My Grand-Father said me:
“More laws or more complicated laws are just making the trials longer and the lawyers wealthier but not the people happier or enjoying more freedom. But, all in all few can say the system is not equitable. It’s not funny but it’s logical.”
I would like to express my worries and my frustrations about where is arrived D&D after thirty years. The aim of this post is simple and unachievable: to give a voice on this messageboards to the ideas of plenty of gamers (players and GM) who will never participate to our experts’ arena. But, because these people are around me the silent majority of our hobby and because in the newcomers they will be essential for the future of the game, we need to take care of them more than of ourselves.
Of course, the OD&D rules had to be improved along the time. But, why have the designers generate at the end of the day the hyper complicated logical code called 3.5 ? Today, thousand of posts in this messageboards are just a race in the direction of more that, or more for this one (class, race, power, feat,…), or more mechanism of that kind and so on. I’m lost !
Frankly speaking, I love D&D and I’m faithful to it for almost thirty years. IMO, its strength, its essence and its sex appeal are coming from the epic origin which his the kernel of that universe. Somewhere in the past the rules seemed simpler and also non invasive and whatever the holes they had it was never a point difficult to deal with. That is no more true.
I will use an image now because it’s the simple way to picture my feeling: In the old nights I found a beautiful and epic adventuress whom I followed with great pleasure, even without knowing all her secrets. But nowadays I have seen her using more and more make-up, even some surgery and implants and becoming and expert and talented whore. So perhaps she is right for the old blasé man I am (not so sure these days) but she has nothing to seduce the new romantic hearts around. And yet I still see the beauty of the old days and the desire consumes me to see a true champion (not of a Nip Tuck kind) to reveal again her grace.
When I read Paizo will try to move on an alternative to 4E, I placed a lot of hope in it. This team is by far the best for keeping this epic fire burning in our game. They have splendid story tellers, designers, editors, publisher and artists. So I imagined they will have the aim to restore some rule set which will help in finding back the not so old spirit rather than to mimic painfully the clichés and effects of the MMORPG or other video games. I am now thinking I was wrong and that this direction of the road is closed, perhaps forever.
I will now give the example of our game circle. We have many players and we have always enjoyed D&D adventures with 6 to up to 10 players. Now, IMHO, it is a little bit sad to say that most of the modules are designed for only four. The game and the players wasted away I guess. But does it mean that tomorrow we will have rules only for two + one referee – like my wargamers’ buddies ? Or worse, will we be in the future alone in front of a screen ! I can’t let it happen without rising up against that fate. Even with 3.5, the Dming of a good session with 6-10 players is an intellectual and even a physical trial. I know that because I did it every week during the last five years. But now, I’m exhausted and fed up by all that poor task, from within the grace of a good role play is hardly touched. I have house ruled a lot to simplify, but the more I work the more the designers push the ball. When reaching high levels, on a table of 6-10 I have players bored by the overwhelming rules and meta gamers who crawl in their sin with delectation and conceit.
I’m afraid PFRPG will just push me a little bit more on the edge of the abyss and with me a lot of gamers who prays in silence.
Jason, Erik, Lisa are you sure of your move ?
Fellow DMs your support or even your slaps are welcome to revive an old (perhaps) alone but (certainly) experienced gamer.
As I’m not a native speaker I hope at least you’ve got the gist of this.
Be easy (and creative)
Agreed that we need to keep rules simple but functional, but can we do that without endorsing, or ideally without mentioning prostitution? Thanks.
Do you mean you would be more attracted by a simplified (basic) game, such as True20 or Castles & Crusades ?
It is true that these basic versions are appealing for their elegant simplicity.
Unfortunately, players always want more.
And it's very difficult to bring new things tot he game without bringing new rules, thus changing the system into something more sophisticated.
To go back to your topic, i think the decision from Paizo for Pathfinder to stay in the 3.5 tracks is an interesting one.
It brings comfort and security to players, as they are already familiar with the rules.
The changes are minor and retroactive so there is no stress.
And even if players might buy Pathfinder products, they don't feel bad about it, opposed to the prespective of 4th edition, which basically force to buy a complete new set of books and throw away the current ones.
Agreed that we need to keep rules simple but functional, but can we do that without endorsing, or ideally without mentioning prostitution? Thanks.
Sorry for this akward image. It has never been in my intention to endorse prostitution but I know it exists.
I've been playing D&D for about as long as you have, and while there were aspects of 1st and 2nd ed that I missed, I can see why they're gone and while I miss them, I don't want the extra baggage that they carry.
I’m not asking for any back move to the old rules. I’m asking to take the best witch balance flavour of role play and playability and simplicity – in that order. I don’t think 3.5 is a paramount achievement. It fixed things but not always with a so great performance in regard of simplicity.
Have you recently played with a 8 gamers table at 8th or 10th level – Trust me it’s a real challenge.Do you mean you would be more attracted by a simplified (basic) game, such as True20 or Castles & Crusades ?
No I don’t say that. And I also agree the player want something to eat and to play with tactically. But do you agree that a group role play experience can be very impacted by meta gaming and power gaming.
The reverse: it is (almost) always possible in D&D to have power gamers and meta gamers finding their way to enjoy, even if you don’t give a lot of beef to them.To take it short, IMHO, role play is frail and overruling-metagaming is resilient. If you give too much to the second you are quite sure to nuke the first one - or almost.
Paizo, designs, develops, and sells games for a living - I think they know what they are doing and what is at stake.
I'm sure they are the good guys. I’m not willing to give any lesson to anybody but just asking a question without any aggressiveness and condescension.
By the way do you have an opinion about the other 99% of my post ?Be creative
|
I am in 100% support of the move Erik has made with Lisa's support and Jason's hard work. But allow me to acknowledge your feelings about complexity and the fatigue associated with honoring the complex, but sophisticated, 3.5 rule set.
I conducted an experiement from March 2006 - October 2007 during which I, as DM, followed the 3.5 ruleset (down to the last detail). This was a focus of mine and I had player buy-in. Fortunately we had a quorum of players interested in depth of roleplay, and were also supportive of using the system as written. The result: at least 8 hours of preparation per week just to run a weekly game, and quite a bit of rules-lawyering going on at the table which disrupted the immersive story telling that is at the heart of dnd. One final conclusion to be drawn, is if one plays the ruleset completely, then the results of one's campain tend to be "average", not awesome. I mean this in both a literal and mathematical way, as well as an overall excitement/fun factor. Because that's what my humble experiment produced. For example: no matter how incredible or epic the encounter was, I always ruled according to process, procedure, the rules and the dice. Over time, as the math term implies, the results were simply average. No great peaks or valleys, as does occur when the DM overrides diceruling with impromptu flare. No value judgment here—because I was able to learn some powerful lessons about DMing using the full complexity of 3.5.
I won't provide much more detail for now, but for those who have done something similar, you might inevitably notice that some of the "fun" of DMing, and playing for that matter, becomes lost with complete adherence to the ruleset. I find 3.5 to be very charming and sophisticated, elaborate, deep, and well structured compared to other previous dnd systems. But, to the OP's point, running all these rules can really make one miss the good old days when the "magic" occurred at the table, rather than rules-laywering, book-reading, min/maxing and munchkinism. A great shift occured with thrid edition that presented players with more information than ever before. Previous editions kept much of the ruleset and referentia for the DMs eyes alone. (Alas, it was bad for business when only 1 in 5 players (the DM) actually purchased game materials.)) Now, there is less mystery about the rules, but more complication, and there is more transparency about what goes on behind the DM screen, but a slower pace becuase those rulings are instantly validated or rejected by keen players who study the system in detail. A deep desire for simplicity is something all DMs and players long for, but there's there's the rub—its hard to have it all.
I want it all! I am starting a new Pathfinder Alpha 2 playtest campaign this coming Monday. I have shared with everyone my plans to get the game moving faster, but still use the rules. I want to tell stories and make quick, effective DM rulings without any rules-lawyering during the game, but I also want the players to evaluate the new ruleset put forth by Jason Bulmahn. Am I asking too much?
I want to blend the very best of roleplay, where for brief moments you can see the looks of immersive imagination and fantasy on the faces of your players as they lose themselves in the world I've created, but I also want to stock my adventure using Jason's APL chart and execute the grapple, overrun and bullrush tactics using minis on a grid and the CMB system. Am I asking too much?
I will be using Steelsquire's area of effect metal outlines, but also turning the lights down and acting like my NPCs. I truly want the best of everything. I want all the rules to make sense and the game system to function like an actual game (a la 3.5) and not work as it did in 2.0 where everyone just "went along with it" like they were listening to a tale of grandpa's senility but trying to be nice about it. As PAIZO has said, "Campaigns have evolved," and so have the players, so has the art of DMing. I thing the event horizon I seek is to have mastered execution within the complexities of 3.5 and still come out of it non-fatigued, having delivered with less preparation time than ever before. Is this possible? Am I fooling myself? We shall see.
In every case, I appreciate what the OP is concerned about here, but at a minimum I would suggest that 3.5 is the "new easy." By this I mean that although the learning curve for such a system may take years, the payoff for having it will be worth it. Jason Bulmahn is creating the tweaks to that system that stem from the outpouring of support and ideas from the PAIZONIAN fan base, and also those who have recognized a step toward 4E may be a step backward toward something so simplistic that it may not facilitate the type of stories they want to write and tell. I look forward to the Pathfinder RPG, as thousands are, because it honors the very best traditions of dnd's 30+ year history and continues forward the sophisticated "game" that the third edition became.
At the risk of a slightly longer post, allow me to share the following situation: I joined a friend's game last week, and became impatient when the worgs tripped and hit, and bit all the players, because 3.5 has taught me a system of rules that bring accuracy to the art of execution that my friend was not honoring. It felt like I was playing a child's game—funny, but although dnd can be enjoyed by children and adults alike, I prefer to stick with the complexity until I master it and it becomes an easy, second-natured habit of mine. I choose to not slave to the complexity, nor fear it, becuase the fun of dnd still lives in the story and focus on character development and its reflection of ourselves and our own hero's journey. All the while, I accept that 3.5 is complex and with Pathfinder RPG's refinement, can become the new easy despite its robust nature. In every case, though I long to go back to simplicity, going back is not possible when all the world, even the fantasy world, (and its ruleset) has evolved. I'll continue supporting this ruleset because I feel it is the best, most robust one I've seen.
Insert shameless plug for PAIZO here: 3.5 Never Dies! PRPG Forever!
|
I've been playing D&D for about as long as you have, and while there were aspects of 1st and 2nd ed that I missed, I can see why they're gone and while I miss them, I don't want the extra baggage that they carry.I’m not asking for any back move to the old rules. I’m asking to take the best witch balance flavour of role play and playability and simplicity – in that order. I don’t think 3.5 is a paramount achievement. It fixed things but not always with a so great performance in regard of simplicity.
Have you recently played with a 8 gamers table at 8th or 10th level – Trust me it’s a real challenge.
The last time i did was about 4 years, using 3.0 rules enhnaced with bits of 3.5... yes it was challenging... but not more challenging than when i mastyered the same quantity in AD&D 2nd Edition.
To my experience you should add just the rules you want to use, call for rolls when they are absolutely necesary, still that will leave the fights of 1 to 5 minutes Game time into about 1 hour of gameplay.
Give part of the spot to everyone... I did it, it worked, and I think they loved that Campaing... but it was more for the story than just the rollplaying.
*note after edit* my recommendation and we tried it a couple ot times... ask one of the players to assist you, it will take some of the fire from yourself and will let it you work, don't give this player new things opr more power or anything for helping you... players tend to see this as preferntism and act accordingly... meaning BAD. If there is a problem 1 helps then take 2 and roll between them...
Once we tried a game where there where 2 masters and 6 to 8 players... it was the same world, and the same advenbture, but we took different steps toward the gol, and we meet in the middle (i began as a player) in this meeting the DM where supposed to change i was one, the other one just thought he was not prepared for that... so i took whole stock of players until the end of the adventure... i think they had fun... but one of the players would never use a pladin ever again, he hated the moral issues :P he just asked for something easy to play morally, like a barbarian or fighter... *finish edit note*
Which rules are new and will add enhancement... the Barbarian is an excelent thing, just add some counters, pennies, etc and its easy to manage... the rest just won enphasis in what they do... ok combat is a bit tricky, more exiting but aye a bit more complicated... if you don't like it, use the old rules... keep tables... i know its LOTS of Works...
and I admit I never did it... I think in an story, I roll with it, get afew stats and I began, and my players move by themelves toward the goal, following whatever path they prefer... its like "open world for me" if they go to another place, cool that is fine... later an enemy would appear to link them back to the original story... or they will go by themselves or do another thing...
je this may be the reason iHATE dungeoncrawlers and canned adventures :P
they shot down my improvisation...
but after ranting a bit... Ridolfin, give it a shotm, i don't think Pathfinder changes are so worrysome by themselves, if you are playing already 3.5 it will be fine...
my only complain continue to be the downgradded magic with wine... useful spells for other things than war and battle continue having durations of rounds or encounter... i know... this falls in deaf ears.. that is why we play with the spell list of 3.0 :D
|
|
I won't provide much more detail for now, but for those who have done something similar, you might inevitably notice that some of the "fun" of DMing, and playing for that matter, becomes lost with complete adherence to the ruleset. I find 3.5 to be very charming and sophisticated, elaborate, deep, and well structured compared to other previous dnd systems. But, to the OP's point, running all these rules can really make one miss the good old days when the "magic" occurred at the table, rather than rules-laywering, book-reading, min/maxing and munchkinism. A great shift occured with thrid edition that presented players with more information than ever before. Previous editions kept much of the ruleset and referentia for the DMs eyes alone. (Alas, it was bad for business when only 1 in 5 players (the DM) actually purchased game materials.)) Now, there is less mystery about the rules, but more complication, and there is more transparency about what goes on behind the DM screen, but a slower pace becuase those rulings are instantly validated or rejected by keen players who study the system in detail. A deep desire for simplicity is something all DMs and players long for, but there's there's the rub—its hard to have it all.
rule # 0 ( o golden rule) of EVERY Roleplaying game if a rule cause problems, slows the game or make it less fun... take the rule and throw it throught the window...
Aside of that... if the rule lawyers get something right under their rules, i thank them and use it another time against them using NPCs...Or if i am not applying that... I tell it to them... I am the DM I change things... and the monsters I NEVER use them as they came in the book...
Simplicity is easy... play along... don't expect that the books bring new and more simpler things... no if you expect to keep using soophysticated rules...
ok i read most are not happy MMORGs but here is an example...
World of warcraft is simple and elegant, it keeps you entertained and focused in looking for more things... it has some things you need to check and that slow down a few things... but ITS OK its a Winner...
World of Magic is a new Free MMORG, its easy, simple and doesn't give many options, it follows the same squematics than WoW in how it does things... but in itself is would be never as good... its not the grapics only i lack options... that is why i i keep paying for WoW.
EVE is wonderful and interesting SCI-Fi game, and i really liked what i saw... in about an hour... but it really challenged me... i was absolutely lost and I had so many options I became lost... so i left it...
in my opinion 3.0 is WoW, you ask for Magic World...
4.0... i don't know what they will be doing, but the little i read just exasperas me... aside that i am not really buying new set of rules, that is why i bought SCION.
I’m afraid PFRPG will just push me a little bit more on the edge of the abyss
Sounds like C&C and/or True20 is for you.
and with me a lot of gamers who prays in silence.
Maybe. Maybe not.
|
A very long winded way of saying that there are a large number of people who support a simpler, more idiot proof version of D&D.
I enjoy the game as it is but I have players who are simply overwhelmed with the options and rules. Hey, some people just want to show up on a saturday afternoon and game without learning all the ins and outs of the system. Can we have a little piece for them?
This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of tons of feats. I think they should be something special, powerful but more rare so the players who have them can learn them and love them. Having 10 feats by 8th level is not going to help people define their play, it's going to confuse them with options.
-- Dennis
OP... be careful of what you wish for. WotC's decision for simplifying and streamlining the rule stystem is what they went for, and this is what they got...
Then there's this: Saving Throws. Some people like the idea of everything being an attack against a defense score, but there is one particular aspect of the saving throw that, to me, is a deal breaker. By way of example, say you as DM have a party that's battled a nasty dragon down to its last few hp, while the party is mostly unconscious with one remaining spell to cast at the dragon. If the spell succeeds, the six month campaign ends on a note of triumph. The players sit on the edge of their seats as you roll the dragon's save and/or magic resistance behind the DM's screen. You roll a 20 - the dragon saves and should use its last breath attack to finish off the party. Instead you frown in disappointment and describe the effects of the spell as it destroys the beast. Everyone cheers. The injured are healed and the party marches proudly back to town with the dragon's head (and horde) in tow.
Imagine the same scenario when it's up to the player to roll against the dragon's defense score. The player rolls a 1 in front of everyone and knows such will not succeed. The dragon breaths and six months go down the drain, all because while the DM can secretly fudge a saving throw when needed, it's a bit more difficult to sell a failed open attack roll.
This, precisely, is how the system can interfere with good heroic role-playing. The concept of hidden DM saving throws is invaluable and removing such from the system can dramatically influence or even disrupt carefully crafted campaigns.
Remember that the DM is a storyteller first. If the system takes from the DM something that has such significant impact on the story that it can kill the plot at the last moment, then the system is fundamentally misguided.
I am in 100% support of the move Erik has made with Lisa's support and Jason's hard work.
And so do I. Really.
I realize I used the word “restore” in my OP which is not so accurate. What I want to express is more to “regenerate” or to “redesign from a green field” a rules set.But allow me to acknowledge your feelings about complexity and the fatigue associated with honoring the complex, but sophisticated, 3.5 rule set…
I very like you post PAX and I will certainly enjoy playing with you regarding what you wrote.
You know, my heavier concern is not for me or my more “brilliant” players but for the game itself – even if I’m so tired sometimes. As you stated, it becomes longer and longer to prepare a session. Also it becomes heavier and heavier to check, calculate and adjudicate all the situations that came in play (or even out when prepping).
For sure I had a good time with 3.5, but now I’m not more a nice guy with rules. I’ve spent months of my real life in DMing or in working on this or that rules set, game, module and so on. And please, remember it is not written in my native language.
The only time it’s worth spending is when you are addressing the story and the fun, especially during the session. The other time for the mechanisms is just a needed pain – ok I agree sometimes it generates a bit of pleasure. And worse, that job consumes my time to be creative.
So now, the rules I want must be brilliant, faster, better and a real breakthrough when needed. They should allow me to save 4 or 5 more hours adventure prepping a week. They also have to add a real neat 50% true role playing a session compare to the 3.5 Ed. And also they shall be playable with a minimum training time of saying 4- 5 hours both for the nerd or the housewife.
Ok, it looks a dream but if Paizo cannot try it, who will ?
I don’t care so much of 3.5 and compatibility issue at the end of the day. If some nice stuff from 3.5 can be save as a side effect, that’s fine and great, but if to save the elder you cripple the young I’m afraid you don’t prepare for a long future.
Hope I made my thoughts clearer.
Be creative
The last time i did was about 4 years, using 3.0 rules enhnaced with bits of 3.5... yes it was challenging... but not more challenging than when i mastyered the same quantity in AD&D 2nd Edition.
...
Thank for your post too Montalve. I ‘m not willing to defend the AD&D 2nd Edition - I’ve not played that one so much indeed. I just would like to know if the gamers around me and myself also are the last ones in the D&D community who think an improvement is not always another one hundred pages book of rules and options to fix something or to avoid players to be bored by a more than one year old class or feat.
Besides, I just made a poll with some old friends, after 28 years in the game with weekly sessions each of us has hardly played more than twenty or so different classes – but with multiclassing however.
I did the same poll with my son and friends who are playing WoW intensively and you guess : in less than three years they have played almost all the possible things, but not all up to the high level (phew !). BUT, they agreed they didn’t bother with role play, a DM or even an other player trying to catch their keyboard in order to have a part of the good time too ;-))
I think that example says something to each of us and I let the readers draw their own conclusion.
I will definitely give its chance to PFRPG, but as said in my previous post here, I’m not more a nice guy and the current things in Alpha let me frustrated. I’m old (or too old to my taste at least) and my time flees so I need efficiency.
They can do it. They are the best at their job. But do we want it ?
Be creative
Is there anyone here who thinks less is more? Would any attempt at truly simplifying the rules lead to a chorus of “dumbed down?”
I appreciate that the ultimate goal of Pathfinder is to be rules compatible with 3.5. Could this still be achieved if a swath of rules were chopped out?
A very long winded way of saying that there are a large number of people who support a simpler, more idiot proof version of D&D.
-- Dennis
So – perhaps – I’m not dumb ? Thank you for the post JDH.
And yes, Ogre, to be alone during a too long time and brooding over the same thoughts is not good. It tends to make the old guy a little bit too talkative, especially when he didn’t expect to be heard ;-))
What…, two echoes. I’m not a legend then. ;-p
Be creative
Is there anyone here who thinks less is more? Would any attempt at truly simplifying the rules lead to a chorus of “dumbed down?”
Yes - less is indeed more. I'm working on it. It won't be dumbed down. It will be elegantly simple, and infinitely flexible at the same time. I've already got the core progression curves plotted.
When carefully handled with adequate consideration of the full scope of the math behind the game, the system can be simplified without being dumbed down. Bear in mind that all of the essential bits of the general and special theories of relativity fit in about 100 pages, including examples in layman's terms.
OP... be careful of what you wish for. WotC's decision for simplifying and streamlining the rule stystem is what they went for, and this is what they got... Remember that the DM is a storyteller first. If the system takes from the DM something that has such significant impact on the story that it...
Hey ! I never plead for a system where the DM is around the table with the players ! I don’t know at all the 4E – but I will check that one if I find a way to fight my phobia of that WotC site one day.
Simplicity is definitely not a synonym of stupidity, at least in my mother tongue. May be I am not aware of and odd sense of “simplicity” in English ?
Again, I don’t want to gimp the game I want to see it improved as THE epic role playing essential reference worth it.
Are you in – we are searching a number four for a bridge ? ;-)
Be creative
The rules give me a level of comfort in feeling that I'm "doing things right", but 3.5 has a glut of nit-picky rules and corner cases that do nothing but drag gameplay down to a crawl. There are definitely areas of the game that could be simplified, while there are also areas that could be tweaked to enhance gameplay - grapple is one of those areas that needs simplification, for example. Save-or-die spell superiority is another area that bugs me as an area that needs improvement.
I think Jason & Co. have a good head on their shoulders, and for the most part, they are rightly tackling those unnecessarily complex areas of the rules and simplifying them, and in many ways adding extra options to the game and trying to bring game power away from the high and low edges and more towards the middle. Hopefully, these will be options that open up gameplay so that the "build this way or die" aspect of 3.5 character design can be lessened, opening the game up for more casual players who don't get screwed with a chosen option or combination that comes out unexpectedly sub-par.
I'd also like to point out while 4E's philosophy is the same - simplify and cut off the extreme "suck" and "uber" side of the game, I don't like the direction the overall 4E game is going - that's why I'm more interested in trying to streamline the 3.5 rules than abandoning it for 4E.
If certain rules are too complicated, perhaps it'd be better to state which ones you think should be made simpler (in the appropriate forums below) instead of a blanket statement that doesn't help them make things simpler and better?
SirUrza, I have posted few things. I have a very busy schedule as explained above. Plus, I have to acknowledge I’m a lazy guy. ;-)
I don’t think I can help so much in design. I can’t pretend to be creative in that type of matters I’m afraid. That is the job of the experts. I’m quite sure Jason and its friends are much more capable of me to determine how to win the day with their baby in a direction of simplicity. I will give some comments in appropriate threads if I can but it is not a commitment.Don’t beat me, Troll. And don’t jack that pitiful thread, please.
Serious now ! We are five “simplified” by now and my plan for a bridge session is nuked. If you join we can be six for a poker ?
Come on !
Be creative
You mentioned lack of Role Play. That's not because of the rules...
Thought I'd mention that. Editions don't have different standards for roleplaying.
If the rping is down in your group.. it's your group. Not the rules.
Well, I can see some of the OPs points. I started roleplaying about 20 years from now (WOW! Didn't realized that!) and we too started with AD&D.
While the rules may have been itchy, we never had a real problem with them. Playing AD&D was always very atmospheric.
D&D3 changed this somehow. Actually I think the new streamlined and simplified mechanic did that. I don't know why and how, but the game lost it's original charm. But maybe it was because we were growing older. I don't know.
Don't get me wrong. I really like streamlined rules and think the less complicated they are the more you can concentrate on the actual ROLE aspect of the game. But I have two things to criticis about the new 3rd Edition (and it's successors):
1) High-gloss paper. Where did the old and VERY classy paper gone? You know yellowed paper, looking like old parchment. I think this too is one part of the "lost it's charm" aspect. With the new paper and the new artworks replacing the old-school drawings the game lost it's mystical feeling. It became reasoned, functional, clean and steril (I won't say dead here, but sometimes I think it is).
2) Everything is designed with combat in the mind. I think this is actually the most deplorable fact. Although D&D is an Epic fantasy game and combat IS a big part of this game, the MAIN FOCUS should still be the ROLE-playing. This is perfectly seen in the classes. All classes get cool new features and abilities. But they are almost solely for combat purposes. Why don't you include more flavorful and out-of-combat abilities, like the fighter being THE folk hero and the wizard having always an aura of respect around him. Stuff like that I really would see more often. Not just "get's +42 on his attack roll blabla".
That's my POV.
|
Yay! lets go back to a Game playable using the Users Guide to the Fallout Computergame...considering they ripped off that set of simple rules for D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 for its Skill and Feat systems, Action points rules, Class vs Cross-Class skill advancement rates, and so forth there was no real need to knock out anything other than a Monster Manual and Adventures.
Yay! lets go back to a Game playable using the Users Guide to the Fallout Computergame...considering they ripped off that set of simple rules for D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 for its Skill and Feat systems, Action points rules, Class vs Cross-Class skill advancement rates, and so forth there was no real need to knock out anything other than a Monster Manual and Adventures.
What are you talking about?
|
|
Yay! lets go back to a Game playable using the Users Guide to the Fallout Computergame...considering they ripped off that set of simple rules for D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 for its Skill and Feat systems, Action points rules, Class vs Cross-Class skill advancement rates, and so forth there was no real need to knock out anything other than a Monster Manual and Adventures.What are you talking about?
Just enjoying the moment. Back when they "Updated D&D to 3.0", they lifted a major section of the Fallout Manual (FALLOUT SURVIVAL GUIDE). They didnt use it all. Aspects of that Computer Game Manual have surfaced again in 3.5 and now in 4.0 with "Action Points". If I wanted to create a simple RolePlay Player Handbook...all I would have to do is go rip off the FALLOUT SURVIVAL GUIDE and I would have something on Par with WOTC's Best Ideas.
1e rules were complex, but only if you paid attention to the fine print. ...
... D&D seems to making a steady “evolution” into a game of chess....
... but when swords are finally unsheathed, I don’t want to have to cringe, grit, and ultimately house-rule my way through the battle.
Do you see the contradiction here? You may be right, but... In 1st edition you house-ruled by ignoring the fine print. In 3rd edition, you complain about the necessity to house rule ... to ignore the fine print.
For the record, I periodically pop up on the classes section to plead for backwards compatibility. So I agree that power inflation should be minimized and rules bloat avoided.
But I play this game because I want a hybrid of collaborative storytelling and board games. And your post makes it seem like you'd rather not have the board game function.
If certain rules are too complicated, perhaps it'd be better to state which ones you think should be made simpler (in the appropriate forums below) instead of a blanket statement that doesn't help them make things simpler and better?SirUrza, I have posted few things. I have a very busy schedule as explained above. Plus, I have to acknowledge I’m a lazy guy. ;-)
...
Don’t beat me, Troll. And don’t jack that pitiful thread, please.
Hey! Don't be rude, man. Asking for specific examples and evidence is never trolling.
I don't want the board game stuff either. While miniatures might help in showing who is staying where, I really don't like all this nit-pickin grid-square counting instead of enjoying the moment and play right along.
No I don’t say that. And I also agree the player want something to eat and to play with tactically. But do you agree that a group role play experience can be very impacted by meta gaming and power gaming.
The reverse: it is (almost) always possible in D&D to have power gamers and meta gamers finding their way to enjoy, even if you don’t give a lot of beef to them.
Of course, the self-interested power-gamers and the emotionally shallow meta-gamers make it difficult to be collaboratively creative. There's not a system out there that's immune to players who are afraid of failure and vulnerability.
Part of it is the 8 players at a table difficulty. Think of it like a family. With so many player-children vying for a single DM-parent's attention, OF COURSE some of them are going to act out (meta-game) or seek to be the "good one" (power game) to get the DM-parent's attention. That's how it is when you game with a large table, in whatever system, in my experience. The fewer the players the more each gets attention from their peers and the DM.
Hey! Don't be rude, man. Asking for specific examples and evidence is never trolling.If certain rules are too complicated, perhaps it'd be better to state which ones you think should be made simpler (in the appropriate forums below) instead of a blanket statement that doesn't help them make things simpler and better?SirUrza, I have posted few things. I have a very busy schedule as explained above. Plus, I have to acknowledge I’m a lazy guy. ;-)
...
Don’t beat me, Troll. And don’t jack that pitiful thread, please.
I apologize if I did.
It was indeed a reference to a quite humoristic exchange SirUrza , Sebastian and few others had in this thread. I am not a native speaker and my attempt to be funny was perhaps a flop. Sorry againI posted in this "GENERAL" section of the messageborads just to stay evasive and not focused. So I want to avoid to point out a list of topics here or there.
I have to go to play as every Saturday . Bye
Be creative
|
|
I agree that simplicity in conjunction with compatability with 3.5 are both good design goals. Rather than creating everything from a 'green field', I'd like to see them continue to 'prune' the 3.5 set so it all 'fits together'.
I think the skill point allocation system is a beautiful example of this. I think the skill list system is not, but we're not in Beta yet.
I think that the Combat Feats are a complex system that is bad for backward compatability, so I have high hopes that it will be eliminated.
Most of the changes to races and classes work well with the previous rules and are easy to use. Since race only really matters when building the character the first time (you don't have to refer to a 'racial advancement sheet' when leveling, minor changes like granting an additional ability bonus are fine.
The system for Combat Manuvers is another Paizo success. It took several disparate systems and combined them into one process.
A few tweaks to some of the spellcasting (including specialist wizards and domains) and some of the things mentioned above and the rules are done. Playable, simple, elegant, compatible.
|
Don’t beat me, Troll. And don’t jack that pitiful thread, please.
Hey! Don't be rude, man. Asking for specific examples and evidence is never trolling.
In his defence, I didn't see it as an attack on a specific poster. More as a general plea to the board at large; "Please don't flame me for wanting a simpler game".
Considering the number of posters who do share a good grasp of English, and still can't agree on an interpretation of the rules, I'd say he has a fair point.
|
|
Paizo, designs, develops, and sells games for a living - I think they know what they are doing and what is at stake.
Exactly. Besides that, Paizo didn't have much of a choice. WotC essentially made the decision for them when they took way too long to release the GSL or whatever it's called now. Paizo couldn't sit arond twiddling their thumbs waiting on them instead of putting out products. That would have been financial suicide. If you really want your Paizo fix and the "simplicity" of 4E, I think they are still planing on making 4E products via their partnership with Necromancer games.
I have to go to play as every Saturday . Bye
Have a good one!
I totally agree.
I guess my point is that trying to make hard, play-balanced rules for every possible option is a downward spiral and in the end only limits your character’s choices for action.
I'm reminded of new feats that, instead of expanding capabilities, have the net effect of suddenly preventing everyone who was already doing something from doing it anymore. I'll try to think of an example. A while ago I saw a number of them and they just annoyed me to no end.
I totally agree.
I second.
Sounds like C&C and/or True20 is for you.
I’m not sure at all – I tried and I am not a strong believer they are so good. Plus, if these systems are really a very good improvement how can you explain they are not more supported or played ?
For me they are not the very answer to my needs.and with me a lot of gamers who prays in silence.Maybe. Maybe not.
Really, of all surviving D&D supporters, which ones will not pray to have a more brilliant, efficient and still flavored game to take over from 3.5 Ed as its true heir ? Are we dreaming of a more complicated, more elitist and eventually hard to (role) play system ?
You mentioned lack of Role Play. That's not because of the rules...
Thought I'd mention that. Editions don't have different standards for roleplaying.
If the rping is down in your group.. it's your group. Not the rules.
I am DMing with various players (currently almost twenty – but not all together ;-)). It is obvious that some players or groups are more or less good in role play. But with the ten guys witch are definitely great at role play – and with whom I play for at least ten years or more – we have definitely noticed RP was down with the later editions.
Agreed. A good game is all about the group. The question is "Do the rules support your group's type of play or get in the way of it?"
It’s a good answer and I can endorse it with a lot of gratefulness – It prevents me from a longer typing session in this so beautiful William’s language.
Thanks Ridolfin for bringing this topic up again.
You are more than welcome ! Thank you to you jdh147.
Have a good one!
It was great ! … and tiring. Thank you. Now my battery is full again. God, I love this game despite its painful current rules.
I agree that simplicity in conjunction with compatability with 3.5 are both good design goals. Rather than creating everything from a 'green field', I'd like to see them continue to 'prune' the 3.5 set so it all 'fits together'.
I think the skill point allocation system is a beautiful example of this…
I got your points DeadDM and I almost agree some PFRPG changes like skills rules are good but perhaps can be a little bit better. I will try to argue for it after I got some time to organize my thoughts. I also agree the Combat Feats are not so nice, but I’m not checking its compatibility when I come to that feeling. And I’m not sure I am so well pleased by all the changes in the Races and Classes in regards of Simplicity. Few are ok, some are not ok at all IMHO. Also the reasons of balance / restoration of interest in core classes and so on are just not hitting me at all. Combat Maneuvers is for sure a good move I like too…
….
By the way, in answering here it comes to my mind that the SirUrza’s advice was very wise. Even if I want to stay general, the only way to give flesh to my thoughts and to offer you some grasp on them is to enter the arena and fight with the beast. Plus, it is a better aim in trying to help rather than just complaining !
Now, it’s no more time for a PLEA, it’s time for a CRUSADE !
So I will try to post in that thread some cases where I think the simplicity of the game should improve and how I imagine it. However, I am not a game designer as already stated. I am quite sure some flaws and mistakes will sparse my posts. I ask your commiseration in advance guys.
If you find some of the future premises I will drop here are worth a dedicated thread, just let me know when you see it.
Be creative
So I will try to post in that thread some cases where I think the simplicity of the game should improve and how I imagine it …
Wellll ! I have to start by something and I propose Initiative Check.
This is by the rules a dexterity check. Means we have to roll the dices once at the beginning of each combat sequence. So 6 players and say 4 monsters give 10 rolls just to determine an order of actions. Plus, sadly, a bad roll will put the quicksilver hero at the bottom of the pile for his epic entrance in the fight. Also, it demands to each player and the DM to find a modifier score on a sheet and to proceed in writing the plot chart for each new fight of the session. Not often a great moment of Role Play IMHO.So:
We calculate the Initiative once using 10 + the current defined and applicable modifiers (DEX, feats, armor penalty to check, racial bonus ?). The chart is done once for all for the players. If two or more Initiative are the same your left guy get the turn – like everybody knows, DM is the most left guy of any of the tables. Your never need to change the Initiative score during a sequence as 3.5 suggests – I will explain how to manage that in a later post about Actions.
Thoughts ?
Be creative
|
|
OP-Thanks for the response, glad you liked my post. And I can see, from your most recent suggestion that initiative be static in sequence for the party you are DMing, that you're thinking about ways to keep the story moving without being bothered with traditional mechanisms such as intitative count.
Go for it. As the DM you are free to run any kind of game you desire, and make your groups' experience the best it can be. I think somewhere along the line, third edition delivered such amazingly coherant dice mechanisms and rules, that it might have provided a glimmer of hope that the actual "game" piece of dungeons and dragons could actually be fully and coherantly mechanized into a game. To that end, more rules were published than ever before - which probably led to several years of gamers trying to use all these rules for everything. If you think about it, its a great idea - an amazing idea that designers could somehow make consistent and mechanized an experience about characters that would otherwise be as unquantifyable as life itself.
Now, if you follow me on this, I appreciate the 3.5/OGL system due to this elegance, sophistication, depth, and balance. Third edition was the first edition to pretty much allow gamers to expect that High rolls were good and Low roles were bad with regularity, much like other games. And they did this with some good balance throughout all the various actions that could occur. This illusion, a fantastic one IMHO, probably led our collective gaming society to seek out to quantify the game this way, even more - perhaps to give it the kind of legs to stand on that 2nd edition could never deliver on.
To wrap up my point, the OP does not need a new system to be created to enable him to use less rules, or to help streamline things for him. I'm sure he's already a great DM, and his players love him for his swift and captivating execution style. I'm here, however, to relate that over the years I'd also been one of the very best DMs for that reason. I'm just looking to put more "game" into my Roleplaying Game these days. Best of luck.
P.s. I am confident Jason Bulmahn will deliver an awesome Pathfinder RPG. The learning curve for using all the rules can take some time, but I think its worth it if someone wants the best of both wargaming and storytelling in the dungeons and dragons mileu.
I think as this discussion goes on most people will recognize a forming dichotomy.
On one hand player love options, take the finesse based fighter, most players like having an actually set of rules that make this concept playable. Yet, by adding in a expansive feat and skill system in order to bring that concept to life, your actually making the rules more complex, as well as giving the power gamers some new toys to play with. When I think of it, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a good finesse based warrior in 2nd edition, and in 3.x edition you had to use quite a few extra options books in order to create a reasonable one.
Simplicity can sometimes leave a player without options, yet to many rules leads to a burdensome system, especially for the dungeon master.
I know very few people would be in favor of it, but I often thought the skill and feat system should just be combined into one sub system that covers personal customizations beyond class. Actually if you could figure a way to fit spells in with that, I’d really be into it. Your class could form just the basic layout of your character, than a simple streamlined system could flush out the little extra, that give your character a touch of the unique.
I’d love it, but it’ll never happen.
I know very few people would be in favor of it, but I often thought the skill and feat system should just be combined into one sub system that covers personal customizations beyond class. Actually if you could figure a way to fit spells in with that, I’d really be into it. Your class could form just the basic layout of your character, than a simple streamlined system could flush out the little extra, that give your character a touch of the unique. I’d love it, but it’ll never happen.
I'm working on that right now, as a slow-moving ongoing project. Thing is, it requires a point-buy (rather than class-based) system. My goal is that it'll still be playable with 3.5e/Pathfinder adventures; that requirement makes for difficult fitting.
On one hand player love options, take the finesse based fighter, most players like having an actually set of rules that make this concept playable. Yet, by adding in a expansive feat and skill system in order to bring that concept to life, your actually making the rules more complex, as well as giving the power gamers some new toys to play with. When I think of it, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a good finesse based warrior in 2nd edition, and in 3.x edition you had to use quite a few extra options books in order to create a reasonable one.
Exactly. Every time you give a player choices, there are those who will try to use those choices to make their character more powerful.
I have to admit, I love having rules for every situation and lots of different choices available for players. If I wanted to play a more simplified game, 3rd edition D&D wouldn't be my game of choice. And since Pathfinder is supposed to be compatible with 3rd edition, it wouldn't be my game of choice either.
Quite a long one that time. I hope you will follow my flag guys !
About Acting in combat… :
Three different groups for the actions: Proactive, Reactive or Reflex.
Basic Idea is:
Proactive use full bonuses and full speed
Reactive use half bonuses but full speed
Reflexes is indeed when you need to use a Saving Throw of any kind
Rule:
You can always take two actions in a round starting at your turn but not more than one Reactive. Before your action turn in a round you cannot have any action but Reflexes one. After your action turn you can only have one Reactive action if available. If you don’t use your reactive action before your next turn it is lost. You can have as many as required Reflexes actions in a round.
Only few situations and effects are able to change the standard acting rule:
- 1 – Some conditions or spell effect can forbid Proactive or Reactive or both and even Reflexes action.
- 2 – Some spells effects or feat can allow you one more Proactive or Reactive action
- 3 – Some actions can never be done twice in a round even if the acting rule would allow it. They are:
a – Charge, spell and spell like abilities use
b – Non permanent magic devices use
c – Some of the Supernatural or Extraordinary effect, feats or abilities
Few actions are considered free and thus don’t count for the limited number of acting actions. They are the one given by the 3.5 OGL chart of free actions. The use of some feat or a sounded procedure allows changing an action in a free action (quick reload, belt for wands and so on…).
The system to combine your move actions and your other actions is quite simple. You can always insert one action (or more if you are allowed to by special powers) at every step of your move and then try to finish your move. In some case your opponent can stop you through a sounded Reactive action (if he had). Usually neither an attack in a Reactive action on an Active move nor the reverse stop the move.
Now if you consider the above rule with care I think it’s possible to demonstrate it is no more needed to implement the attack of opportunity system. Without it I guess you get however a cinematic system of combat which will pose a threat against the attempt of every action if in the (extended) range of the opponent. Please note that it is also much more instinctive to rule the active and reactive phase IMHO.
One of the question could be why do you halve the bonuses in reactive mode of acting, answer is quite simple: I want the players active and also when Reactive I think you are losing a part of your efficiency in the delay / analysis / decision of action process.
Just below I give the list of the actions like the srd.org gives it and I comment and suggest some equivalence. But because it’s a little bit long I hide it behind the following gadget.
Melee Attacks 1 Pro or Rea
Ranged Attacks 1 Pro or Rea
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action 1 Pro only
Total Defense 1 Pro or Rea
Charge 2+ Pro only, a charge is 1 double speed move (at least) + 1 attack
Cast a Spell x Pro or Rea, some spells can take more than 1 action
Concentrating to Maintain a Spell 1 Pro only by round
Casting on the Defensive 1 Pro or Rea
Touch Spells in Combat 1 Pro or Rea
Dismiss a Spell 1 Pro or Rea
Activate Magic Item x Pro or Rea, some activation can take more than 1 action
Spell Completion Items 1+ Pro or Rea, but always after the opponent action if any
Spell Trigger, Command Word… 1 Pro or Rea
Use Special Ability 1+ Pro or Rea
Spell-Like Abilities 1+ Pro or Rea
Supernatural Abilities 1+ Pro or Rea
Extraordinary Abilities 1+ Pro or Rea
Use Feat 1 Pro or Rea
Use Skill 1+ Pro or Rea some skill can take more than one round
Start/Complete Full-Round Action is no more useful
Move Actions 1+ Pro or Rea
Move 1+ Pro or Rea
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon 1- Pro or Rea , but can be free with appropriate feat
Ready or Loose a Shield 0 Free
Manipulate an Item 1+ Pro or Rea, some manipulations can take more than 1 action
Direct or Redirect a Spell 1 Pro or Rea
Stand Up 1 Pro or Rea
Mount/Dismount a Steed 2- Pro only, at least 2 actions are needed if not special skill check
Full Attack is no more useful
Cast a Spell See above
Casting a Metamagic Spell 1 action to metamaging one spell - but effect after opponent action if any
Use Special Ability See above
Withdraw 2+ Pro only, a withdraw is 1 move (at least) + 1 move
Restricted Withdraw 1+ Rea only, a restricted withdraw is 1 move (at least)
Run 2+ Pro or Rea, a run is 1 full speed move (at least) + 1 full speed move and cannot start in a case in touch with an opponent.
Move 5 Feet through Difficult Terrain is no more useful, reduce only the speed
Drop an Item 0 free
Drop Prone 0 free
Speak 0 free (if one short sentence only)
Cease Concentration on Spell 0 free
Swift Actions 1 Pro or Rea but you always play the action before opponent
Immediate Actions 1 Pro or Rea but you always play the action before opponent
Take 5-Foot Step Why do we need again this akward thing ?… – dropped !
I hope most of you will catch the gist of this system and how it brings streamlining-simplicity in the combat sequence. It is the result what I expect to get IMO. Also it should be quite compatible with all the stuff but some feats and the attack of opportunity. Plus, I bet that it allows a good not boring and not gimped game.
Thank you for your patience and attention.
Thoughts ?
Be creative
Just enjoying the moment. Back when they "Updated D&D to 3.0", they lifted a major section of the Fallout Manual (FALLOUT SURVIVAL GUIDE). They didnt use it all. Aspects of that Computer Game Manual have surfaced again in 3.5 and now in 4.0 with "Action Points". If I wanted to create a simple RolePlay Player Handbook...all I would have to do is go rip off the FALLOUT SURVIVAL GUIDE and I would have something on Par with WOTC's Best Ideas.Yay! lets go back to a Game playable using the Users Guide to the Fallout Computergame...considering they ripped off that set of simple rules for D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 for its Skill and Feat systems, Action points rules, Class vs Cross-Class skill advancement rates, and so forth there was no real need to knock out anything other than a Monster Manual and Adventures.What are you talking about?
I think you may be confusing the issues somewhat. Fallout was initially based on the GURPS RPG game system (then converted to a lighter GURPS clone called SPECIAL when Steve Jackson Games and Interplay had differences about violence level and other stuff). http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/SPECIAL
Anyway, even calling 3.0 a "GURPS ripoff" or "SPECIAL/Fallout ripoff" is a bit disingenuous, the concepts behind such odd things as "skills" and "feats/talents/whatnot" has been used by many different RPGs for many years.
To actually address something related to the OP's point, however, I agree that 3.5e has "too many rules." Having a sub-ruleset for everything is wonky and painful - sure, you *can* learn all of it, but do you get any value out of that?
As an extreme example, consider Microlite20, a new super-slimmed down d20 ruleset. http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/microlite20-beauty-in-terseness/.
When writing new rules, you should always balance what the rules give you against what they lose you. What's this 10 pages of rules going to get you? More realism? More options? How much? And then, is it worth the additional complexity, play slowdown, and confusion for what you're getting? Sometimes the answer is yes, but you should always weigh it. Is that little fillip of "well, but on alternate Tuesdays this spell makes you roll percentile for side effect" worth it to anyone?
3.5e could stand to lose a little weight. The initial design goals of 4e were noble, it's just that they fudged it up royally along the way - they took out some of the gooney complexity and then added in more heaping handfuls of different and more retarded complexity. But that doesn't mean streamlining is bad.
It's also very unhelpful to go in with the "Well then maybe you'd like Castles & Crusades instead!" You can want the variety of options that 3.5e gives you without needing them to be built cruftily.