I've been playing Wizards' D&D since shortly after 3.0 came out (and now Pathfinder), and AD&D since a few years after the original Player's Handbook was released (and some "Basic" D&D before that). I find that, in general, I still think like an AD&D DM, even though I use the 3.x rules. I really like most of the changes Pathfinder has made to those rules.
Here are some differences I've noticed in the mindset of "AD&D-ers" and "3.x-ers". None of these are meant to offend anyone, just to spark conversation. I realize there are several styles of play that can all be valid as long as the gaming group is having fun.
Example 1
AD&D - Each class has it's strong points and power is supposed to vary at levels. The Monk sucks at low levels, Magic Users die if they're not very careful, and Thieves have to try really hard to get a good backstab in before the combat ends.
D&D 3.x - All classes are equal in combat, and each class should be roughly equal at all levels (I know that's not a reality, just a POV of the optimal situation, in my opinion).
Example 2
AD&D - The DM is encouraged to make new traps, tricks, and special rules for given situations, based largely on imagination. Early Dragon magazines are full of these things.
D&D 3.x - The rules attempt to explain every possible trap, magic item, etc as being able to be created by a PC class, and people question things not explainable in RAW.
Example 3
AD&D - DMs are not discouraged from making very tough adventures with combat after combat after trap after trap. PCs are expected to die if they are not wise. Mr. Gygax was notorious for this.
D&D 3.x - The rules calculate how much damage a party should take and the DM is expected not to give them too much challenge based on this.
Example 4
AD&D - Players make a character at 1st level, maybe with a character concept (moreso in AD&D 2nd Edition), and grow with the campaign.
D&D 3.x - Many players determine when making their character how they expect the character to grow from level to level, expecting the DM to make it all possible.
There are many things I like about the 3.x rules, especially Pathfinder, but I find I still think largely like an AD&D DM, quoting "Rule 1" often, though it has been somewhat tempered by my 3.x experience. Opinions, similar or different, are welcome.
I can't do much but agree. :) Really, I think 3.x is a superior system in most regards; but for me it's best if the AD&D attitude is maintained over the top. And for what it's worth, what I've seen of Paizo staff comments (and the one AP episode I've purchased so far) indicate that at the production end, the old culture is alive.
That 3.x can also be played and enjoyed by those whose culture is based in CRPG methodology is testament to a robust and flexible design, and I don't begrudge that.
Here are some differences I've noticed in the mindset of "AD&D-ers" and "3.x-ers". None of these are meant to offend anyone, just to spark conversation. I realize there are several styles of play that can all be valid as long as the gaming group is having fun.
I'd add to that:
AD&D - The player does not play the class, he/she plays an archetype based on the text describing the class.
D&D 3.x - The player does not play the class, he/she built a custom character based on the specific abilities granted by the class.
Even though I only played AD&D for one year, it seems I have an AD&D attitude also. Maybe it was because my DM did not beleive in sparing character's lives.
I saw posts, not on these forums, where players were expected to be given the battle, especially against the BBEG. If you mentioned coup de gracing a player expect to get flamed.
I dont think being a PC makes you into a hero. It gives you the opportunity to become a hero, and if you are not up to snuff, here is another character sheet, try again.
This does not mean I dont ever fudge dice, but when you dont tumble, cast on defensive and so on your fate is now in the hands of the dice gods.
I think a big difference is that players now expect to survive.
If you mentioned coup de gracing a player expect to get flamed.
Though, in most situations that weren't already a TPK, having the BBEG go for the coup de grace is significantly immersion-breaking.
If you're in a position to be coup de graced, you're already out of the fight. If the BBEG still thinks he has a hope of winning, it doesn't make sense for him to jeapordize that in order to achieve ... absolutely nothing. Because once he wins, that character is dead anyway. Why would he waste a round doing something that doesn't help him defeat the PCs? Having the BBEG coup de grace anyone who goes down reeks of the DM breaking character in order to "defeat" the players.
Which is fine, as long as you don't expect the PCs to keep character when they see an advantage to be had.
I coup-de-grace PCs whenever it's feasible - like in the above. I don't understand this new mindset of "If I botch my save against the mob's Hold Person I'm out of the fight."
No, if you botch your save, the orc is going to behead you, if your allies can't get to him. Hold Person is Save-or-Die in the right circumstances for mobs, and it should be for players too.
It's the "one set of rules for PC combat actions, another for mob combat actions" that tends to make power-gaming prolific in my opinion. If the PCs can break the game, I will introduce mobs that do too, and thus parity will be achieved (even if I have to kill off the offending rollplayer so the roleplayers can enjoy the game.)
Besides that, it's the level of power of the enemies that truly determine heroism.
And one of the best moments in my DMing time recently was when my party, barging through a dungeon, found that Orc Sorceror who dropped the fighter cold with Color Spray (the fighter charged around the room to get to him and was nowhere near his party members.) For six straight rounds the party rogue managed to nick the nearby Orc with his crossbow and save the fighter from the Coup-De-Grace attempt, in one case hitting the AC exactly on.
The Fighter and Rogue remained really good friends for the rest of that adventure, I assure you.
If you mentioned coup de gracing a player expect to get flamed.Though, in most situations that weren't already a TPK, having the BBEG go for the coup de grace is significantly immersion-breaking.
If you're in a position to be coup de graced, you're already out of the fight. If the BBEG still thinks he has a hope of winning, it doesn't make sense for him to jeapordize that in order to achieve ... absolutely nothing. Because once he wins, that character is dead anyway. Why would he waste a round doing something that doesn't help him defeat the PCs? Having the BBEG coup de grace anyone who goes down reeks of the DM breaking character in order to "defeat" the players.
Which is fine, as long as you don't expect the PCs to keep character when they see an advantage to be had.
Not trying to threadjack but this is something I wanted to mention. There are times in a fight when nobody is available to do anything to stop the baddie from Coup-de-gracing a PC. For example, it's a big brawl, there are a bunch of bad guys fighting, and one of the PC's goes down, or gets HELD, or any number of other things. As long as all the PC's are occupied, it would be foolish for that bad guy NOT to finish the PC before somebody can throw him a heal spell or some such.
Get what I'm saying? It's not something for every circumstance but there are times it belongs.
That is what happened in the thread to which I am referring. The PC were fighting ghouls. The cleric, most dangerous person to the ghouls, got paralyzed. Eventually it would have worn off. IIRC the first protester said a ghoul would not be smart enough to know that it should coup de grace. It was pointed that ghouls have slightly above average intelligence. Just because they are savages, to an extent, that does not mean they are stupid. Of course there were counter arguments. I learned a lot about other people's play styles during that time.
|
The PC were fighting ghouls. The cleric, most dangerous person to the ghouls, got paralyzed. Eventually it would have worn off. IIRC the first protester said a ghoul would not be smart enough to know that it should coup de grace. It was pointed that ghouls have slightly above average intelligence. Just because they are savages, to an extent, that does not mean they are stupid. Of course there were counter arguments. I learned a lot about other people's play styles during that time.
That sounds like a player clutching at straws to me.
A coup-de-gras isn't a fancy-schmancy trick move, learned from a master sensei. If it was, it would be a feat, not a standard option for all.
It's hungry. It wants to eat you. It spends the whole round biting your neck and eating your face. That full, undivided attention makes it a coup-de-gras. Take your damage like a man, and roll a Fort save.
I'd add to that:AD&D - The player does not play the class, he/she plays an archetype based on the text describing the class.
D&D 3.x - The player does not play the class, he/she built a custom character based on the specific abilities granted by the class.
That's one of the things I like best about 3.x over AD&D rules-wise(though AD&D 2nd edition was starting to go that way with kits).
A coup-de-gras isn't a fancy-schmancy trick move, learned from a master sensei. If it was, it would be a feat, not a standard option for all.
Not meaning to be picky, but that's coup de grace.
That could be translated as "mercy strike".It refers not to a cruel assassination but to an act of mercy to a dying opponent, like the knights were using on deadly wounded enemies.
As a matter of fact, they had a special dagger/stiletto for that use, called a Misericorde.
"Coup de gras" would mean fat strike (gras = fat) :)
That's one of the things I like best about 3.x over AD&D rules-wise(though AD&D 2nd edition was starting to go that way with kits).
I'd add to that:AD&D - The player does not play the class, he/she plays an archetype based on the text describing the class.
D&D 3.x - The player does not play the class, he/she built a custom character based on the specific abilities granted by the class.
As you said, this was not meant as a being "wrong", but as something observed.
For me, the main difference between AD&D and 3.X is that...
2e AD&D: the rules tries to accommodate the fluff.
3.X: The rules exist for their own mechanical sake and the fluff tries to follow.
"Coup de gras" would mean fat strike (gras = fat) :)
So, something overweight Dwarven Defenders can do as a class ability, then.
This is interesting stuff.
I played a little AD&D (maybe a couple years) during middle school. Ever since the switch to 3.X I have not looked back. (Even though I still have most of my books.)
As a DM... I'm also somewhere in the middle camp between mindsets. I tend to run my homebrew games "on the fly". I also do not pull punches if it would fit the situation.
As far as my hungry monsters go, they do not usually use the coup-de-grace action. If a pc falls, and another pc isn't attacking said monster, they will usually just continue chewing on the fallen pc with normal bite attacks. Actually performing a coup-de-grace action is kept for BBEG's and their intelligent minions. Having said this though... if the fallen pc is unlucky or really low on hp, this will still kill said pc but can add to the immersion of the game.
"Quick, kill that wolf! Its trying to eat Bob!" :)
So, something overweight Dwarven Defenders can do as a class ability, then.
"Coup de gras" would mean fat strike (gras = fat) :)
With alla empty ale calories, would it be any wonder? ^_^
3.X: The rules exist for their own mechanical sake and the fluff exists independently of the fluff, used for creating interesting stories of unique characters.
(which goes in hand with the custom character comment of course)
Fair enough. It took me a while to warm up to 3rd ed because of that divorce between fluff and rules, but it turns out to be a 3.X greatest achievement (IMO).
However, it was its biggest trap (I don't want to say flaw, because it isn't really one) were players and DMs alike - especially within the newer generations of players - would be able to ignore the fluff altogether.
Then again, I'm a sucker for fluff and RPGs' signature ruleset that follow their own setting (1st edition Deadlands was great example of that). But I understand that my way isn't (and shouldn't be) everybody's way to play the game.
'findel
This is interesting stuff.
I played a little AD&D (maybe a couple years) during middle school. Ever since the switch to 3.X I have not looked back. (Even though I still have most of my books.)
As a DM... I'm also somewhere in the middle camp between mindsets. I tend to run my homebrew games "on the fly". I also do not pull punches if it would fit the situation.
As far as my hungry monsters go, they do not usually use the coup-de-grace action. If a pc falls, and another pc isn't attacking said monster, they will usually just continue chewing on the fallen pc with normal bite attacks. Actually performing a coup-de-grace action is kept for BBEG's and their intelligent minions. Having said this though... if the fallen pc is unlucky or really low on hp, this will still kill said pc but can add to the immersion of the game.
"Quick, kill that wolf! Its trying to eat Bob!" :)
I am not advocating the coup de grace either, but it is a valid tactic, and I don't think I would have a right to complain if I fell victim to one. Now I will also say that most of the complainers were what I would call narrative D&D groups. They knew the DM would let them win, or at least expected the DM to hand them victories. BTW, some DM were also complaining about the tactic. Personally if the fight is guaranteed it ruins the fun for me, and also for my players when I DM.
Personally if the fight is guaranteed it ruins the fun for me, and also for my players when I DM.
True that. I'm not advocating every adventure be a TPK, because that's just as boring. But the PCs should have to run sometimes, and occasionally, dangerous encounters occur at inconvenient times, when the party is down on HP and spells. It's not believable to assume that such things occur only when the party's had a chance to buff up and has a full contingent of spells.
Also, I keep running into the situation where one player, in particular, wants to stop everything that's happening, teleport back to town, sell off all their treasure and buy some item or other. I have to really remind him that the big bad is aware they've been wandering around his dungeon, and has a time-sensitive plan that, if completed, will make it much more difficult for the party to defeat him. In those instances, that player is not RP-ing his character, he's trying to min-max, and expects me to just halt the bad guy's plans to wait for his character to go to town and get more powerful. Utterly un-RPG.
I am not advocating the coup de grace either, but it is a valid tactic, and I don't think I would have a right to complain if I fell victim to one. Now I will also say that most of the complainers were what I would call narrative D&D groups. They knew the DM would let them win, or at least expected the DM to hand them victories. BTW, some DM were also complaining about the tactic. Personally if the fight is guaranteed it ruins the fun for me, and also for my players when I DM.This is interesting stuff.
I played a little AD&D (maybe a couple years) during middle school. Ever since the switch to 3.X I have not looked back. (Even though I still have most of my books.)
As a DM... I'm also somewhere in the middle camp between mindsets. I tend to run my homebrew games "on the fly". I also do not pull punches if it would fit the situation.
As far as my hungry monsters go, they do not usually use the coup-de-grace action. If a pc falls, and another pc isn't attacking said monster, they will usually just continue chewing on the fallen pc with normal bite attacks. Actually performing a coup-de-grace action is kept for BBEG's and their intelligent minions. Having said this though... if the fallen pc is unlucky or really low on hp, this will still kill said pc but can add to the immersion of the game.
"Quick, kill that wolf! Its trying to eat Bob!" :)
I agree its valid. For my games though hungry monsters with animal or near animal intelligence do not think about tearing out the throat of a already still pc. Who wants that gristly bit anyway. What you want are the nice meaty parts. :)
The best changes I think are in the mechanics themselves:
In AD&D, armor class went down (ten was worst, -10 best), saving throws got lower as character level increased. Past a certain level, hitting opponents in combat was very easy, and making saving throws was essentially automatic at high level, regardless of caster level.
I really like the way the mechanics of 3.0 work in this regard. (A high level persona with +40 to hit? No problem, the opponent has an AC of 55).
The inclusion of criticals and skills in 3.0 is also good, as was cleaning up the rules for unarmed combat and other things that really didn't work well in 1e.
And, Charisma is not the useless stat in 3.0 that it was in 1e.
I don't know if this is actually historically true, though I wouldn't be surprised given Monte Cook's involvement, but it seems that 3.0 (and maybe d20 more generally) was influenced in a lot of ways by the Rolemaster system.
Rolemaster was my personal favorite way back when - the earlier books, before the ridiculously detailed add-ons started coming out - the criticals were a blast and the system maintained balance much better at high levels than AD&D. Level advancement was quicker (as in 3.0), and the skill system worked really well (better than 3.0, I think). The math for d100 was a bit of a pain sometimes though, and maybe there were too many tables....
edit: This veered a bit more from the original topic than I expected. I think I prefer the 1e mindset, maybe just because that's what I played so much in my formative years - I like to tinker with rules and things, and 1e was great for that.
Another difference is that in AD&D, and especially 1st edition, you certainly tried to make a functional character, but you never heard the word "optimized". Players with a high level of mathematical ability and a lot of time on their hands spells trouble in 3.x that Gary Gygax could not have imagined when the AD&D books hit the shelves.
Another difference is that in AD&D, and especially 1st edition, you certainly tried to make a functional character, but you never heard the word "optimized".
Total and complete bull. Maybe that was true for 1st -- I never played any games in it and it was before the internet -- but I know for a fact it wasn't true in AD&D. I've been in quite a few optimization discussions about multi-class and dual-class characters and which kits to take.
Total and complete bull. Maybe that was true for 1st -- I never played any games in it and it was before the internet -- but I know for a fact it wasn't true in AD&D. I've been in quite a few optimization discussions about multi-class and dual-class characters and which kits to take.
Okay, must have started after I quit. I know I never heard the word at my table or any that I played in between 82 and 92, but that doesn't mean no one was doing it. Fact is, though, that dual classing was a huge pain, as was multi-classing. If you multi-classed, you had to be non-human, which meant level limitations. Also, since your XP was split, while you were versatile, you were never as effective as a straight class character. Dual classing might have been okay after attaining full dual class status, but just plain sucked until you did because if you slipped into your old class even for an action, you lost your XP for that adventure.
I know not everyone optimizes in 3.x, but it's certainly easier to do. And I think the mindset is much more prevalent.
And I think the mindset is much more prevalent.
I don't think this has anything to do with 3rd edition, though. I attribute it to the increased ease in sharing information. The internet both makes it much easier to optimize (by sharing information and ideas) and raises the awareness of optimization (by putting it out there in public places where anyone interested in the game can read it).
That's one of the things I like best about 3.x over AD&D rules-wise(though AD&D 2nd edition was starting to go that way with kits).
I'd add to that:AD&D - The player does not play the class, he/she plays an archetype based on the text describing the class.
D&D 3.x - The player does not play the class, he/she built a custom character based on the specific abilities granted by the class.
Funny, As a 1e Grognard, this is one of my *least* favorite things about 3rd edition.
The move away from archtypes and towards switching classes for maximum bonuses I find very disruptive to actual character development. ("But these are the classes I have to pick to be effective in combat!")
The best changes I think are in the mechanics themselves:
In AD&D, armor class went down (ten was worst, -10 best), saving throws got lower as character level increased. Past a certain level, hitting opponents in combat was very easy, and making saving throws was essentially automatic at high level, regardless of caster level.
I really like the way the mechanics of 3.0 work in this regard. (A high level persona with +40 to hit? No problem, the opponent has an AC of 55).
The inclusion of criticals and skills in 3.0 is also good, as was cleaning up the rules for unarmed combat and other things that really didn't work well in 1e.
And, Charisma is not the useless stat in 3.0 that it was in 1e.
This is strange because again, because I see this as one of the strengths of the original game. The fact that there's a maximum, that humans stop gaining hit points around level nine, means that in fact we are talking about real people. You don't have 18th level characters asking if they can run up waterfalls or punch through dungeons in 1st edition. (Well, it hasn't come up in my game anyway)
The human cap is very helpful for allowing the game to continue to function at high levels.
I don't think this has anything to do with 3rd edition, though. I attribute it to the increased ease in sharing information. The internet both makes it much easier to optimize (by sharing information and ideas) and raises the awareness of optimization (by putting it out there in public places where anyone interested in the game can read it).
I wouldn't say it has NOTHING to do with 3rd edition, because the versatility inherent in making the character you want also allows for optimization; those who are optimization-minded have much more ability using 3x. I agree that the internet is probably also a factor, since now you have exposure to many more gaming ideas than those you personally come up with or those you hear about at a con.
That goes multiple ways Nexusphere, why does a player have to play an old tried and true archtype when they can create an interesting and unique character while barely looking at what classes define the character mechanically?
I can understand your stress over optimization, some people have different views on the subject, but I for one would hate to be stuck with pre-defined archtypes.
But that's exactly what they *can* do! They just say "My guy is so and so, and he's like this all interesting and unique." Then he whatever and never looks back.
He doesn't have to look at what classes define the character mechanically, for the same reasons you mean it in 3.p. Except in 3.p, there's an action economy and things are rigidly defined (instead of 'what can I do in one minute?') So each class has to give specific powers to take advantage of that, and some are expressly better than other etc.
Or you can just come up with a rich idea, that's interesting and unique, pick a class (or multi-class) and role-play. No worrying about builds, or why you have to take a barbarian level or anything.
"Coup de gras" would mean fat strike (gras = fat) :)
I am so writing that up as a prestige class ability or feat.
Prerequisites: Must be at least 15% above the average body weight for your race, alternatively, Pie.
"Coup de gras" would mean fat strike (gras = fat) :)I am so writing that up as a prestige class ability or feat.
Prerequisites: Must be at least 15% above the average body weight for your race, alternatively, Pie.
PIE.
You sir, win the thread. (Damn this barely functional forum software, otherwise, pictures)
Oh I had optimizers in my 2e games. At the time the term was Min/Maxer. Min/Maxers thrive in any system with options. In early blue box D&D that I started out as child DM under (self-taught) there were very few options, however I do clearly remember Elf rising to the top as the *best* choice as it was both a fighting-man and a magic-user, if not as tough.
We jumped right from Blue Book to 2e. While it expanded our play range in terms if levels there still weren't many options aside from weapons and initiative speeds to min/max. Then came kits... minor schools... more weapon choices... and finally the Player's Option: Skills and Powers which busted min/maxing wide open.
Optimizing, min/maxing, or whatever other name you wish to put it did not start in D&D with 3e. It was just sustained the fule and added to it a bit.
However if you want insight into my gaming methodology I will point you back to HerosQuest and DragonStrike board games where the game master was both bound by the rules, was the oppostion, and adjudicator. To parphrase from the rather C-video that came with the DragonStrike 'But that does mean you can cheat or ignore the rules. The main objective is to have fun, and if the game isn't fair nobody will.'
Oh I had optimizers in my 2e games. At the time the term was Min/Maxer. Min/Maxers thrive in any system with options.
Agreed, but Min-maxing is not the same as optimizing. It's like comparing someone who's had one drink and driven home with somewho who's had two pitchers of marga ritas. 3.x has many more options, and thus much more chance at exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the 3.x game environment, but I still feel like the optimizing culture is bs, and kills good role playing. It's like the difference between a good friendly game of pool and same when one of the players is an pool shark. The first is fun for everyone. The latter is fun only for the shark. Everyone else wishes they'd spent their 1/2 hour doing something else.
Example 1
AD&D - Each class has it's strong points and power is supposed to vary at levels. The Monk sucks at low levels, Magic Users die if they're not very careful, and Thieves have to try really hard to get a good backstab in before the combat ends.D&D 3.x - All classes are equal in combat, and each class should be roughly equal at all levels (I know that's not a reality, just a POV of the optimal situation, in my opinion).
I wouldn't say that. Not all classes are really equal in combat.
I'd say that some of them are better in combat than others, and, more importantly, the roles they usually play in combat, vary.
For example, I'd say the fighter is consistently better than the rogue in combat (even though the rogue can get pretty close, and maybe under some circumstances, surpass the fighter, in the grand scheme of things the fighter wins), but the rogue has other uses.
Also, the role of a, say, barbarian, in a fight is a lot different from a bard's.
The relative power level is supposed to be consistent at all levels, I agree with that, and I think it's a very good thing. Stuff should be equally fun no matter what level you play. The level range the campaign will move in should not be a very large influence on who will call the shots.
Still, not all classes are created quite equal, and power shifts across levels do exist.
As for your specific examples:
Monks shouldn't suck at low levels. Why would anyone want that. "Hey, I have an idea! I play a really useless character that later turns into a useful character unless I die first"
Arcanists still have to be careful or they drop like flies, especially at low levels: While their HP situation has been steadily improving from the old days, they still have the least HP around, and often the worst AC unless they had time and opportunity to prepare for it (which isn't something they can do very often at low levels)
Example 2
AD&D - The DM is encouraged to make new traps, tricks, and special rules for given situations, based largely on imagination. Early Dragon magazines are full of these things.D&D 3.x - The rules attempt to explain every possible trap, magic item, etc as being able to be created by a PC class, and people question things not explainable in RAW.
Well, I like that 3e doesn't have quite as many "you can never do that stuff" situations, but they're still here: For example, a ghoul spreads disease and paralyses with every bite, something player characters usually cannot do. Plus, they can create spawn with their nasty disease. Unless your GM lets you play a ghoul (good luck with that), you won't be able to pull of that stuff.
Traps and the like, i.e. stuff someone built, should not be beyond the players' capabilities. I mean, if they have the skills, the resources, and the time to create an elaborate Indiana Jonesey Death Trap, they should be able to do it (not that it would be particularly helpful to the PCs unless they have a dungeon-size demesne to call their own). Still, there is some stuff, like artefacts, that cannot really be created by a mortal.
Finally, I have to say that the game still allows you to come up with crazy stuff - it just gives you a great set of guidelines for doing it. Wanna spring a nasty trap on your players? Just do it, and the rules give you a good idea about how dangerous the thing will be.
Want a monster with 4 heads, each using a different gaze attack? Go ahead and create it!
One thing that is very important, but that a lot of people overlook, is that the game rules aren't set in stone. The GM is still the final arbiter. He can still do crazy stuff. Having a ruleset as complex as Pathfinder just means that the rules will be able to support him in his endeavour. And players questioning the GM when he uses creativity is not a problem of the game, it's a problem of the GM not ruling the writhing, pitiful worms that call themselves "players" with an iron fist! }> ;-)
(On the other hand, always remember it's the player's game, too. Screwing with them to the point the game becomes tedious and not fun to them is just asshattery)
Example 3
AD&D - DMs are not discouraged from making very tough adventures with combat after combat after trap after trap. PCs are expected to die if they are not wise. Mr. Gygax was notorious for this.D&D 3.x - The rules calculate how much damage a party should take and the DM is expected not to give them too much challenge based on this.
Important distinction: The rules let you calculate how much opposition the party can probably overcome and it is suggested that you don't overtax them.
The rules don't say you cannot put them against impossible situations where they must realise that they have to withdraw in order to survive. There is no restraint on the rules that physically disallow you from springing a great red wyrm on the 1st-level party (though you better hope you can take on all your players at once to avoid a beating if you pull off things like that). The GM still gets to decide.
As always, situations like this work best if you use the almighty weapon of Communication! Sit down with your players and tell them how you play the game and make sure they're okay with it: It's okay to have occasional situations where discretion is the better part of valour. But it's common courtesy to tell your players beforehand that you do things that way.
Example 4
AD&D - Players make a character at 1st level, maybe with a character concept (moreso in AD&D 2nd Edition), and grow with the campaign.D&D 3.x - Many players determine when making their character how they expect the character to grow from level to level, expecting the DM to make it all possible.
Anecdotal.
I've seen many 3e characters that were created more around a concept than a "build", or where both concept and build played an important role.
I've also seen AD&D characters that were created to be all-powerful and untouchable.
Finally, it's unfair to say or imply that 3e necessitates the GM enabling people to play their build and not mention that a "concept" you play in AD&D needs the GM cooperation, too.
Say your character concept is "undead hunter". Or even "vampire hunter". Now say the AD&D GM doesn't put a single undead creature anywhere even near his campaign. How do you play that concept? Not straight. Maybe as a joke, or subverted. "I intended to play a broody vampire hunter, but I ended up playing a day-taler who always hopes that some undead will just show up so he can do his real job - not to mention that my whole 'my family was brutally slaughtered by undead and now I want to free the world from this plague if it kills me' concept has been shot to hell."
And in 3e/PF, unless oyu have some really weird stuff in your "build", or a GM who arbitrarily forbids stuff, you can usually pull off a "build" without GM cooperation. In fact, It should be a lot easier than playing a character concept without GM cooperation.
I mean, if my "build" is "barbarian focussing on strength and two-handed weapons", all the "cooperation" I need is the GM occasionally throwing in some big hunking axe or hammer or sword.
In conclusion, it is my personal experience that a lot of the perceived problems of 3e/PF can be explained by people's mentality - maybe the game does form this mentality, but it's certain that different games and editions attract different mentalities. And I think that if you take a group of old AD&D grognards, talk to them that you want to run a "AD&D campaign" with PF rules, you will definitely be able to pull it off.
And, I don't know, if you talk to people with a different mentality, you might persuade them to try your take on things for once...
One of the things I absolutely hate about 2e were all the restrictions hard-coded into the system:
Dwarves may not become wizards.
Halflings may not become rangers.
Elves may not become bards. (I mean, seriously!)
Paladins must have Cha 17 or better.
Humans cannot advance in two classes simultaneously. Instead, they have to abandon one class at one point (miraculously forgetting what they have learned) and begin anew in something else. But for some reason, everyone else could advance in several classes at once (but only pre-approved combinations), but they couldn't change their career later.
Rangers must be good.
And so on, and so forth. Combined with the "a table for everything, like how much you get out of your strength score, unless you are a halfling, then you use this, or a fighter, then you use that" and weird saving throw categories, I always felt that there were more disabling rules than enabling, and you had to buy other books to be allowed to play stuff the core rules forbade (go buy this book, you can play elven ba, uh, ah, minstrels!)
For me, that always felt like the exact opposite of what the rules were supposed to do! They didn't help me transform the character role I envisioned into the rules, they forced me along well-travelled ruts, enforcing restrictions that should be up to the GM and/or setting ("our dwarves hate magic") rather than a ruleset that claims to work with all matter of worlds.
3e may have enabled powergamers with its freedom, but I can deal with powergamers. Small price to pay for my freedom.
Tools, not rules!
One of the things I absolutely hate about 2e were all the restrictions hard-coded into the system:
.....
3e may have enabled powergamers with its freedom, but I can deal with powergamers. Small price to pay for my freedom.
Tools, not rules!
I'm totally on board with this, which is the main reason why I prefer to play 3.x. It's definitely added a lot of fun to the game for a lot of people. Plus, as DM I can control the sources of flexibility by allowing (or not) non-core material, and by the availability of magic items.
In the last 3.5 game I ran I inherited from another DM, and oy the balance issues!
For example, I'd say the fighter is consistently better than the rogue in combat (even though the rogue can get pretty close, and maybe under some circumstances, surpass the fighter, in the grand scheme of things the fighter wins), but the rogue has other uses.
You'd say that, but I know people that would argue. Sneak attack is one truckload more effective than backstab ever was; by the numbers, Rogues can pull off phenomenal damage in combat.
In conclusion, it is my personal experience that a lot of the perceived problems of 3e/PF can be explained by people's mentality - maybe the game does form this mentality, but it's certain that different games and editions attract different mentalities. And I think that if you take a group of old AD&D grognards, talk to them that you want to run a "AD&D campaign" with PF rules, you will definitely be able to pull it off.
Most certainly agree. I guess that's what this thread is about; mind set, or "mentality" as you put it. My first D&D/D20 gaming group was the same group of people I played 2nd edition with in college. We essentially played D&D/D20 the same way we played AD&D; the same inherent culture was built into the game, and people used the rules that way. When I moved, one of my players was a min/maxer and the other was a rules lawyer. It took a lot of time to get used to a player who felt he could argue rules at the table with the DM mid-game. I guess this COULD happen in AD&D, but the Rule 1 was printed right at the beginning of the original DMG.
Since that time the rules lawyer has left, and I've started a new game where I can kind of keep the min-maxer in check. I try hard to make people's character concepts fit in and allow any alternate sources they feel are critical to their concept. So I've grown a bit. But I think deep down I'll always feel the DM's role is to shape the game world, and that means controlling the rules, too.
And, I don't know, if you talk to people with a different mentality, you might persuade them to try your take on things for once...
|
|
One thing that is very important, but that a lot of people overlook, is that the game rules aren't set in stone. The GM is still the final arbiter. He can still do crazy stuff. Having a ruleset as complex as Pathfinder just means that the rules will be able to support him in his endeavour. And players questioning the GM when he uses creativity is not a problem of the game, it's a problem of the GM not ruling the writhing, pitiful worms that call themselves "players" with an iron fist! }> ;-)
I prefer to think of myself as 'an iron fist in a velvet glove'.
Stroke the PCs egos with some encounters (combat and social) that show just how far they've come since the first day they set off from home.
Get the players to value and care for their PCs.
Then put the squeeze on them with an opponent who proves that no matter how far you've come, there's always someone who's a bigger, badder baddass than you.
:)
I just started CoT on the hills of doing allot of older DnD games. I must admit my fac thing is that you always roll high.
As a 2nd edition DnD and my players playing in 2nd they know I am going to make it feel like an old school. I guess what that means to us is that you not going to be able to win every fight. They know if they make a mistake there dead meat.
Really the thing I love most about 2e is the focus on the fluff. I must admit that is one thing I love about paizo adventures and supplements they have allot of fluff in them.
You'd say that, but I know people that would argue. Sneak attack is one truckload more effective than backstab ever was;
For example, I'd say the fighter is consistently better than the rogue in combat (even though the rogue can get pretty close, and maybe under some circumstances, surpass the fighter, in the grand scheme of things the fighter wins), but the rogue has other uses.
I so agree with that. Backstab was useless as a combat ability. With sneak attack rogues got a place in combat now - a bigger place than just the "do a little bit of damage" they had before.
by the numbers, Rogues can pull off phenomenal damage in combat.
By the numbers, fighters can and do pull off more phenomenal damage. They hit more consistently, they get more attacks, their damage is not dependant on circumstances like flanking, they have great damage potential, they can make better use of power attack, and on top of that, when they crit, it hurts so much more.
I ran the numbers, I saw it in games: The fighter outperforms the rogue, unless there are some really, really weird circumstances.
Most certainly agree. I guess that's what this thread is about; mind set, or "mentality" as you put it. My first D&D/D20 gaming group was the same group of people I played 2nd edition with in college. We essentially played D&D/D20 the same way we played AD&D; the same inherent culture was built into the game, and people used the rules that way. When I moved, one of my players was a min/maxer and the other was a rules lawyer. It took a lot of time to get used to a player who felt he could argue rules at the table with the DM mid-game. I guess this COULD happen in AD&D, but the Rule 1 was printed right at the beginning of the original DMG.
Anecdotal evidence. I can counter with stories of people who played in 2e who min-maxed in 2e so badly that they killed campaigns, and with people who played 3e who roleplayed 3e more than everything.
So I've grown a bit. But I think deep down I'll always feel the DM's role is to shape the game world, and that means controlling the rules, too.
And deep down I'll always know that Pathfinder will allow you controlling the rules.
In fact, I know that it's far better at that than 2e, because it gives you a block of stone to form into a statue. 2e gives you a statue. Before you can create your own statue, you have to turn the old statue into a block, or you have to work with the already existing contours.
One thing that is very important, but that a lot of people overlook, is that the game rules aren't set in stone. The GM is still the final arbiter. He can still do crazy stuff. Having a ruleset as complex as Pathfinder just means that the rules will be able to support him in his endeavour. And players questioning the GM when he uses creativity is not a problem of the game, it's a problem of the GM not ruling the writhing, pitiful worms that call themselves "players" with an iron fist! }> ;-)I prefer to think of myself as 'an iron fist in a velvet glove'.
Stroke the PCs egos with some encounters (combat and social) that show just how far they've come since the first day they set off from home.
Get the players to value and care for their PCs.
Then put the squeeze on them with an opponent who proves that no matter how far you've come, there's always someone who's a bigger, badder baddass than you.:)
Your dedication to the destruction of the human soul!