Gary Gygax & Role Playing Mastery

DrDeth wrote:

Manual of Aurania.

Shameless plug! ;-P

But on a more serious note, I'd love find a copy of this.

if I only had copies to sell, then i'd be happy to. I guess then it's not that much of a plug.... ;-)

MendedWall12 wrote:

Elf, I want to play a game with you. I feel like it would be one of the most awesome games I've ever played in. :)

I thank you. That's kind of you to say. :-)

I'm afraid that my style of DMing would not go over very well by today's standards. I am very much a DM of the past (if you catch my meaning).

To me, the way I DM, it's the "rules" are more guidelines, and made up monsters and cool, unique loot are common. Gygaxian traps are there, too.

As Tim Klask, then Matt Finch said, "Rulings, not rules."

Mended - Frog God reposted my Black Gate Swords & Wizardry essay and the first comment was similar to yours about getting your kids to leave all those Pathfinder options behind.

What can you say that would get Pathfinder players to try S&W?

And I came up with a reply:

'In the ‘Role Playing Mastery’ thread I link to in the post, a guy is having the same dilemma, wanting to move his sons’ game to 5th edition, but they love the plethora of Pathfinder options too much to switch.

It’s a tough obstacle to overcome because all those options are right there, written down, available for your character to use. And there are a LOT. But maybe one way is to try and sell them on the idea that in a rules lite system, you actually can do more.

You’re not limited to attempting just those feats and skills written down on the character sheet. It’s more like a movie, where the player gets to explain what they want to do in a scene. And anything is allowable. They can try to swing from a chandelier or pull a Matrix kind of move. What they attempt is limited only by their imagination – not the character sheet.

I know my response is a bit thin - it's a really tough sell. Most players seem to love the plethora of options (which I call 'options bloat'). And I get it: I'm a big Pathfinder fan myself. But looking at it from behind the GM screen, it's kind of like, "Get your head out of your cell phone and look around." Don't be tied to your character sheet. Look up and tell me what your character wants to do and maybe we'll try it.'

For kids, maybe.

For others, absolutely not. I'd term myself an old school gamer, and I LOVE OD&D, BX, BECMI, and AD&D. I've answered questions occasionally regarding OD&D from my books on these forums on rare occasion.

I hate a LOT of 5e with a passion.

5e may say it's old school, and in some ways it is, but it is FAR TOO NEW SCHOOL in many other ways. It adheres to the fake Balance idea by utilizing Bounded Accuracy, something that restricts martials far too much whilst not hindering anyone else, especially spellcasters.

Sometimes it's not just options, it's the actual rules that dictate the game.

I don't like how much bloat Pathfinder has gotten, in all honesty. But I enjoy the basic dynamics of Pathfinder FAR more than the basic mechanics of 5e.

That's another difference between old school and New School in my opinion. One tries to adhere to this odd thing of balance which has gradually gotten worse and worse as time has gone on to where everyone now has to have the same bonus to hit, the same bonus to skills, the same this or that with different abilities rather than the idea that there is inherent balance through teamwork and things like the bonus to hit being different is just one of those facets of the game. It's a different approach to balance, where New school has one idea of balance (which is represented in 4e and 5e, and even in 3e and 3.5 which would include Pathfinder as well) whereas old school has a different approach (as seen in the pre-2000 D&D games, Rifts, Rolemaster, and many of those games from that period. A few games of this time period as well, like S&W or C&C would be in that bunch to a degree).

As Tim Klask, then Matt Finch said, "Rulings, not rules."

My opinion is that you can play almost any D&D (or pathfinder) with that mindset.

4e was actually particularly open to that style of play when not in grid locked combat.

However, because the rules were so fast and loose for everything out of combat, many viewed 4e as primarily a combat based game rather than seeing the rules for what they were in regards to all the looser rulings rather than rules type roleplaying outside of 4e.

I play Pathfinder a lot with that type of view at times as well.

In some cases it's reliant more on players than the ruleset that you use in regards to whether you can play with that playstyle or not.

IMO of course.

My opinion is that you can play almost any D&D (or pathfinder) with that mindset.

Welcome to the thread, GreyWolfLord.

You mention something we've touched on but not explored in real depth on this thread. The GM has the ability to "shape" the game in almost any fashion, depending upon how they run it.

Except that in a rules/options heavy system, the player expects to be able to do anything in the rules/on the character sheet. So it's a skill check to Find a Trap or Bluff someone successfully. And it's incumbent upon the GM to convince them to do it in an old school type of way.

Not saying it's impossible, but the system is set up that way in those types of games/editions. Similar to how some players seem to get upset when the GM doesn't allow certain character creation options.

This type of thing generally happens less often in a 'rules-light' type of system.

I don't recall if Gygax talked about this in the book(s).

Except that in a rules/options heavy system, the player expects to be able to do anything in the rules/on the character sheet. So it's a skill check to Find a Trap or Bluff someone successfully. And it's incumbent upon the GM to convince them to do it in an old school type of way.

Exactly right.

The players have a habit of pointing to their sheet and their Diplomacy score, rather than engage in actual diplomacy. They see it that they are within their rights to bypass the old school type of way, and I feel it is a combination of the mechanics setting an expectation that this is how it works, bit I also gather some players prefer to deal with the 'fairness' of a roll than gamble the GM might be about to pull a 'gotcha'.

Because the players have so much information (and tools) available to them, the GM is not as required to fill in the blanks anymore. I don't have to explain how I am searching for a trap anymore or what I am looking at specifically, I can just safely take 20 on my Perception check - and you give me a result.

If there's a plot twist coming up, then a 20 sense motive is all I need to 'get a hunch'.

And the heart of that was Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming.

I remember reading that and thinking to myself that it was just one giant strawman. I've never seen anyone play a game like the supposed new school is supposed to do.

The players have a habit of pointing to their sheet and their Diplomacy score, rather than engage in actual diplomacy. They see it that they are within their rights to bypass the old school type of way, and I feel it is a combination of the mechanics setting an expectation that this is how it works, bit I also gather some players prefer to deal with the 'fairness' of a roll than gamble the GM might be about to pull a 'gotcha'.

That's because in real life there are days that you want to verbally berate everyone you come across and yet still want to pretend you are diplomatic.

I've never seen anyone play a game like the supposed new school is supposed to do.

It's the difference between relying solely on a die roll to mechanically search for traps for example, and explaining exactly how your character is searching for traps without necessarily rolling a die for success (in other words, being so detailed and thorough in your explanation, that no die roll is required to succeed).

In most of our collected experiences within this thread, we've seen that in newer editions, players would rather just rely on a die roll for things like searches than provide any explanations (or give the barest of explanations along with a die roll and hoping that their bonuses to in that skill will suffice).

MadScientistWorking wrote:

I've never seen anyone play a game like the supposed new school is supposed to do.

It's the difference between relying solely on a die roll to mechanically search for traps for example, and explaining exactly how your character is searching for traps without necessarily rolling a die for success (in other words, being so detailed and thorough in your explanation, that no die roll is required to succeed).

In most of our collected experiences within this thread, we've seen that in newer editions, players would rather just rely on a die roll for things like searches than provide any explanations (or give the barest of explanations along with a die roll).

Please god yes. Because ignoring character abilities completely and relying on player knowledge of how your GM thinks was one of the worst things about old school. Encourages blatant metagaming - My last character got killed by a trap he didn't find, so now my new character knows how to look for it. Or worse: I read the same article in Grimtooth's so I look for ...

Some new style games may go too far, but old school has its problems too.

Please god yes. Because ignoring character abilities completely and relying on player knowledge of how your GM thinks was one of the worst things about old school. Encourages blatant metagaming - My last character got killed by a trap he didn't find, so now my new character knows how to look for it. Or worse: I read the same article in Grimtooth's so I look for ...

Some new style games may go too far, but old school has its problems too.

These are specific examples of a general class of problems across all games and into RL as well.

The players (voters, store customers, etc) are going to tend to do what the rules (options, prices, etc) encourage them to do.

My PC once failed a roll against a trap that had a DC of 10 (rolled a 3 IIRC), even after correctly guessing (from the GM's room description) that all we had to do was walk around the obstacle. It was a trap meant to inhibit flanking but the monster wasn't in the room for other reasons so simply walking around (a flanking maneuver if there had been combat underway) the trap should have been an auto-success.

What that experience encouraged me to do was not play with that particular GM anymore. Incidentally it was also my last experience at anything like a PFS or AL game event.

My last character got killed by a trap he didn't find, so now my new character knows how to look for it.

Old school D&D, particularly Original D&D and early 1st edition, metagaming as it's referred to today, was encouraged; the player was supposed to take the knowledge that he learned from killing or being killed by that troll and using it for his next character. But this was because of three key things: one was a high player turnover at the table, two, a relatively high character mortality rate, and three, because at the time (again Original D&D and EARLY 1st edition), the concept of metagaming and it being a bad thing, was not as important as it later became.

No, of course not everyone played that way, and I did not suggest as much, I merely said that it was encouraged back then.

thejeff wrote:

My last character got killed by a trap he didn't find, so now my new character knows how to look for it.

Old school D&D, particularly Original D&D and early 1st edition, metagaming as it's referred to today, was encouraged; the player was supposed to take the knowledge that he learned from killing or being killed by that troll and using it for his next character. But this was because of three key things: one was a high player turnover at the table, two, a relatively high character mortality rate, and three, because at the time (again Original D&D and EARLY 1st edition), the concept of metagaming and it being a bad thing, was not as important as it later became.

No, of course not everyone played that way, but I did not suggest as much, I merely said that it was encouraged back then.

I agree. That's an old school thing. It's also pretty much a necessity when it comes to things like finding traps by describing how you're looking for them, since there's nothing other than player knowledge to rely on.

I understand it wasn't considered a bad thing at the time, but it's still not an approach I want to go back to.

It's also pretty much a necessity when it comes to things like finding traps by describing how you're looking for them, since there's nothing other than player knowledge to rely on.

I'm willing to bet that is one of the reasons that the good Dr. of Deth (:-P) came up with the thief class in the first place...

I can understand not wanting to go back to such a way of playing, but for me, one of the major reasons I went back to an older edition was the newer edition's seemingly total reliance placed upon the numbers on a character sheet and the general attitude of "If it's not on the sheet, you cannot do it!".

Welcome MadScientistWorking.

I agree with Elf that more modern systems lean towards relying heavily (or entirely) on the dice roll mechanic. Which takes out the story telling/role playing aspect. I plan on using a reasonable combo of the two, with the story telling providing good or bad effects on the dice roll (when the latter is needed).

Welcome Quark Blast.

That does seem kind of dumb to take all context for the trap out of the game and play it that way. To poor effect!

Jeff - I don't like metagaming (which we talked about waaaay back in the thread), so that's a drawback to old school gaming. Though, if you're using a mix of role playing and dice rolls, you can mitigate that somewhat.

If it's not game critical, wonder if you can modify/remove the trap, and make up for it somewhere else? Or is that not playing fair?

Jeff - I don't like metagaming (which we talked about waaaay back in the thread), so that's a drawback to old school gaming. Though, if you're using a mix of role playing and dice rolls, you can mitigate that somewhat.

If it's not game critical, wonder if you can modify/remove the trap, and make up for it somewhere else? Or is that not playing fair?

Well, even back in the day, we usually deemphasized traps pretty heavily. I still prefer it that way. Sometimes you can work them into fights - so it's not so much a matter of finding & disarming the trap as of it being another threat/obstacle in the larger encounter.

For other things, mixing rp & character skill is how I prefer to approach it. The full on old school approach is too much for me, but even with modern rules the game doesn't have to be reduced to
Diplomacy: 1d20 + 13 ⇒ (5) + 13 = 18
He ignores you. Roll Initiative.

And just a reminder that my point in bringing all this up wasn't to say old school is better than modern gaming. I've played a lot of Pathfinder but am only starting up my first retro game.

Just discussing the differences between the two. And trying to keep it in relationship with Gygax' Role Playing Mastery Book somewhat.

There's zero role playing in the PF Adventure Card Game, but it's my favorite board game (though I am absolutely stuck on a scenario in the app). And I don't role play a lick in Age of Conan. Just looking at the concept in terms of pen and paper.

I found a bit from Gygax' GM book (Master of the Game) I'll try to copy into the thread.

"If it's not on the sheet, you cannot do it!".

I agree this is a problem, if you don't have the specific tool in your toolbox then you can't do what you want to do - there seems to be little acceptance of improvising etc.

thejeff also raises a good point that the earlier editions had some issues ie the trap issue, that you were bound to player knowledge, and could be a bit of a pain. Worse, you are further limited by the quality of the GM's description.

As a separate point, the concept of 'balance' also seems to be a more recent idea, and I don't buy into the idea that everything has to be balanced, and I also don't buy into this thing about people needing their 'moment to shine' these days. They want their spotlight.

In short, the players of old and the new school seem to have very different expectations and attitudes.

I had a player who designed this Gnomish Monk who had some mind-bending Zen Koan ability, the idea was he could keep opponents all confused while the little guy did his mad martial arts moves, and he was really specialised for this - then he signed up for Risen from the Sands, where it is really obvious that it is a Mummys Curse/raid a long lost Pyramid - traps and mummys type deal, and then he had quite the complaint at how cruddy the module was and how it had nixxed his build - he felt it terribly unfair that his highly specialised build might be rendered useless to the point he was at best the cheer-squad. He grudgingly stuck it out, but frankly it was clear where he thought the centre of the universe should be.

He wasn't the first, he wont be the last, though it was the most clear cut.
The idea that it might be worth building a broad set of skills rather than tightly focus, to be useful in a range of situations rather than just in a niche - that you can be optimised, but things wont always be optimal - this seems to be lost on some players.

Surprisingly, in a quick read-through of Gygax' 'Master of the Game,' I didn't find anything related to character creation: which I figured would be somewhat related to our discussion of dice rolling vs. role playing.

There was in interesting piece on skill changes affecting the entire system (and gameplay), but I'll save that for a separate post.

Gygax does get into game design and systems balancing, which I never thought about. He provides some interesting info.

There is definitely enough interesting info in his Game Mastery book to do a thread similar to this one. He's even got a couple "lists" I could work from, as we did here.

About 10 years ago, Castle and Crusades was publishing Castle Zagyg by Gary Gygax.
After he passed his wife pulled the licensing on everything that had his name on it and was going to publish it herself.
So far, I haven't seen anything.
Has anyone heard what is going on?

The players have a habit of pointing to their sheet and their Diplomacy score, rather than engage in actual diplomacy. They see it that they are within their rights to bypass the old school type of way,...

And they are. But DM's can assign a +2 bonus or -2 as they see fit.

DM:" so how do you convince the Queen?"
Player: "I roll my diplomacy".
DM "Sure, but if you come up with something good you can get a +2, if not there may be a minus."
Player: "Umm, I also have a high Ks Nobility roll?"
DM: "Sure, that gives you a +2, but if you say something cool and flowery, you might get another +2."

So, you're not penalizing those players who arent personally good at diplomacy, but still have a high score, just like you're not making the barbarian chin himself to make his strength roll. But cool roleplaying gets a bonus.

thejeff wrote:

It's also pretty much a necessity when it comes to things like finding traps by describing how you're looking for them, since there's nothing other than player knowledge to rely on.

I'm willing to bet that is one of the reasons that the good Dr. of Deth (:-P) came up with the thief class in the first place...

I can understand not wanting to go back to such a way of playing, but for me, one of the major reasons I went back to an older edition was the newer edition's seemingly total reliance placed upon the numbers on a character sheet and the general attitude of "If it's not on the sheet, you cannot do it!".

Yes, more or less.

Man, have I mentioned before how much I love this thread?! I learn so much. Sorry it's been a while since I've replied. A couple things I want to mention.

First to address your question of what edition I like the most Digitalelf, I would say that the most fun I had as a player was 2nd Edition AD&D. That's what we were playing when I was in high school. It's what hooked me in, and it's the drug I keep searching for today. 3.5/Pathfinder give me many of the same elements, but my problem with those editions are exactly what some people have brought up just recently in this thread. It is the idea that if it's not written on the character sheet with a number behind it, you can't do it. In fact, I just recently started a thread over in the homebrew/suggestions board about switching Pathfinder's skills out for 5e skills for just that reason. To me, the 5e skills are designed for creative wiggle room, and designed so that a character can attempt anything at any time, and have a reasonable chance of success even if they aren't "trained in that skill," "it isn't a class skill." Got some rather vociferous feedback from a few voices saying, essentially, "that's dumb, why?" We hashed it out after a bit, and I got some good advice for moving forward, which I think I will.

Now I want to talk just briefly about the "old school" traps. The blessing of the new skill system for traps is the ease of use. I take 20 on my perception check... In most cases, you found the trap. You cannot, however, take 20 on a disable check, because there is a chance of failure. So there is still the chance that even though you know where a trap is, you will fail to disable it, and it will go off. In the older games, finding a trap was as many mentioned, a conversation, and you had to rely on a very open and trusting dialogue of description both ways (GM->Player and Player->GM). One is, clearly, more narrative friendly, but, as was mentioned already, could absolutely create some weird situations where traps were not discovered, even though they should have been obvious, or what not.

In fact I remember once, in Ravenloft module that I was running my first wizard through. The GM had described a "metal staircase" to the lower level. I remember specifically asking if it was a staircase, because I had levitate ready, and would have floated down if it was at all feasible. I was told that no, it as a staircase, and I couldn't levitate down. As soon as the entire party was on the "staircase" lightning struck a lightning rod outside and the current floated into the metal we were standing on. As the GM read the description of the trap, it became clear that the "staircase" was actually a ladder, with rungs, and I could have in fact levitated down.

That was a moment where we all learned that we had ourselves an adversarial GM that had the attitude that it was us against him, rather than us all working together to tell a story.

Here's the reason I bring that up. At no point did the edition have anything to do with that situation. The "trap" was not a mechanical or magical trap, it was actually a percent chance rolled on a d100 of lightning striking the rod outside, at the moment the PCs were on the ladder. The only trap was a sadistic GM that wanted to hurt players, even though I actually was a savvy enough player to ask about the particulars of the descent.

Point being? What edition you're playing isn't always the culprit for bad traps/good traps, or unkillable monsters/mooks. In every edition a bad GM makes a bad game. Part of what a lot of the newer RPG games are trying to do is take the power out of the sadistic GM's hands, by empowering players with rules knowledge. Think not? Take a look at the number of threads that complain about "rules lawyers."

Lastly I wanted to pipe in about the game balance thing as well. I completely agree that there is definitely a streak these days where players all want their "moment to shine," or their fair amount of "time in the spotlight." I don't know if that's a problem of editions, or a problem of increased entitlement as a culture. I do think that there is definitely an increase across all sections of the population of entitlement. If that's the case, RPG games will suffer just as much as anywhere else. So part of my own nostalgia for older systems might be for the designed lack of balance, and how it created a cohesive party where everybody relied on each other, but part of it may also be for an age gone by when students respected their teachers authority, and entitlement was not a part of the everyday jargon.

I forgot to mention, but I feel it is absolutely worth noting. The particular GM I mentioned that ran us through the Ravenloft module had a penchant for rolling dice rather vigorously and if they came up with the numbers he wanted he'd yell, Boooom!!!! with much joy and impish satisfaction plastered onto his face.

I forgot to mention, but I feel it is absolutely worth noting. The particular GM I mentioned that ran us through the Ravenloft module had a penchant for rolling dice rather vigorously and if they came up with the numbers he wanted he'd yell, Boooom!!!! with much joy and impish satisfaction plastered onto his face.

Sounds like a very fun GM.

So, you're not penalizing those players who arent personally good at diplomacy, but still have a high score, just like you're not making the barbarian chin himself to make his strength roll. But cool roleplaying gets a bonus.

I don't think the expectation is that players hop up and give us the St Crispins speech from Henry V, but yeah a bit of a descriptor or at least the attempt to provide an overview of the direction they wish to take.

In fairness, most of my play these days is PFS, and there is an issue that you only have a 4-5 hour slot and the more recent seasons have a trend of trying to pack a LOT in, so people feel inclined to hustle and hurry in order to ensure the objective is hit - in most scenarios the bulk of time needs to be allocated to combat.

Hmmm.

It's ironic, as there wasn't a lot of 'boxed text' and NPC motivation provided in Keep on the Borderlands, but we still did fine with the roleplay. Now theres a pile of info on individual motivations, but there seems to be a rush to move past it.

In PFS sessions with my regular 'Home' group its not such an issue, but in sessions at conds etc where the clock is running I really notice it.

I don't mind a little metagaming, particularly where traps and searching for things is concerned; it's hard not to in those instances. Where I don't like to see metagaming is during combat. I don't want to see a seasoned player for example, who runs a 1st level fighter who's primary weapon is the long sword, switch all of a sudden to a mace the first time that character encounters a skeleton. I want that kind of knowledge to be imparted to the character a bit more organically (e.g. through trial and error).

I agree with shifty, in that I am not expecting the player to give me an Oscar-winning performance when describing their character's actions, I would just like to see a little effort by the player put into the character's actions instead of just relying (solely) upon the die roll for a success or failure (e.g. searching for traps).

As the GM read the description of the trap, it became clear that the "staircase" was actually a ladder, with rungs, and I could have in fact levitated down.

Sounds like you were going through module "I10: Ravenloft II - The House on Gryphon Hill". If that's the case, then yeah, the module's text gives a chance of lighting striking the lightning rod on the mansion's roof when a character climbs on the ladder (there is however, a major storm going on during the character's time within the mansion, so the lightning doesn't just spring from nowhere).

But it does sound like your DM wanted your character to get fried.

Here is the actual text from that module:

Every round there is a 1 in 6 chance that a lightning strike on the dome will electrify the ladder (Dmg 2d8, plus Strength check or fall).

The ladder in question (again assuming that the module was Ravenloft II) climbs from the basement to the 2nd floor of the mansion.

We had our first session last night. The two players who rolled up characters ahead of time (with me) forgot to bring them! The host's wife, who has read fantasy but never RPGed, jumped in, and their 12 year old daughter came in to watch and "helped" her a bit. The daughter had the most common sense of the whole group.

It was an overland trek and the most marked characteristic was the Thief and the Ranger pushing the other one to lead, investigate, crawl in the burrow, etc. They are coworkers, so it was a social thing more than an RPGish one.

But without a doubt, the highlight was when the group, walking along a path beside a cliff wall, reached a wooden door, with vines sort of disguising it, tacked up to branches across the top and decided the best move was for the Ranger to knock on the door! This came after another "No, you go" between the Thief and Ranger. So, no sneaking in or looking for traps.

That rang the alarm bells in the vines, the Ogre and Bear that lived there charged out and the party was split, with two characters running "ahead" on the path and the other two running back the way they'd come (they'd hung back). The party was split.

Regarding our recent discussions of balance, a party of first level characters ran into an Ogre and a Bear. Having already defeated three 1st level bandits earlier on the trek. Old school involved multi-level challenges.

MendedWall12 wrote:

As the GM read the description of the trap, it became clear that the "staircase" was actually a ladder, with rungs, and I could have in fact levitated down.

Sounds like you were going through module "I10: Ravenloft II - The House on Gryphon Hill". If that's the case, then yeah, the module's text gives a chance of lighting striking the lightning rod on the mansion's roof when a character climbs on the ladder (there is however, a major storm going on during the character's time within the mansion, so the lightning doesn't just spring from nowhere).

But it does sound like your DM wanted your character to get fried.

Here is the actual text from that module:

Ravenloft II wrote:

Every round there is a 1 in 6 chance that a lightning strike on the dome will electrify the ladder (Dmg 2d8, plus Strength check or fall).

The ladder in question (again assuming that the module was Ravenloft II) climbs from the basement to the 2nd floor of the mansion.

Dude, the fact that you know that is amazing. I do believe that is exactly the module. I do remember, though, that we were descending on the ladder/stairs, not ascending (which just means we didn't take the traditional route through the "dungeon"). My group had had inklings before that the GM was adversarial, but this particular instance was just too obvious to ignore. The sad thing is that module was still extremely fun to run through, but some of the things that happened during it caused me to not game with that group any more, and then it was over 15 years before I gamed again. At the time I felt like I was making the right decision, but there were many times over the 15 years that followed where I looked back and had the tingle of regret. Ah, nostalgia, she is a fickle mistress. She makes us remember only the positives, and the negatives become buried in a hazy fog.

Edit: Also, @Holmes: NEVER SPLIT THE PARTY!!!

Dude, the fact that you know that is amazing. I do believe that is exactly the module.

I wouldn't call it amazing. But thank you for the compliment. :-)

I agree that it was probably for the best that you didn't game with that DM again. But I have to ask: why didn't seek out another group afterward?

The party was split.

Yeah, those darn pesky players! They always do the most unexpected things... :-P

But on a more serious note, it sounds like they had fun, which is the important thing.

MendedWall12 wrote:

Dude, the fact that you know that is amazing. I do believe that is exactly the module.

I wouldn't call it amazing. But thank you for the compliment. :-)

I agree that it was probably for the best that you didn't game with that DM again. But I have to ask: why didn't seek out another group afterward?

The answer to that question would take a lot more time than I currently have to answer, and probably require you to be a psychiatrist, and me to be laying on a couch. ;-) :P

See, I feel like that's going towards what I was saying before. I don't think that the style of DM-player interaction back in those days was hostile, but rather that it "seemed" that way. Gary is pointing out that that's not the case, even if the DM is doing things that seem to be hot-button issues today, such as giving the cleric different spells than they prayed for because that's what their god thought was best, etc.

It seemed that way because there were so many modules that were absurdly packed with diverse and entertaining ways to part PC's from their bodies. such as Orbs of Annihlation put in statue mouths on the odd chance that a PC would stick his head in them.

Welcome Drahliana.

Yeah, I remember running across a lot of ways to die in the stories of the early Gygax games in the Hawk and Moor books by Kent David Kelly.

DrDeth wrote:

So, you're not penalizing those players who arent personally good at diplomacy, but still have a high score, just like you're not making the barbarian chin himself to make his strength roll. But cool roleplaying gets a bonus.

I don't think the expectation is that players hop up and give us the St Crispins speech from Henry V, but yeah a bit of a descriptor or at least the attempt to provide an overview of the direction they wish to take.

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

The answer to that question would take a lot more time than I currently have to answer, and probably require you to be a psychiatrist, and me to be laying on a couch. ;-) :P

I see... Well, I hope things have improved and that you are currently in a group with a much friendlier DM/GM. :-D

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

What’s he that wishes so?

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

It's a hell of a speech.

I guess it's more I feel by reducing things to a simple die roll and not engaging in some of the dialogue we miss out on some of the fun that can be had with the hobby. I can understand its not everyones bag though and as such people shouldn't feel penalised for not playing the 'right' way, and I can see how 'gotcha' GM's may have also burned a few people - but someone pitching in and having a go adds a lot to the game.

With so many mechanics to discuss in a rules heavy system though I can see that the time sink of resolving said mechanics can also contribute towards a reduction in people being able to maintain (mostly) uninterrupted dialogue.

That said, Vampire the Masquerade had a good balance with the Storyteller system, but the gameplay in our local area was boring as dirt :P

DrDeth wrote:

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

What’s he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.
If we are marked to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

Seeing Kenneth Brannagh give that speech in Henry V made me a Shakespeare fan.

MendedWall12 wrote:

The answer to that question would take a lot more time than I currently have to answer, and probably require you to be a psychiatrist, and me to be laying on a couch. ;-) :P

I see... Well, I hope things have improved and that you are currently in a group with a much friendlier DM/GM. :-D

Well the group is mostly my sons, and I'm the GM so... :-)

DrDeth wrote:

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

What’s he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.
If we are marked to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

Oh man! This made me do some serious thinking about why people are drawn to this hobby, and it forced some realizations on me. People come to this hobby for a LOT of different reasons. It seems like many of the people in this thread (including myself) come to it with the idea that it can be some sophisticated collective narrative told by a gaggle of litterateurs with the added enjoyment of suspense because the dice frequently decide the outcome. Some people come to it because they like imaginary violence, and the euphoria associated with "winning" "treasure." There's definitely a part of this hobby that caters to the addict after their character finds their first piece of magical treasure. I'm sure there are a thousand motivations other than those two as well, but those are the first two that strike me. Some of us want every moment to be a St. Crispin's Day speech, and others just want to murder hobo until there are no more things to kill or treasure to be found. :)

Well the group is mostly my sons, and I'm the GM so... :-)

That's awesome!

I hope you are able to talk them into at the very least, trying another edition of the game that isn't so "rules heavy".

Who knows, maybe you'll wind up adding 2 more individuals who will embrace the older editions, to help keep that particular spark alive.

MendedWall12 wrote:

Well the group is mostly my sons, and I'm the GM so... :-)

That's awesome!

I hope you are able to talk them into at the very least, trying another edition of the game that isn't so "rules heavy".

Who knows, maybe you'll wind up adding 2 more individuals who will embrace the older editions, to help keep that particular spark alive.

Believe me, I'm working on it. :)

DrDeth wrote:

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

What’s he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.
If we are marked to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

And they are. But DM's can assign a +2 bonus or -2 as they see fit.

I was saddened to see that this suggestion was not present in Pathfinder anywhere that I looked. I begin to wonder if I imagined it back in 3.5.

DrDeth wrote:

And they are. But DM's can assign a +2 bonus or -2 as they see fit.

I was saddened to see that this suggestion was not present in Pathfinder anywhere that I looked. I begin to wonder if I imagined it back in 3.5.

You were not the only one to have that thought TOZ.

I had the exact same thought back in January of 2014. If you follow the thread all the way through to the end, you'll see that the Core Rulebook has the GM Fiat rule on page 403, and it was almost certainly adapted from a very similar rule from the 3.5 DMG. I was astounded to learn that the rule in the DMG does actually address the +2/-2 as something to be reserved for when a situation "isn’t explicitly covered by the rules." Which is basically what the GM Fiat rule in Pathfinder is designed to address as well.

Welcome TriOmega(I thought I posted this earlier but apparently it didn't take).

I like the idea of using the role playing to modify the die roll - whether it's a feat, skill check, attribute - whatever.

I did a bit of that in our first S&W session this past Monday.