15 levels in 6 months bugs the smurf out of me.
That's the one thing I would like to see change in the APs — a little more time built in to the stat progression. From what I've seen in Legacy of Fire, this seems to be the case.
I mean, AMiB is right, it can be alright for some games, but it is not for me.
In 1e your class was a job that was hard work to become and hard work to get better at (and costly). You needed trainers and money and time. Now "ding" leveled up!Yeah, remember that totally awesome chapter of the Odyssey where they all took a month off and practiced their profession?
No?
Even thought HD stole a little of my thunder. It's not that you roleplayed these in 1e - we didn't. It's just under 1e the time was accounted for.
What is a point of character age in later editions? I can't find one. In 1e you sit down and calculate the age of an archmage assuming he started at 18 years old. In later editions you will find the archmage is well still 18 years old. How can the fantasy world be taken "seriously" if a 1st level no body nips out from doing his house chores for his mother, then comes back several weeks later a 20th level fighter? I'm not syaing on the job training isn't possible just given what classes in D&D present (elite training) it's improbable.
This is no way make later editions bad or not good or not as good - rather different in their focus. Your completely right if you read the Odyssey and see it as a chain of events one after the other then later versions of D&D will appeal. If however you read the Odyssey and get a feeling for the time and hardships then perhaps given 1/2e D&D a trash.
Suggestions and musings only,
S.
Out of game time is totally a function of the campaign and not the edition. In fact, 3.x has rules for characters aging and for crafting items, which would seem to indicate that time is in fact a very real part of the system. If writers of adventure paths and campaigns and such have all the events happening in the span of a handful of months, well that is their lack, not the system's.
15 levels in 6 months bugs the smurf out of me.
That's the one thing I would like to see change in the APs — a little more time built in to the stat progression. From what I've seen in Legacy of Fire, this seems to be the case.
I mean, AMiB is right, it can be alright for some games, but it is not for me.
The problem is for APs, especially those tied to a setting that other APs occur in, is how do you deal with the interaction between different paths, and the events occuring within them, spanning decades? If the events are significant enough, their impacts are going to be felt around the game setting eventually.
The problem is for APs, especially those tied to a setting that other APs occur in, is how do you deal with the interaction between different paths, and the events occuring within them, spanning decades? If the events are significant enough, their impacts are going to be felt around the game setting eventually.
They've done a fair job of avoiding that kind of overlap so far, without recourse to pinning a calendar date on any of the APs. LoF has a year of downtime between parts 1 and 2, and yet we don't seem to have any interaction issues.
I'm not suggesting they have to hardcode downtime into the APs, but maybe pay attention to where ticking plot clocks exist that prevent the GM from actively injecting downtime. At least three opporunities for extended down time per adventure path would be nice. Especially if they were optional.
|
Out of game time is totally a function of the campaign and not the edition.
In fact, 3.x has rules for characters aging and for crafting items, which would seem to indicate that time is in fact a very real part of the system.
I agree with the first part, but will add that the progress of advancing your character when you read "the rules" seem to have a temporal component. If you wanted to make magic items it was likely to mean you were out of the adventuring loop of some time.
This feeling is not imparted by say 3e, and I don't think it needs to be in 4e because 4e isn't trying to be "old D&D" it is it's own version of D&D. In some ways I think that 4e is less offensive to me than say 2e (to a point - it still sort of looks like 1e) or 3e in that it hasn't attempted to shoe horn things onto Gygaxs original concepts. Now there's a contenous statement... please discuss. Remembering of course Gygax gave us HIS view on fantasy and then made some rules around that. In games like 3e it's rules that can be applied to make a fantasy game.
Like I said, I (perhaps alone in the World) almost find 2e the sweet spot between Gygax's vision and something you can actually teach someone. 2e initiative system to me is still the best thing since sliced bread. 1e's initiative may be better but until someone can figure out how the hell it actually works we will never know...
S.
Just for the record, I roleplayed training with my most played 1e character.
Let's all have another round of grog on me. :D
|
1e's initiative may be better but until someone can figure out how the hell it actually works we will never know...
S.
When the party of adventurers comes into contact with enemies,
game-time no longer follows a sequence of turns (representing10 minutes), but is measured in rounds (representing
1 minute), subdivided into six-second long “segments.” The
order of events is as follows:
1 Determine Surprise (d6)
2 Declare Spells and General Actions
3 Determine Initiative (d6, highest result is the winner, each
party acts in the segment indicated by the other party’s die
roll)
4 Party with initiative acts first (casting spells, attacking,
etc.), and results take effect (other than spells, which have
casting times to complete before they take effect).
Note: Some actions may allow the other side to “interrupt” with
an action such as a fleeing attack or attacking charging
opponents with spears set against a charge.
5 Party that lost initiative acts, and results take effect (other
than spells, which take effect when casting time is
completed)
6 The round is complete; declare spells and general actions
for the next round if the battle has not been resolved.
Summary: Fast-paced! Roll a d6 and your roll is the GMs count; the GM's roll is the party's count! Very cool. I won't explain this much more than written here, but I couldn't resist just putting it out there that the 1e initiative system is still actually kinda fun. I go quickly around the table and have each player INSTANTLY declare actions. See here for more OSRIC 2.0 information (clone of 1e). Its a FREE .pdf.
Gaining 15 levels in six months is hard for an old school player to take. 1e your PC age actually mattered with certain spells aging the caster and the effects of ghosts and it took years of real time to progress to double figures level-wise. There was plenty of spare time between adventures too.
Now I use the slow experiance table and an old suppliment called Cities to keep things feeling "real"
|
Gaining 15 levels in six months is hard for an old school player to take....
Now I use the slow experiance table and an old suppliment called Cities to keep things feeling "real"
The first thing I dd when I saw the slow experience table was to do the happy dance. My players threatened a revolt however so we compromised and used the medium progession instead.
|
|
Pax, how do Weapon Speed Factors and casting times play into that?
Pax, how do Weapon Speed Factors and casting times play into that?
I don't use weapon speed factors, but that data can be found in first edition, and I seem to recall came into play whenever there was a tie, but I would need to check. Most of us didn't bother with those rules unless a player was attempting to weild a large clunky weapon under certain circumstances...
Casting times are usually listed in number of segments. You'll notice that Gary selected the d6 for initiative, even though there were 10 segments in the round! Magic spells with a casting time of say, 9 segments, easily happen toward the end of the round, but most of what we consider fundamentally hasn't changed from 1e to Pathfinder. Generally speaking, most GMs didn't fool around with casting times because after the surprise round opponents clashed in melee, ranged weapons fired and spells rolled in after the dice count was exhausted.
I still enjoy the surprise round(s) mechanic: If a 1 or 2 is rolled, someone is surprised! One round of surprise on a roll of 1, and on a two - they're surprised for two rounds! Ties provoke simultaneous combat, and yes - battle to the death sometimes fells both PC and orc to the ground together!
*Nowadays, I won't "defend" 1e, nor make claims about it. I enjoy my Pathfinder RPG game weekly (my preferred game of choice), but once a month I still run an OSRIC 2.0/1e game and it keeps the swift, fun, classic creative juices flowing! It also serves as a grounding point for me, and a teaching tool for others. Players are often overjoyed to finally see how/why the game evolved the way it did, yet enjoy the freeform fun 1e still produces after all these years!
|
|
1e's initiative may be better but until someone can figure out how the hell it actually works we will never know...
S.
When the party of adventurers comes into contact with enemies,
game-time no longer follows a sequence of turns (representing
10 minutes), but is measured in rounds (representing
1 minute), subdivided into six-second long “segments.” The
order of events is as follows:
1 Determine Surprise (d6)
2 Declare Spells and General Actions
3 Determine Initiative (d6, highest result is the winner, each
party acts in the segment indicated by the other party’s die
roll)
4 Party with initiative acts first (casting spells, attacking,
etc.), and results take effect (other than spells, which have
casting times to complete before they take effect).
Note: Some actions may allow the other side to “interrupt” with
an action such as a fleeing attack or attacking charging
opponents with spears set against a charge.
5 Party that lost initiative acts, and results take effect (other
than spells, which take effect when casting time is
completed)
6 The round is complete; declare spells and general actions
for the next round if the battle has not been resolved.
You need to have another quick look at pages 66-69 of the 1e AD&D DMG. You have presented the "I don't see it, I don't see it" initiative system we more than likely all use - or more rightly the cunning OSRIC system. What Gygax penned was something different - and mind altering. I would advise anyone not with a PhD in logic to use OSRIC (awesome free 1e clone).
S.
The first thing I dd when I saw the slow experience table was to do the happy dance. My players threatened a revolt however so we compromised and used the medium progession instead.
It all depends on what are the GM's expectations regarding the game. Whenever you're going to start a game, ask yourself the following questions:
-Is this game an ongoing, episodic, comicbook-narrative game with no schedulled end in sight? Or do I want a story with a begining and an end?
-How long is this campaign going to last? Two months? Six? One year? (both your and and your players' lives aren't -that- static as to assume you'll still be doing the same thing after three years, is it?).
-What level do I want my players to have achieved by the time the end comes?
If a GM's intention is truncating progression altogether by reaching level (something-or-other-around-midgame) then by all means, to each their own, that's what E6 and plenty other de-facto solutions are there for. What people should avoid, however, is using any of these measures while still deluding themselves into the idea of "reaching high level someday". I mean, sure, I can use PF's XP tables for my epic game of Record of the Lord of the Excalibur Wars in which I want my players to defeat the Injustice League of BBEGs by the time they hit level 20, but then I'd be ignoring that hitting lvl 20 in PF takes six times as much XP as on regular d20 progression (and that saying we use the 'fast' table), turning my year-long planned game into a six years long pipedream, during which two of my players will get married, two will move overseas for job reasons, and the last one will start gravitating towards Shadowrun by the end of year one... which would have translated pretty much into a monumental waste of my time, if you ask me.
Personally, my two favorite XP methods are:
1) The alternative proposed by Monte Cook in MCWoD where, rather than XP, at the end of each session players chosen one of three character aspects to escalate, being these:
-Hit points
-BaB/saves
-Skills/class features.
This translated into a de-facto "full level up" every three sessions, which IMHO is perfect for tables that play on a weekly basis, reaching level 20 in a year and three months or so.
2) 4E, which goes the extra mile by giving you estimates of how much real-time of play is required to go all the way from level 1 to 20, helping GMs to plan accordingly.
Define your game's scope and stick with it.
And I've rejected Gygax by keeping my players entertained and their characters miserable.
Hmm more food for thought, is there any author out there that could rightly be named "the anti-Gygax: Seventh son of a seventh son" or similar?
Pax, how do Weapon Speed Factors and casting times play into that?I don't use weapon speed factors, but that data can be found in first edition, and I seem to recall came into play whenever there was a tie, but I would need to check. Most of us didn't bother with those rules unless a player was attempting to weild a large clunky weapon under certain circumstances...
They are also used under some circumstances in determining if one player will get multiple attacks against another. The example Gygax uses is one in which - after comparing weapon speeds, its determined that a dagger wielding character will attack a pike armed character twice before he can do anything and then they will then strike each other at the same.
Weapon Speed also comes up when determining if a magic users spell is interrupted or not if the spell caster is being attacked by a weapon wielder.
For todays installment of Channeling your inner Gygax...
The Monk Level vs. Monster Height and Weight Matrix.
Monks can only do cool stuff (like stun) to enemies that are below a certain height. Want to really piss off your Monk player? Try "It's a really tall Type II Demon - This guy is on the Abyssal All Stars team in the fiendish basket ball league."
This was, of course, why monster height and weight was included in the monster description in 1E - it made a big difference if the bad guy was seven foot 6 inches or seven foot 8 inches.
I channel my inner Gygax by coming up with entertaining encounters that challenge my players and make their lives miserable.And I've rejected Gygax by keeping my players entertained and their characters miserable.
I do both, because for my players it's both. Win-win.
|
|
Gygax as a masterful and challenging DM is a hard act to follow. He knew how to balance fun against balance and challenge.
I know I am no match for the awesome that EGG was, but I definitely aspire to some of that. The ability to challenge a player to think outside of their comfort zone. The ability to roll with the punches when my players come up with something totally out of left field.
Oh, and an absolutely unhealthy adoration of Kobolds (specifically of the Tucker's variety)
Three cheers for Gygax, without whom who knows where we'd be!
|
|
Gygax as a masterful and challenging DM is a hard act to follow. He knew how to balance fun against balance and challenge.
I know I am no match for the awesome that EGG was, but I definitely aspire to some of that. The ability to challenge a player to think outside of their comfort zone. The ability to roll with the punches when my players come up with something totally out of left field.
Oh, and an absolutely unhealthy adoration of Kobolds (specifically of the Tucker's variety)
Three cheers for Gygax, without whom who knows where we'd be!
+1
So...no stories about channeling your inner Arneson?
So...no stories about channeling your inner Arneson?
That's a much less controversial/confrontational topic, so much less fun!
Seriously speaking, I had the pleasure of being in a game design class taught by Arneson. He was all about making sure the game was fun, and studying why the game was fun. Great class.
And when/where are you going to post all your notes and other materials form this class? ;)
It was a few years ago (obviously), and if I ever took any notes in the class I've lost them.
From what I remember of the specifics, the first half of each class would be a "lab" where we played a specific board or card game (thermonuclear war, settlers of cataan, munchkin are the only ones I remember at the moment). The second half of each class was a discussion about specific gameplay elements of each game and how they contributed to the overall experience and made the game fun. For example, the Cataan class focused on the social dynamic ("trade you a sheep for a wheat", etc).
|
It was a few years ago (obviously), and if I ever took any notes in the class I've lost them.
From what I remember of the specifics, the first half of each class would be a "lab" where we played a specific board or card game (thermonuclear war, settlers of cataan, munchkin are the only ones I remember at the moment). The second half of each class was a discussion about specific gameplay elements of each game and how they contributed to the overall experience and made the game fun. For example, the Cataan class focused on the social dynamic ("trade you a sheep for a wheat", etc).
Wow! That would have been fantastic! *envy*
|
|
It was a few years ago (obviously), and if I ever took any notes in the class I've lost them.
From what I remember of the specifics, the first half of each class would be a "lab" where we played a specific board or card game (thermonuclear war, settlers of cataan, munchkin are the only ones I remember at the moment). The second half of each class was a discussion about specific gameplay elements of each game and how they contributed to the overall experience and made the game fun. For example, the Cataan class focused on the social dynamic ("trade you a sheep for a wheat", etc).
Cataan is the only game where you might overhear someone proclaiming "I've got wood for sheep! Any takers?"
Not that I've ever done that. Nope, never.
|
|
It was a few years ago (obviously), and if I ever took any notes in the class I've lost them.
From what I remember of the specifics, the first half of each class would be a "lab" where we played a specific board or card game (thermonuclear war, settlers of cataan, munchkin are the only ones I remember at the moment). The second half of each class was a discussion about specific gameplay elements of each game and how they contributed to the overall experience and made the game fun. For example, the Cataan class focused on the social dynamic ("trade you a sheep for a wheat", etc).
Cataan is the only game where you might overhear someone proclaiming "I've got wood for sheep! Any takers?"
Not that I've ever done that. Nope, never.
True, but in Bang I managed to get someone to shout out "Will you please stop banging my husband!" in a crowded room.
...Interesting stuff that doesn't mention Dave Arneson...And I've rejected Gygax by keeping my players entertained and their characters miserable.Hmm more food for thought, is there any author out there that could rightly be named "the anti-Gygax: Seventh son of a seventh son" or similar?
Historically, at least, hasn't Arneson been interpreted as the anti-Gygax, to whatever extent it's true?
*Queues Champion of Arnesonian Narrativism*
More power!