D&D is what the people at the table make it. "Killer DMs" didn't have players for long, and, once they got that label, never again, so I wonder about the kids today using that as an example of how bad AD&D was. Cheating little pissants (I guess they're called "munchkins" now) didn't last long. Rules lawyers spent more time writing the Dragon forums than playing, since none of us wanted to hear it, and the DM was the final arbiter (and we liked it).
Different times, different expectations, and much different attitudes towards game play.
I blame World of Darkness and Emo music more than poor balance in games for today's problems.
I usually promote memorable/heroic courses of action tactics/team efforts, and penalize people trying to "win", by using some of the tools at my disposal. Why? Because my first duty as a GM is to make sure everyone is having fun. And PF is not a game where you "win" by getting the most points. I tell my players to make a balanced group. Sure, if you want to play something not within the four main bases of a group, I am not completely unreasonable, but if people want to play something that is party-wise relatively useless, I require them to fill at least some manner of role by allocating skills or a feat or two.
But if someone try to pull some REAL munchkin s#%* on my watch, I fudge crits their way ("I know you have AC95, but double natural 20 is still a crit"), give NPC casters freebie spells to counter their BS ("They scryed on you as you killed their associates, and prepared for you, it's what super-intelligent villains do"), and make it so that the others have fun, even at said munchkins expense. This creates two possible scenarios:
1: The munchkin leaves, which is completely fine, because a true munchkin is nothing but trouble.
2: The munchkin understands my less than subtle hints, and start the reformation into a valuable member of roleplayer society.
Different times, different expectations, and much different attitudes towards game play.
I don't think that any of that is true (well, "different times" is trivially correct). The only thing that's different is that the internet exists now so that you can hear flame wars, whiners and munchkins from all over the world, rather than the one or two you might come across in your individual gaming circle.
|
Different times, different expectations, and much different attitudes towards game play.I don't think that any of that is true (well, "different times" is trivially correct). The only thing that's different is that the internet exists now so that you can hear flame wars, whiners and munchkins from all over the world, rather than the one or two you might come across in your individual gaming circle.
Nah, we were a bit more cavalier about dying, and most games let things grow organically, we weren't playing in some DM's poor attempt at a fantasy novel. Well, I guess Ravenloft is truly to blame for the latter, but I had already been familiar with the game for a few years by then.
Modern players absolutely have different expectations these days, though. It's hard to find a group not weaned on 1e AD&D who doesn't have two or three players who cry if their character gets a hangnail...
;)
|
overall, I didn't hate the book
Warblade knocked down to d10 hd, swordsage and crusader worked ok as they were written.
a few of the maneuvers, however, and some of the stances (like everyone gets flanked) were pretty ridiculous.
To wit: a warblade singlehandedly destroyed a "creature trap" encounter towards the end of Savage Tide with a single maneuver - which let him full attack twice, basically yielding 10 hits and doing something like 400 or 500 damage. Now, sure, high level PC's SHOULD be doing high damage and cool things, but to eliminate the entire encounter in 1 action...anticlimactic, unfun, and annoying.
Also, in a "no holds barred" one-shot, which was based around hunting and killing a Gargantuan Black Dragon, the Swordsage completely nullified the Dragon's entire action sequence with "Tornado Throw". With a touch attack, followed by a "trip" check - with some ungodly bonus for movement taken etc - the Medium creature threw the Gargantuan winged dragon some ridiculous number of times, each time doing damage. Again, anticlimactic, unfun, annoying, and it took about 20-25 min to adjudicate/resolve due to all the rules interactions and sheer stupidity of the actions.
A few other maneuvers here and there set my teeth on edge, but weren't game-destroyingly bad. Don't get me started on the "Everyone Gets To Charge on My Action" power. Yeah, not cool.
Other than that, it was ok. The feats and skill system, while buried in a difficult to parse location, worked decently, and the overall theme of the book was cool.
Unless we go back to 3.5 for an "off-AP-run", it'll sit on the shelf, though.
-t
Nah, we were a bit more cavalier about dying[..]
I'll give you that one. :-)
Different times, different expectations, and much different attitudes towards game play.I don't think that any of that is true (well, "different times" is trivially correct). The only thing that's different is that the internet exists now so that you can hear flame wars, whiners and munchkins from all over the world, rather than the one or two you might come across in your individual gaming circle.Nah, we were a bit more cavalier about dying, and most games let things grow organically, we weren't playing in some DM's poor attempt at a fantasy novel. Well, I guess Ravenloft is truly to blame for the latter, but I had already been familiar with the game for a few years by then.
Modern players absolutely have different expectations these days, though. It's hard to find a group not weaned on 1e AD&D who doesn't have two or three players who cry if their character gets a hangnail...
;)
No, it's two completely different playing styles.
1e and 2e were, by and large, reactive character story telling. You rolled the dice, dealt with what happened to you, and built your character and the story from there. 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e are proactive character story telling. You make the character and then guide him along the game.
One isn't "superior" to the other, it's just a different preference. There were munchkins in 1e and in 2e - hell, all over the place - just as there were terrible DMs. The people playing the game haven't changed, but your perceptions of them have.
Nostalgia classes can be fun to wear, but they're damned hard to see out of.
|
|
Different times, different expectations, and much different attitudes towards game play.I don't think that any of that is true (well, "different times" is trivially correct). The only thing that's different is that the internet exists now so that you can hear flame wars, whiners and munchkins from all over the world, rather than the one or two you might come across in your individual gaming circle.Nah, we were a bit more cavalier about dying, and most games let things grow organically, we weren't playing in some DM's poor attempt at a fantasy novel. Well, I guess Ravenloft is truly to blame for the latter, but I had already been familiar with the game for a few years by then.
Modern players absolutely have different expectations these days, though. It's hard to find a group not weaned on 1e AD&D who doesn't have two or three players who cry if their character gets a hangnail...
;)
No, it's two completely different playing styles.
1e and 2e were, by and large, reactive character story telling. You rolled the dice, dealt with what happened to you, and built your character and the story from there. 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e are proactive character story telling. You make the character and then guide him along the game.
One isn't "superior" to the other, it's just a different preference. There were munchkins in 1e and in 2e - hell, all over the place - just as there were terrible DMs. The people playing the game haven't changed, but your perceptions of them have.
Nostalgia classes can be fun to wear, but they're damned hard to see out of.
No, we had concepts, and back stories, and all kinds of motivations that had nothing to do with where the dice fell. I think you mistake having a zillion different numerical values for your character with having a character with character.
1e fighters had considerable power over wizards.
HP...wizards had a max of 75 at level 20. A TWF would kill him in one round, every time.
Fly? Fighters had potions and boots too...or just 4 at/rd with bow spec.
Stoneskin? Ice Storm completely cleared this one, as did throwing a handful of pebbles or coins at the mage. Each hit used up a stoneskin use.
Spellcasters generally had to cast over an entire round, not moving. ANY hit disrupted the spell. Period. The fighter would just hit the mage, disrupt the spell and prevent him from doing anything.
Top end evoc dmg was actually less then 3.5. BASE evoc dmg was higher...becauase it was the same thing. Feats can REALLY amp up evoc dmg in 3E. Have to...unlimited Con bonuses for everyone.
AND Fighters could move and get all their attacks.
At high level, a FIghter with a Ring of Prot+3 basically made all his saves, except on a 1.
Conjure up nasties? A simple dispel magic turned them back on you! If it was an elemental, it TOOK IT AWAY!
Nobody complained about the power of wizards in 1E. The fighters were too busy killing stuff to listen to them whine about how everything was making its saves, and how the DM would screw them everytime they cast Wish.
==Aelryinth
No, we had concepts, and back stories, and all kinds of motivations that had nothing to do with where the dice fell. I think you mistake having a zillion different numerical values for your character with having a character with character.
You're missing what I'm saying.
You said it yourself: "Nah, we were a bit more cavalier about dying, and most games let things grow organically." You created the character as the game went on. Right from the start you're rolling dice to decide some pretty damn important things about your character - your stats, which remain static and don't change. That's a huge difference. Both systems are organic but in different ways. One starts off with roots firmly planted in the "player choice" area, where players design their character long before actually making them, and yes, the supposition there is that dying, while very much indeed possible, is not something that happens regularly.
And cut the BS about "well our characters had character." Your method of pretending to be imaginary elves is not superior to anyone else's.
|
|
No, we had concepts, and back stories, and all kinds of motivations that had nothing to do with where the dice fell. I think you mistake having a zillion different numerical values for your character with having a character with character.You're missing what I'm saying.
You said it yourself: "Nah, we were a bit more cavalier about dying, and most games let things grow organically." You created the character as the game went on. Right from the start you're rolling dice to decide some pretty damn important things about your character - your stats, which remain static and don't change. That's a huge difference. Both systems are organic but in different ways. One starts off with roots firmly planted in the "player choice" area, where players design their character long before actually making them, and yes, the supposition there is that dying, while very much indeed possible, is not something that happens regularly.
And cut the BS about "well our characters had character." Your method of pretending to be imaginary elves is not superior to anyone else's.
Yes it is. I was in Drama Club.
:P