to figure things out on my own.

(I'm not accusing anyone who prefers a more open playstyle of these attitudes, simply what I've experienced from some of them.)

Okay, for the third time on this thread I'm going to say it. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a rulebook that is a. huge b. growing. c. requires 'system mastery' to play several of the available classes (although to improv something you really need to understand it well it's like an artist who doesn't learn the rules of anatomy before trying to draw the human figure or a musician who only knows how to 'air-guitar').

No one is forcing you to play, discuss, or enjoy roleplaying the way it used to be. If uncertainty about rules makes you uncomfortable no one will push you into the pool. If you are afraid of GMs who are not fair, it is perfectly understandable that you'd want a rule system that limited what improvisation, differences of opinion, and sometimes personality used to do.

The reason we keep coming back to what makes Pathfinder different (mechanical, min-maxing, ever-expanding into strange permutations, lack of improv, RAW fetishization etc) is because the title of the thread is, "Recapturing the Essence of D&D in Pathfinder". It is the same reason we are examining the roots of the hobby, what makes the old school revival a growing force, how DMs used to run games and create fun, and how we can return that type of game play to the Pathfinder system/community).

If you take these comments as 'snide' or 'off hand' you couldn't be more wrong. Nobody is denigrating any of the hobbies/activities that have shaped Pathfinder in the last thirty plus years. We are pointing out that certain facets of the game and certain expectations of the players (and this has been amply illustrated by posters just like yourself) have been shaped by other experiences and parts of the hobby culture.

The main thrust of this is not 'Why is Pathfinder bad' but 'what can we do to recapture the feel of D&D'. The very fact that you are taking this as an adversarial position says quite a bit. Pathfinder isn't bad, it is different we want to regain something Pathfinder has lost not take away any of the fun you are currently enjoying.

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

AdAstraGames wrote:

This is why I like Dungeon World, by and large.

I get the old school AD&D feel, avoid the standardized magic item conundrum, and have lots of self-contained options for classes for people to use.

The rules are simple, but need a bit better explanation at times.

Is Dungeon World 'supported' or do you need to DYI stuff? I love writing dungeons, worlds, campaigns, races etc. My favorite part of the game is the prep sometimes.

It has a few third party support products for settings, but it's really meant to be improvisational to its core. The lighter the rules system, the easier it is to be an improv GM.

My last session started with the following:

"Four years ago, Agamemnon led the Greeks to the plains of Illium. You're on the decks of a heaving ship as the breath of Boreas is threatening to rip your sails to tatters. In your ship's hold is a cargo going from Pylea to Caria, shipment paid for by Armistokles of Pymea.

What did he pay you to transport?
Who is it to be delivered to, assuming you survive your current problem...
What have you done to bring down the wrath of Poseidon?
What do you do now?"

I made up the rest from what the players wrote down on their character sheets, defined a few antagonists, put in a few intra-party friction points and ran them through a Ray Harryhousen movie.

Is there a PDF out there? It sounds exactly like how I like to run games. Some of the sites listed when I google Dungeon World come up as 'dangerous'.

The technological equivalents are no better. I once pointed a TV remote at my parents and pressed the "Parental Control" button. They kept on doing exactly as they pleased.

Try the 'mute' button on your wife. Not only doesn't it work, they don't think it's very funny.

Misidentify an elk print for a boar track? Mistake poison ivy for a 'toilet paper' leaf? Get eaten by their 'animal companion' (I am sure Siegfried and Roy or that 'Grizzly guy' would have been better off as 'Rangers')?

I can think of lots of things fighters can do rangers don't.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear she already decided she wanted to play a half elf for roleplaying reasons. She likes the concept and will not change it to get bonuses as she did not select it for the in game bonuses but for the roleplaying aspect of it.

PF vs Old D&D... so many threads...

In 1e/2e players took very little agency in the game, because none was given to them. You can say all you want about the PCs' role in the game but the reality was you were little more than dice rolling machines back in the day... unless you had a good DM. And what was a "good" DM? Well one of my players said I was one in college because I let him try things and make his character what he wanted.

Now, the downside for that guy is that because rules weren't standardized, when he played with another group he had a negative experience with the same character. He was able to identify me as fun and another GM as not fun because my houserules let him craft magic items, creatively use his stats for skill checks and re-flavor his spells to do what he wanted.

3x and later versions are all permutations on this very simple fact: players don't like sitting around waiting for their GM to tell them what happens.

In my current game I have 5 players; 4 of them are old schoolers who've come through all the editions of D&D. They are fine with me being the final judge in things but all five, to a man, wants to take an active role in some part of the game. Further they want to be able to calculate their measure of success; they want to know what's a sure bet, a fifty/fifty shot and a hail mary. In older editions they'd just roll and hope for the best. Now they can look at their skills, powers and items that THEY chose and make decisions, not guesses.

Now if you want to go rules-light that's fine, but please do so in a way where the players remain active creators and not just bystanders.

No one is suggesting taking 'player agency' away from them. Making the game simpler does not do that. Recapturing the essence does require trimming some of the more egregious examples of power/item creep (I've yet to hear the term Monty Haul used on these boards so I think people simply expect there to be a metric-load of standardized magic items which is literally against the spirit of the original D&D). There is no reason Paizo couldn't do that with a beginner's set. It would make the system they use now look unnecessarily clunky/bloated but I think going from some 80 pages to literally thousands will do that to anything.

Unless a DM was railroading to fit his narrative (and that happened) I never once felt I was a bystander.

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Glutton wrote:

Grousing about uncreative combats then banning non-core books, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The most powerful, smash-it-with-sticks solutions are in core. If you really want a fun campaign, try a run where the only core things you allow are classes and skills. No feats, spells or core magic items. Really shakes the game up and truly shows you what Paizo has made rather than what was around from 3.5.

It may seem that way but it is not. With every layer of rules everthing becomes more complex. Even a cursory study of human institutions will confirm this. On the other hand when RAW wasn't king and fun/immersion was people could and did play with a much more wide open improvised style. Options were there for the asking.

The term "rules lawyer" predates 3.x by decades. RAW fetishism isn't new. Some groups have always done it, and other groupds nowaday still don't do it.

However, if you're going to talk about rules with people online, or going to play with new people every week, having some common ground is really handy. Especially if you're playing under a new GM every week (PFS), you really want your abilities to do roughly the same thing every time. Personally I don't mind the lack of diversity in the rules in such situations, because you instead play with diverse other players, GMs with their own styles, and all kinds of different scenarios rather than a single-GM campaign that will often focus on a particular style. Plenty of variety for me.

You make some good points and your desire to have a RAW experience is understood and that is great for you. However, the rules creep will continue and the games will reward those with the time, resources, cash, etc. to purchase and to keep abreast of them. If you like a lack of diversity, and a rule book that is bigger than an entire sovereign nation's law code (that is not an exaggeration) then great. You'll get more of exactly that.

I am aware of the pejorative 'rules lawyer'. I have been playing the game for over thirty five years. Yes, it's great to have a common ground for discussing rules. And a smaller/easier set of rules makes the common ground larger not smaller.

Is the federal code smaller than it was just five years ago? Is it easier to understand? Does it make more sense? If you can answer 'Yes' to any of those questions you do not live in the United States. I am unaware of any country that has had a reduction in its law code.

The same principle applies here except it's a hobby. When I was a kid there was a weekly column sometimes two pages or so long in every newspaper of any size in the country. It involved a game that was already in decline but institutions die hard. The game was bridge. Strategies were endlessly discussed in the column and letters and millions of adults played it obsessively.

Now it's a bare shadow of its old self. That's where this hobby will go if it remains in the hands of the tiny number with enough time to achieve, 'system mastery'. It will fail to flourish and eventually go the way of 'bridge'.

And why in the hell does a roleplaying game need system mastery to play it well or understand it? That is like saying 'cops and robbers' needs the kids to know the advantages of a Glock over a S&W, or the exact wording of the Miranda Warnings or when and where they apply (hint: not all the time). Sorry I am getting too long.

I mentioned on another thread that 'The Beginner's Box' could be used to capture the old school feel. Ruthlessly trim rules nothing beyond the core book. Nothing but core races/classes. No rules too complex, or time consuming. Urge flexibility and speed of play. Have a dev whose only function was too keep the rules simple, easy to learn and fun.

Paizo could find an out of the way corner of Golarion no gunslingers, celestial/kobold/dragonkin players, no assembly line magical items, support the beginner box to any level. If players later decided they wanted cloud-master weredragon necrovore shadowlords they could add elements for the new stuff.

This way they get to keep the rules-heavy, complex, ever expanding system as is and could comercially produce a version that appealed to people who don't have the time, resources, or desire to learn literally thousands of pages of rules (if you count expansions and supplements).

Simply repurposing and trimming existing stuff is all that is needed to produce an old school feel Pathfinder. Win-win.

Grousing about uncreative combats then banning non-core books, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The most powerful, smash-it-with-sticks solutions are in core. If you really want a fun campaign, try a run where the only core things you allow are classes and skills. No feats, spells or core magic items. Really shakes the game up and truly shows you what Paizo has made rather than what was around from 3.5.

It may seem that way but it is not. With every layer of rules everthing becomes more complex. Even a cursory study of human institutions will confirm this. On the other hand when RAW wasn't king and fun/immersion was people could and did play with a much more wide open improvised style. Options were there for the asking.

The magic is bogus. Like I totally cast a 'dominate' spell on my dad and he still won't let me play dark dungeons.

Make sure she refers to her Gucci boots, belts, sheathes, and shoulder bags. Everything she cares about is brand name. Same with her horse ride a nag? Oh no, she needs a purebred "Bakhariot Stallion'. With matching bit, bridle, and saddle.

Oh, might consider 'rich parents' if it is allowed. Maybe set of parents who doted on her spoiled her rotten.

Always use the rising inflection at the end of a sentence even a declaratory statement. Don't forget to use emphasis in all your statements. Be very concerned with style over substance. Never get the geography right unless it is your home territory.

Worry about your nails hair and best clothing. If you have an animal companion make sure it is small, well groomed and appears useless even if it is a cross between a piranha and Pomeranian.

Don't forget to use, 'Like', 'fur shure', and 'shut up' as a place holder in conversation or an exclamation. Study the Valley Girl speech patterns. Watch 'Clueless' and 'Valley Girl'. For bonus points throw in a little Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan immoral/selfish behavior.

Anybody say, "Get lost in the woods?"

A gnome barbarian with a bad scottish accent and a kilt with a claymore taller than he is.

When I run my campaign I will probably play core book only and maybe trim races and classes. I will certainly not allow the assembly line crafting of magic items.

I have a bow in my hand...

I have no arrows...

I'm in the desert, stranded, naked, and I'm probably going to die of thirst in a day or two.

When that darn possessed snake decides to come my way to kill me, do you really think I'm going to use unarmed strikes against it? Or do you think I'd use my bow as an improvised weapon?

~My two cp

Are you playing Cleopatra?

A GM has to be able to say 'no'. That is the one thing many find hard to do. Knowing when to say 'yes' or 'no' is important too.

All characters must wear reflective safety vests at all times to prevent accidents, all weapons must be safety sealed with a combo lock to access and all armor spikes and other sharp protrusions must be removed.

All adventurers need to keep a flashing safety light with the party to prevent other adventurers from firing on them.

All classes need mandatory safety briefings at least once per gaming session. If the participants cannot give the right answers they are not issued any weapons or spells.

Does the Dog Ranger have a Human Companion?

Timmy. But the little guy is always failing his st and falling into the well.

Kthulhu wrote:

Disagree. In the 80s, AD&D was HUGE. Pathfinder has not ever, and will not ever, even begin to compare.

Not really, tabletop gaming was a niche hobby in the 80's and it is a niche hobby now. AD&D may well have sold millions of copies but in comparison to the toy market it is tiny. TSR was a small fish on the overall kids toy market just as WotC nowadays is a tiny part of the Hasbro family. Paizo barely rates as a blip in an overall commercial sense. What has changed is that much of the language of gaming has entered common knowledge and that is largely due to video games which are an enormous market in comparison.

D&D had a regular cartoon. You couldn't go a month without seeing a mainstream media article on the subject. And the media was much smaller. It was gigantic. Wotc puffery not withstanding I am willing to bet an honest assessment would show more core players as a percentage of the pop in the 80s and early 90s. Mmorpgs console games etc have gutted tabletop gaming.

Glutton wrote:

Vacuum cleaner.

..evil druid that likes to wildshape into an air elemental? I mean, it is a good who/what/how/why to the whole campaign.

Why do we have a dog party and how did it happen? Mad druid with awakening.

What did he do to become a BBEG? He makes intelligent creatures so he can play his sadistic games with them.

Like poker?

Do they get to smoke cigars, drink booze, and play poker?