For instance, let's say I have a human fighter with 8 Int. I want him to be physically fit (maybe he was born in the mountains), so I give him full ranks in Jump and Climb. That's great, because those sorts of skill checks show up semi-frequently and he should be able to perform them semi-competently. But that means that does even try any other tasks (like repairing a sword with a nicked blade or trying to identify a mountain giant).
Well let's think about that situation though. A character with an Int 8 is loosely approximately equated to a person with an 80 IQ. Not quite mentally retarded, but certainly would fall in the "slow" catagory. I would not be at all surprised that a person like that wouldn't be competent at a lot of things.
But perhaps the issue in this case might be a question if enough skill points are being used. I know that I and many others feel that most classes get too few skill points and that is a big problem with the skill system. Another problem is the fact that NPC foes and challenges are designed around the idea of a few skills maxed out. This leads to players not wanting to dilute their skill choices because having four skills with 5 ranks in each ends up being extremely less valuable than two skills with 10 ranks in each.
|
And I would maintain that 3.5's skill system does discourage characters from trying certain types of checks, while encouraging others.
I think this is a fair assessment. Skills related to thing like improving you climb/jump etc seem fine where as others seem limiting. Knowledge skills a prime example. Can't be used untrained, so there is no chance in a pub a character may have previously overheard something regarding topic X. Ok as DM I just pass on the information for the sake of the game. Hang on if I gave that info away why asks the player with 10 ranks in Knowledge Y did I bother spending points in this skill?
I like the way that Pathfinder does the skill points now, far quicker (esp. for a Rogue) to sort out by the by.
I agree again that having skills and skill rolls is a great tool for players to gauge if they can or can not do something well enough. But the skill system is another example of later editions to have balanced characters numerically. Not a bad thing and I think 4e does it better - again by designing from the ground up the new D&D system.
S.
PS: Something to think about 3.5e is as dead of a game as 1e. The owners of D&D support neither now. D&D is 4e, but we do have OSRIC & Pathfinder RPG - neither D&D really... ;)
I think it's kind of odd to call a game "dead" because it is not being printed and sold by a business, even a business which owns it. (Even odder when the game is essentially open content.) As long as a game is being played, it seems alive to me.
I don't mean this to sound condescending, as I know Stefan is a smart guy and will likely specify what he meant, but it just strikes me as odd, probably even with qualification.
Hang on if I gave that info away why asks the player with 10 ranks in Knowledge Y did I bother spending points in this skill?
I do see that as a problem. I want to encourage players to take eclectic skills. To me, it makes them more three dimensional.
On somewhat of a tangent, I like the way Spirit of the Century handles Academics. It allows the player some narrative control to insert details into the story. I think this helps the GM since it defers some of the responsibility of making the skill relevant.
A "problem" i find with the you can do anything/ skill-less system, is that it comes down to what the players and not the PC's can think of. In most cases this is amazingly interesting, but can lead to some problems. What happens if as a player you can do something that your character cannot? I.e. solve a riddle, identify a creature, has knowledge that a PC has not.
I know in most cases this is just good roleplaying separating knowledges, but in many cases it becomes difficult. As a character you might know how far you can jump, what mechanisms operate a secret door. Skills sometimes operate to stop the disconnect between Players & PC's.
In 1E AD&D many modules required that you complete a non-combat task that might mean that experienced roleplayers will be able to complete better than inexperienced ones. Though this is the learning curve and fun of 1E.
|
|
I don't mean this to sound condescending, as I know Stefan is a smart guy and will likely specify what he meant, but it just strikes me as odd, probably even with qualification.
And condescending you are not! I meant that as D&D goes (the actual IP, name etc) 3.5e D&D is no longer supported or produced. In effect dead as D&D from a 1st party point of view.
Just pointing out that 3.5e and 1e are now in the same boat. They both require "outside" assistance to continue to exist. The people on this board are the ones that will ensure that both 1e and 3.5e will not just become quaint museum pieces. Any NEW publications of "1e" or "3.5e" can no longer carry the logo "Dungeons & Dragons". A loss in my opinion. How many years before the (I hope) very successful Pathfinder RPG is only known as Pathfinder RPG with no reference to it's parentage? No nod to Gyax for starting it all? Never you may cry, but we are talking a matter of time, a when not an if. Sure us "oldies" will remember when Pathfinder was 3.75e but the new players will always know it as Pathfinder RPG full stop.
I am sure a marketing person will tell me why I'm wrong, but if I was WotC I would reprint EVERYTHING 1e/3.5e/4e and give people the choice. This thread has shown that there is a place in "D&D" roleplaying for all of the editions.
Off in my own little fantasy world where the game matters as much as profit...
S.
|
|
In 1E AD&D many modules required that you complete a non-combat task that might mean that experienced roleplayers will be able to complete better than inexperienced ones. Though this is the learning curve and fun of 1E.
Oh I remember a certain "not to be named" 1e adventure which we abandoned because no one could figure out the mentally of the traps! Indeed the "work it our yourself" of 1e while added fun sometimes, at other times added frustration. Perhaps a bad DM?
Party of 6 and none of us "got it" - man we felt like dumb-arses...
:)
In 1E AD&D many modules required that you complete a non-combat task that might mean that experienced roleplayers will be able to complete better than inexperienced ones. Though this is the learning curve and fun of 1E.Oh I remember a certain "not to be named" 1e adventure which we abandoned because no one could figure out the mentally of the traps! Indeed the "work it our yourself" of 1e while added fun sometimes, at other added frustration. Perhaps a bad DM?
Party of 6 and none of us "got it" - man we felt like dumb-arses...
:)
No it was not that module, just a riddle where to get to the quest room we had to be silent when asked a question. I accidentally decided to answer the question, only after everyones black looks did we realise that it was not just me being an idiot,i was in character too. :)
This is one of the things that has always irritated me about the way some DM's run 3.5, and gaming in general, regardless of edition. It's all about the pace the DM and players establish together.It drives me nuts when a DM runs combat like multi-player chess; carefully plotting out every move, looking over the stat block intently looking over every SA, then trying to balance player reaction, etc. I tend to play in games with a large number of players, typically 7+. THIS is why 1 combat lasts an entire game session.
This is the total opposite of last weeks session in my 3.5 game. For us, in a 4 hour session we played 6 rounds of combat. Next session we'll continue the fight. That said I suspect a lot of the difference my simply be in the level of the two encounters and what they consist of. My players are 14th level and they were facing off with a CR 15 Demon acting as a body guard for a 15th level Half-Fiend Sorceress and a 15th Level Half-Fiend Wilder. Combats of this level with these kinds of opponents tend to be all about massively powerful magical effects flying back and forth and how each side mitigates them. So, for example during one the baddies rounds I used blasphemy which was interrupted by an immediate action power that lets the parties psion act out of sequence and he then using a Belt of Battle to get enough actions to move and use a power that teleports his allies to a safe place. To which I'll respond with, well if there is no one around hit with blasphemy then I guess I'll use...umm...oh I know horrid wilting and I'll also try using a quickened orb of acid, lesser on the mages phantom steed...what are its stats?
Just to do this one baddies turn we had to look up how the psions interrupt power worked (in order to decide if he could use his Belt of Battle after using the power) as well as the phantom steed spell in order to figure out what happened if it was the target of a spell and I had to decide what power to use for a complex high level NPC caster and then had to choose again when her power was interrupted and her circumstances changed.
While it is kind of crazy long it seems to me that the ability of adjudicate this kind of complex high level, high powered, encounter is really 3.5s strength. If I start cutting all this detail out why play 3.5 at all? Am I not better off just going with something like 1st edition where I'm not going to encounter this kind of complexity in any case and therefore won't have to worry about complex 'multi-player chess'?
|
|
Am I not better off just going with something like 1st edition where I'm not going to encounter this kind of complexity in any case and therefore won't have to worry about complex 'multi-player chess'?
Why yes you are, and you could throw in a few more critters and still have time get a good nights sleep in before work the next morning...
:)
I think this is a fair assessment. Skills related to thing like improving you climb/jump etc seem fine where as others seem limiting. Knowledge skills a prime example. Can't be used untrained, so there is no chance in a pub a character may have previously overheard something regarding topic X. Ok as DM I just pass on the information for the sake of the game. Hang on if I gave that info away why asks the player with 10 ranks in Knowledge Y did I bother spending points in this skill?
If it's something that could have been overheard in a bar, and understood to the point that the character can dredge it up later, screams to me that the DC to know it would have to be not very high. And Know skills cover that - anything with DC under 10 can be tried by anyone as an untrained skill.
The other mechanism for overhearing things in bars is, of course, gather information.
|
Pathfinder/v.3.5 Adventure Scenes
>Complete part 2 of a battle that started in the last hour of last session, but with two additional creatures not yet in melee
>Descend downstairs and make it half way across a bridge
This is one of the things that has always irritated me about the way some DM's run 3.5, and gaming in general, regardless of edition. It's all about the pace the DM and players establish together.
It drives me nuts when a DM runs combat like multi-player chess; carefully plotting out every move, looking over the stat block intently looking over every SA, then trying to balance player reaction, etc. I tend to play in games with a large number of players, typically 7+. THIS is why 1 combat lasts an entire game session.
This tends to be my experience as well. It seems like combat in 3.5 always COULD be faster, if it wasn't for people drawing it out unnecessarily. As a player (which is generally what I do), I tend to have my turns planned out before my initiative even comes up, and even when playing a spellcaster, it never takes more than 30 seconds. Then the next player's turn comes up and he cracks open his Player's Handbook... "Let's see, what spell do I want to cast?" It makes me want to shake people.
I am convinced that in the average 3.5 gaming group, combat could be sped up by 60-70% if people paid attention and planned their turns while other people were taking theirs.
|
|
I am convinced that in the average 3.5 gaming group, combat could be sped up by 60-70% if people paid attention and planned their turns while other people were taking theirs.
Ditto for 4e. The DM for 4e we have as a 1 min rule. If you haven't done what your going to do within 1 min of your initiative coming up than it's assumed you character was standing around doing jack.
S.
|
This is one of the things that has always irritated me about the way some DM's run 3.5, and gaming in general, regardless of edition. It's all about the pace the DM and players establish together.It drives me nuts when a DM runs combat like multi-player chess; carefully plotting out every move, looking over the stat block intently looking over every SA, then trying to balance player reaction, etc. I tend to play in games with a large number of players, typically 7+. THIS is why 1 combat lasts an entire game session.
This is the total opposite of last weeks session in my 3.5 game. For us, in a 4 hour session we played 6 rounds of combat. Next session we'll continue the fight. That said I suspect a lot of the difference my simply be in the level of the two encounters and what they consist of. My players are 14th level and they were facing off with a CR 15 Demon acting as a body guard for a 15th level Half-Fiend Sorceress and a 15th Level Half-Fiend Wilder. Combats of this level with these kinds of opponents tend to be all about massively powerful magical effects flying back and forth and how each side mitigates them. So, for example during one the baddies rounds I used blasphemy which was interrupted by an immediate action power that lets the parties psion act out of sequence and he then using a Belt of Battle to get enough actions to move and use a power that teleports his allies to a safe place. To which I'll respond with, well if there is no one around hit with blasphemy then I guess I'll use...umm...oh I know horrid wilting and I'll also try using a quickened orb of acid, lesser on the mages phantom steed...what are its stats?
Just to do this one baddies turn we had to look up how the psions interrupt power worked (in order to decide if he could use his Belt of Battle after using the power) as well as the phantom steed spell in order to figure out what happened if it was the target of a spell and I had to...
Did you have fun? Do you enjoy that type of encounter and game? If so, 3.5 is for you. Just as it is for me. I am often amazed at the ability of the system to so coherently relate to anything we can dream up. v.3.5 is one hell of a flexible, and extensible system. Seems like no matter how rich the enounter, everything functions in relation to the descriptions provided in the rules with relative relation to one another. IMO, this is a simulationist's dream game.
I swear I had so much fun cutting out the detail on that bridge... I'll try to take a picture and link it up.
In many ways - not getting across that bridge was a great experience for the players. It was nice to truly challenge them, and with a balanced but excellent demonstration of so many game elements, I provided a very memorable game. The bridge was set high atop these vaulted arches I also made, about a foot or so off the table. So, given the actual, physical perspective, the PCs were super careful and this added heightened excitement.
Now not all our evening are combat. And, I relatively have no complaints about Pathfinder Beta nor v.3.5. They are still solidly my preferred games to play. And, the set up frankly gave us all a feeling of sophistication - yeah, I guess you could call it a complex game, and I would agree that it used as much brain power as multiplayer chess would. Honestly, though, it was a really great simulationist style evening of play. And, I might add, appropriately placed because it is the culmination of a large story arc.
All in all - I'm now running two campaigns. Pathfinder on Monday nights, and OSRIC once-a-month, and lovin' GMing both. I also play in a monthly v.3.5 campaign that started in September 2001. My cleric just reached 12th level. But we play at the Guru's house (my Gygaxian naturalist friend), and his games are a frickin' time capsule of OD&D/1e. He uses v.3.5 rules, but just barely. Man, its hard to find that crusty of a GM anywhere these days... if he knew just how "pure" his games really were, it might go to his head though.
Seriously, wanna talk about how to play 3e with a 1e style - just talk to the Guru. After 8 frickin' years, I finally wrested a +2 flail from the deep ice in a Cryohydra's lair. Otherwise, good luck trying to find magic in his realm - there has been some, but he is one serious tight-ass GM when it comes to magic.
His realm is raw, low magic, very natural. If you wanna f%&& with Icingdeath the white dragon - he will feed you your character sheet. If you wish to take on Ruakil, the evil Frost Mage, he will destroy you before you reach his tower. Its a dog-eat-dog realm, and everything is played through the mind of the GM - forget counters or figures. He draws some excellent town maps though, but he'll draw them LIVE as you're playing. The guy does know, very deeply however, how to execute a game that centers around the players. A game that inevitably keeps us engaged and awake until 2:30 am... a game that has us doing most of the actual work in the game through roleplay.
And, after all these years, I think I've figured out his secret. I'm willing to share if someone is interested, and many long time gamers likely already know...
|
|
Otherwise, good luck trying to find magic in his realm - there has been some, but he is one serious tight-ass GM when it comes to magic.
DM after my own heart! My players whinge, cry and basically complain that I don't give enough items. Pathfinder has been great, if they want them they make them. No magic shops in my games...
:)
Otherwise, good luck trying to find magic in his realm - there has been some, but he is one serious tight-ass GM when it comes to magic.DM after my own heart! My players whinge, cry and basically complain that I don't give enough items. Pathfinder has been great, if they want them they make them. No magic shops in my games...
:)
As a player I would be fine with a game like that if (a) the foes were under the same restrictions (no magic stuff suddenly exploding when they die so the PCs can't get it) and (b) the DM took this into account when devising encounters (no magic weapons vs incorporeals, everybody hide behind the mage). A careful DM that has thought these out can make it work. Sadly far too often you get a DM that limits the PCs gear, but doesn't account for that in the setting.
And, from what I know of you Dragonchess Player, my last comment would still be unimportant because you're more than capable of creating your own homebrew and don't need more 1e supported materials. But for those who don't generally create their own stories but wish to play - WOW! I say, kudos to the return of 1e.
I'm not saying OSRIC is worthless or even of no use to me (if, for example, I wanted to run a game for a group that only had experience with d20/3.x without needing them to learn a different system). It's just that if I want to experience the "old-school" game feel of 1st Ed AD&D (or BECMI D&D), my first choice would be to use the old rules (with or without variations), since I actually have them.
Forgive me if I sounded dismissive. That wasn't what I meant.
I am convinced that in the average 3.5 gaming group, combat could be sped up by 60-70% if people paid attention and planned their turns while other people were taking theirs.Ditto for 4e. The DM for 4e we have as a 1 min rule. If you haven't done what your going to do within 1 min of your initiative coming up than it's assumed you character was standing around doing jack.
S.
I do something much closer to this for 4E as well but that's because there really is no excuse for not being ready in 4E. I mean your powers are straight forward and comparatively basic. Know them - in fact put them on friggen cards or print them out on a spread sheet. I'll give a little leeway if your character in fairly new, especially if your old on died or left or something and you just made a new 6th level character or something and have not yet had much of a chance to get really familiar with your power but after you've used the same power for the 5th time you should really know pretty much how they work.**
Sometimes the DM needs a little extra leeway (what did the trap in this room do again?) but the players are performing the same basic functions many, many, times and should have the drill down reasonably quickly.
** Now it should be noted that I'm a player usually in 4E so what I mean by I'll give some leeway is actually 'I won't yell at you'.
|
|
And, from what I know of you Dragonchess Player, my last comment would still be unimportant because you're more than capable of creating your own homebrew and don't need more 1e supported materials. But for those who don't generally create their own stories but wish to play - WOW! I say, kudos to the return of 1e.I'm not saying OSRIC is worthless or even of no use to me (if, for example, I wanted to run a game for a group that only had experience with d20/3.x without needing them to learn a different system). It's just that if I want to experience the "old-school" game feel of 1st Ed AD&D (or BECMI D&D), my first choice would be to use the old rules (with or without variations), since I actually have them.
Forgive me if I sounded dismissive. That wasn't what I meant.
No worries. I believe I was attempting to relay that I understand why you would just use your original collection:)
|
|
Otherwise, good luck trying to find magic in his realm - there has been some, but he is one serious tight-ass GM when it comes to magic.DM after my own heart! My players whinge, cry and basically complain that I don't give enough items. Pathfinder has been great, if they want them they make them. No magic shops in my games...
:)
...I concur.
I would like to reiterate, once again, this point to anyone who may have never heard this.
In the first half of the 1980s, if you said there was a "magic shoppe" in your adventure, you were considered a joke as a GM.
I do not mean to be harsh.
This norm later changed for many of us.
For example, Ed Greenwood's Wizard's of Thay (latter 1980s) and so forth seemed to have changed our sense of that original classic feel. No value judgment here, because it was done very well, and with excellent in-story explanation for the mileau of the high-magic setting of the Forgotten Realms.
I recall at the time, there were many popular magazine articles and writings about the nature of fantasy fiction and gaming. The message was that at the GMs preference, she would set up her realm as LOW MEDIUM or HIGH MAGIC. An example of a low magic settings, for example, was HARN. Example of a high magic setting was our beloved Forgotten Realms.
And so, as a point of classical play, early game play, generally went the way of low magic, where magic was amazingly precious and relatively scarce.
I do, however, agree that much of 3.x saw a built-in expectation that magic would be present, as both monsters and npc, game materials, and CR implications, would denote the presence of scrolls, potions, and the like as "buffing" materials. Whereas, one would also note that even the stats (and this generally continues to present day Pathfinder), sometimes include assumptions about who has quaffed what, read what, or expended which charge prior to battle.
And, I do not live in a cave—I recognize that society in-general has "ramped up". Much of the industry's video games and other "leveling games" based off our beloved hobby, have so deeply conditioned this generation, that the inability to have many choices and compartmentalized powers may seem rather archaic indeed.
And here is where Stefan says it best, "DM after my own heart!"
I won't expect anyone to have gamed the same way for 30 years, we have my Guru friend to thank for that - I think he is one of a kind. I do, however, see a trend where we are turning a corner and reaching back to our gaming roots, and the popularity of classic play, Gary's game, is on the rise. There are some of us, still, however, who run low magic games and love the heck out of them.
A lot of the games I played in the mid-80s had some kind of magic shop available, but we were young then and didn't really stop to consider how these would influence the style of the game we were playing.
The ability to buy or create magic items in a game also acts as a "gold sink" (to borrow a phrase from MMOs). IIRC, 1E had a lot of other things that characters were able to spend their hard-won gold on (training, strongholds, etc). Without these outlets to soak up player wealth, monetary rewards start to become meaningless unless there is some way of spending this wealth. Converting it to some kind of tangible reward that improves your overall character is the method that later editions of the game have followed.
This doesn't negate the explanation of changing societal expectations that Pax has outlined, but I do think it is a part of the explanation of why/how things have changed in this part of the game.
His realm is raw, low magic, very natural.
I guess I never left old school then despite leaving D&D. Except for the multi-resurrection debacle in the one game.
I do, however, agree that much of 3.x saw a built-in expectation that magic would be present, as both monsters and npc, game materials, and CR implications, would denote the presence of scrolls, potions, and the like as "buffing" materials. Whereas, one would also note that even the stats (and this generally continues to present day Pathfinder), sometimes include assumptions about who has quaffed what, read what, or expended which charge prior to battle.
Yup, that was my point. Not to say that low-magic games are bad. But instead to warn current DMs that in order for it to really work you have to take a total game approach. In the new systems, players having access to alot of magic items is built into the system and if you deviate from that, there are going to be complications. A DM that just thinks they only have to close all the magic shops and that is it; is going to run into some bad situations in the game.
The point about the wealth is also a good one. If the players can't buy the mad loot and can't spend their gp on xp, then at some point why bother with more gp. So be clear that dumping the magic items also would really entail dumping most of the gp as well.
[
...I concur.I would like to reiterate, once again, this point to anyone who may have never heard this.
In the first half of the 1980s, if you said there was a "magic shoppe" in your adventure, you were considered a joke as a GM.
I do not mean to be harsh.
This norm later changed for many of us.
For example, Ed Greenwood's Wizard's of Thay (latter 1980s) and so forth seemed to have changed our sense of that original classic feel. No value judgment here, because it was done very well, and with excellent in-story explanation for the mileau of the high-magic setting of the Forgotten Realms.
I recall at the time, there were many popular magazine articles and writings about the nature of fantasy fiction and gaming. The message was that at the GMs preference, she would set up her realm as LOW MEDIUM or HIGH MAGIC. An example of a low magic settings, for example, was HARN. Example of a high magic setting was our beloved Forgotten Realms.
And so, as a point of classical play, early game play, generally went the way of low magic, where magic was amazingly precious and relatively scarce.
I do, however, agree that much of 3.x saw a built-in expectation that magic would be present, as both monsters and npc, game materials, and CR implications, would denote the presence of scrolls, potions, and the like as "buffing" materials. Whereas, one would also note that even the stats (and this generally continues to present day Pathfinder), sometimes include assumptions about who has quaffed what, read what, or expended which charge prior to battle.
And, I do not live in a cave—I recognize that society in-general...
I certainly agree that low magic settings were all the rage in the '80s though I think its worth pointing out that this was not really supported by official D&D products. If you ran your players through nothing but official adventures they'd be just loaded down with treasure and magic.
I've done a lot of conversions of 1st and 2nd edition material to 3.5, in fact the only 3.5 adventure I have ever run is Castle Maure, every other adventure my players have been through is a conversion or a small handful of adventures I made from scratch. One of the things I learned real quick is that you have to heavily cut back on the mounts of treasure the players receive from 1st or 2nd edition adventures or the players will be far ahead of the wealth by level guidelines.
Now its worth noting that this was not as noticeable in 1st or 2nd because money generally could not buy you much magic so huge hoards of cash had low value - while in 3.5 huge hoardes of cash turn into magic items. On the same theme magic items did not feel quite as common because once you replaced the +2 longsword with a Frostbrand you essentially just had a +2 Longsword as a backup or you gave it to a henchman or something. In 3.5 you'd sell it and take the money to put toward something like a better magic shield.
Hence, because of convertibility, money and old magic is more valuable in 3.5 then in 1st or 2nd.
|
|
I do, however, agree that much of 3.x saw a built-in expectation that magic would be present, as both monsters and npc, game materials, and CR implications, would denote the presence of scrolls, potions, and the like as "buffing" materials. Whereas, one would also note that even the stats (and this generally continues to present day Pathfinder), sometimes include assumptions about who has quaffed what, read what, or expended which charge prior to battle.Not to say that low-magic games are bad. But instead to warn current DMs that in order for it to really work you have to take a total game approach. In the new systems, players having access to alot of magic items is built into the system and if you deviate from that, there are going to be complications. A DM that just thinks they only have to close all the magic shops and that is it; is going to run into some bad situations in the game.
The point about the wealth is also a good one. If the players can't buy the mad loot and can't spend their gp on xp, then at some point why bother with more gp. So be clear that dumping the magic items also would really entail dumping most of the gp as well.
I do listen, you know.
|
|
My room mate's eleven year old son was looking through my 1e PHB the other day. He read the preface and some of Gygax's words and asked his dad "Will Derek let me play this?".
I had to hold back a tear. Of all the books I own (mostly 3x/Pathfinder), with their "modern" fantasy art, he picks up the one he thought looked the coolest (Trampier cover FTW!) and wants to play that after reading it...
I do listen, you know.
Yup, I was just trying to clarify to other possible DMs that might be reading this thread that I wasn't saying low-magic is bad, just that it needs to be done with a holistic approach. I wasn't trying to browbeat you or anything.
My room mate's eleven year old son was looking through my 1e PHB the other day. He read the preface and some of Gygax's words and asked his dad "Will Derek let me play this?".
I had to hold back a tear. Of all the books I own (mostly 3x/Pathfinder), with their "modern" fantasy art, he picks up the one he thought looked the coolest (Trampier cover FTW!) and wants to play that after reading it...
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a poster with that cover on it?
|
|
I read a lot about over powered under powered or whatever. We have to keep in mind the context. Where a +2 sword was a big deal in 1e its who cares in 3.5e. Bonuses are easier to come by in 3.5e so magic needs to be bigger to have any real effect. It's been an arms race PC's vs the monsters for a while now. Let's make PC's more powerful (meaning more pluses - cos people like that), hmmm now we need bigger critters. Repeat cycle with each new edition.
1e had low magic because you could defeat most things without it. 3.5e has AC's and like that require more pluses than stats can bring to bare. Which again point out a Gygax vs later editions. Damage reduction is a watered down "magic weapon need to hit". In 3.5e if you hit hard enough and stay in the fight long enough you CAN win. No magic weapon against that gargoyle in 1e and its either escape or die or hope your magic-user is having a very good day.
In my day counting to 5 was about all that was required, our fighter (way back when) had +1 to damage and had a +2 sword for most of our campaign. A whopping +3 to damage! Mind you the ranger in the group would have killed for that sort of hitting power... All a matter of perspective really. 3.5e taught us how to add, a lot.
As to the cash in game, 1e "buy your level" was great, I 'fondly' remember having to sell my wand of magic missiles to get enough cash to level. Scarred me to this very day. Did the DM do it to me, nope it was Gygax. Forced my Magic-User to once more travel into the wilds to find loot to feed my leveling habit. Vicious cycle, but what can you do.
S.
|
|
My room mate's eleven year old son was looking through my 1e PHB the other day. He read the preface and some of Gygax's words and asked his dad "Will Derek let me play this?".
I had to hold back a tear. Of all the books I own (mostly 3x/Pathfinder), with their "modern" fantasy art, he picks up the one he thought looked the coolest (Trampier cover FTW!) and wants to play that after reading it...
Sorry for my ignorance. But are we talking the "second" covers? If so then I have 2 new players who asked why they don't put such wonderful art on the D&D book covers now. I'm not so keen on the originals. The 2nd cover MM with the red dragon and the Pegasi - that is just magic!
We're talking about the party cleaning up the dead lizardmen and prying the gem eyes out of the demon idol. Moody and mysterious.
Adventure!
|
|
We're talking about the party cleaning up the dead lizardmen and prying the gem eyes out of the demon idol. Moody and mysterious.
Adventure!
I can see a witch burning coming but I have to say it. I liked the 2nd covers of the PHB/DMG/MM. Pieces of pure art.
It's currently raining here so I may be hard to light. Grandest apologies.
S.
I don't have them all in front of me right now, so I'll just risk something based on memory. I'd probably agree that they are technically better (I'd be first to admit that a lot of the old art sucked), but I think the particular covers in question, especially the first printings of the PH before they changed the cover, was more evocative of the game--not as good, but more powerful, not as pretty, but more important.
|
|
I don't have them all in front of me right now, so I'll just risk something based on memory. I'd probably agree that they are technically better (I'd be first to admit that a lot of the old art sucked), but I think the particular covers in question, especially the first printings of the PH before they changed the cover, was more evocative of the game--not as good, but more powerful, not as pretty, but more important.
Tell me the later cover of the DMG doesn't just scream "Adventure awaits"... :)
When I DM, I run things fast and dirty. "If it ain't strapped down, it's fallin off the truck" mentality. Turns typically takes less than 10 seconds, and I run the monsters as I feel appropriate; in the case of monstrous humanoids, there isn't a whole lot of military tactical strategy at low levels. If there are lots of them in an area with obstructions/terrain, I'll have some of them use their turn simply looking around for a target. If it's an intelligent foe, I slow things down and use more precision and effectiveness. Before combat I quickly scribble HP, AC, Attack, and damage and little else if possible. I try not to look at the stat block much after combat starts.
I found that not using miniatures keeps the combat very fast-paced, and avoids the "chess mentality". It means I need to describe more things, and some stuff - "can I reach the wizard with a charge?" - I often solve with random rolls or skill or ability checks when it's a borderline case.
|
|
When I DM, I run things fast and dirty. "If it ain't strapped down, it's fallin off the truck" mentality. Turns typically takes less than 10 seconds, and I run the monsters as I feel appropriate; in the case of monstrous humanoids, there isn't a whole lot of military tactical strategy at low levels. If there are lots of them in an area with obstructions/terrain, I'll have some of them use their turn simply looking around for a target. If it's an intelligent foe, I slow things down and use more precision and effectiveness. Before combat I quickly scribble HP, AC, Attack, and damage and little else if possible. I try not to look at the stat block much after combat starts.I found that not using miniatures keeps the combat very fast-paced, and avoids the "chess mentality". It means I need to describe more things, and some stuff - "can I reach the wizard with a charge?" - I often solve with random rolls or skill or ability checks when it's a borderline case.
Well said.
There are plenty of ways to speed combat up. In any v.3.5/Pathfinder game combat can go very swiftly. So, although the above scenarios may have appeared to imply that those systems take a long time, they do not necessarily need to. Swift adjudications, dice determinations, increased descriptions, etc., will all deliver swift combats in those games. I wasn't a victim in that bridge encounter battle - in fact, I was checking the pulse of the players too - and everyone had a great time running that scene using every last exhaustive rule possible, because they really wanted to make it across. The complicating factor was the warm, slightly powerful wind coming from Ghenna's Maw. Beneath the bridge was an infinate gaping maw chasm that would suck the PCs off to Ghenna. I'm sure this played a factor in their intrepidation. The OSRIC v. 3e comparison was in many ways apples to oranges because each system can deliver a different experience alltogether. 1e can be played with figures and tiles to represent combat, but cannot compete with 3e's replete game system that details every last flea in a way that simulates its movement and behavior down to the hairs on its head. I really enjoy 3.x for its ability to do that (at times). Again, upon reflection, perhaps that particular comparison wasn't fair - but it just happened to be a very recent and relevant illustration within a few days of one another.
Aside: To all my PAIZONIAN friends at PAIZOCON II, I wish you an awesome time this weekend. Please share my regards.
Axes High!
-Pax-
|
|
Sorry for my ignorance. But are we talking the "second" covers? If so then I have 2 new players who asked why they don't put such wonderful art on the D&D book covers now. I'm not so keen on the originals. The 2nd cover MM with the red dragon and the Pegasi - that is just magic!My room mate's eleven year old son was looking through my 1e PHB the other day. He read the preface and some of Gygax's words and asked his dad "Will Derek let me play this?".
I had to hold back a tear. Of all the books I own (mostly 3x/Pathfinder), with their "modern" fantasy art, he picks up the one he thought looked the coolest (Trampier cover FTW!) and wants to play that after reading it...
*sniff*
And I thought I knew you...
*sniff*
:(
|
|
Sorry for my ignorance. But are we talking the "second" covers? If so then I have 2 new players who asked why they don't put such wonderful art on the D&D book covers now. I'm not so keen on the originals. The 2nd cover MM with the red dragon and the Pegasi - that is just magic!My room mate's eleven year old son was looking through my 1e PHB the other day. He read the preface and some of Gygax's words and asked his dad "Will Derek let me play this?".
I had to hold back a tear. Of all the books I own (mostly 3x/Pathfinder), with their "modern" fantasy art, he picks up the one he thought looked the coolest (Trampier cover FTW!) and wants to play that after reading it...
*sniff*
And I thought I knew you...
*sniff*
:(
Skeletons in closets...
Tell me the later cover of the DMG doesn't just scream "Adventure awaits"... :)
The one with the wizard and the dragon? It screams, "Magic is really colorful!"
Sorry for my ignorance. But are we talking the "second" covers? If so then I have 2 new players who asked why they don't put such wonderful art on the D&D book covers now. I'm not so keen on the originals. The 2nd cover MM with the red dragon and the Pegasi - that is just magic!*sniff*
And I thought I knew you...
*sniff*
:(
I have to admit that I like that Monster Manual cover better than the original one.
That was the cover of the last printing of the 1e MM. Conceptually, the original art was better. It said, "This world is full of freaky, dangerous monsters on every level." Technically, it is just embarrassingly bad, and says, "Mommy, where's my crayons?"
That was the cover of the last printing of the 1e MM. Conceptually, the original art was better. It said, "This world is full of freaky, dangerous monsters on every level." Technically, it is just embarrassingly bad, and says, "Mommy, where's my crayons?"
Newton the Fuglytaur: "Look out, Herc! It's a draco confuglyatio horribliuglius!"
|
|
That was the cover of the last printing of the 1e MM. Conceptually, the original art was better. It said, "This world is full of freaky, dangerous monsters on every level." Technically, it is just embarrassingly bad, and says, "Mommy, where's my crayons?"
PHB and DMG covers rocked: Artist? DAT.
MM cover? Not so much. Artist? DCS III.
Sutherland did some cool stuff (his Glabrezu pic was cool), but Trampier was so much better...
|
|
It's a draco confuglyatio horribliuglius!"
It's about then my character would be running, teleporting, riding or writing some sort of last will...
This thread (and the learned people on it) has really crystallized what I like about RPing and what for the sake of "it's new" I left behind. Great to now be starting not a one off game of 1e, but after that game having the players ask "so when does the campaign start?" :)
So today I dug out my World of Greyhawk (boxed set not the folio or the awful hardcover).
And so it begins...
Hats off to the Ladies and Gentlemen of this thread,
S.
PHB and DMG covers rocked: Artist? DAT.MM cover? Not so much. Artist? DCS III.
Sutherland did some cool stuff (his Glabrezu pic was cool), but Trampier was so much better...
Yeah, Trampier made a much bigger impression on me, and on consideration still holds up better. There was a thread recently where folks were talking about the old artists and somebody mentioned Sutherland. HD, do you have a link to the glabrezu? Because I can't think of any of his illustrations that I liked and didn't find much online. (First ed. books are with my daughter.)
Oh yeah. I'm now experiencing deja vu, perhaps on multiple levels. (Sorry if we've been through this before.) Still doesn't strike me as a particularly awesome illustration. Something more will have to be dredged up to save Sutherland for me.
EDIT: Oh wait, the party facing the efreeti on the cover of the original DMG was Sutherland, not Trampier, right? That's better than the examples I've seen so far.
|
|
So today I dug out my World of Greyhawk (boxed set not the folio or the awful hardcover).And so it begins...
Hats off to the Ladies and Gentlemen of this thread,
S.
How very wonderful! Please give my regards to Ratik!
How nice it is to think about that big 'ol Greyhawk map.*heading downstairs to the dungeon room to open that big 'ol map*
There are some of us, still, however, who run low magic games and love the heck out of them.
Like those of us who love a good game of Conan? ;)
-Ben.