Have no fear - I'm not taking a break from the thread again.
I'm going to be contributing to a new RPG column for BlackGate.com (I already write a mystery-themed one there) and I'm getting some stuff together before launch in a couple months. Today I was working on a post related to game balance/level appropriate challenges. I'm both for and against it.
Though I use Goodman Games' 4th Edition module, Forges of the Mountain King as an example of ridiculous unbalance at the beginning.
I didn't look into 4th Edition. Are characters overpowered at 1st level? One of the first encounters is with two undead Ogres with 88 hp (or so) each.
The first time they are killed, they rise again at half hit points. That seems like a heck of a way to start things off. Shortly thereafter, there is a live Ogre, with 112 hp.
That's awfully extreme, isn't it?
In 4th edition, one of the design features was gaining high hit points at first level and then a more gradual increase from there. From memory, even kobolds had 20 or 30 hit points. A party of five first level 4E characters would probably find fighting two 88 hp monsters tough, but not as much as you would expect.
There were other changes as well, of course - so it was generally much easier to hit things (that had much more hit points than earlier editions). The end result being that combats often lasted eight or nine rounds (with lots of hits chipping away at the enemy's hit points).
It's tricky to eyeball a 4E monster's stats and convert it easily. Another change was 4E's 1-30 level range rather than 1-20, so even character level doesn't translate very well. In my opinion, 4E characters are considerably tougher than other edition PCs early on, but considerably weaker at higher levels.
In 4th edition, one of the design features was gaining high hit points at first level and then a more gradual increase from there. From memory, even kobolds had 20 or 30 hit points. A party of five first level 4E characters would probably find fighting two 88 hp monsters tough, but not as much as you would expect.
There were other changes as well, of course - so it was generally much easier to hit things (that had much more hit points than earlier editions). The end result being that combats often lasted eight or nine rounds (with lots of hits chipping away at the enemy's hit points).
It's tricky to eyeball a 4E monster's stats and convert it easily. Another change was 4E's 1-30 level range rather than 1-20, so even character level doesn't translate very well. In my opinion, 4E characters are considerably tougher than other edition PCs early on, but considerably weaker at higher levels.
Wow. That is certainly a difference in scaling. Certainly as far as conversion goes. I guess, to the extent it didn't mess with the theme, I'd ignore what the monster was and look for something more in the CR-appropriate range. So, undead Ogres would probably be out. Though maybe something tough if there is an alternate mode of entry. Force the party to choose how to get in.
Thanks!
Were the ogres slow because of their undeadness? I ran 4e for about a year, and it seemed like every time the PCs came up against something slow they could dispatch it easily from a distance. Also what Steve said, the leveling in 4 was weird, in that the PCs were way more powerful at early levels than you'd be used to.
In 4th edition, one of the design features was gaining high hit points at first level and then a more gradual increase from there. From memory, even kobolds had 20 or 30 hit points. A party of five first level 4E characters would probably find fighting two 88 hp monsters tough, but not as much as you would expect.
There were other changes as well, of course - so it was generally much easier to hit things (that had much more hit points than earlier editions). The end result being that combats often lasted eight or nine rounds (with lots of hits chipping away at the enemy's hit points).
It's tricky to eyeball a 4E monster's stats and convert it easily. Another change was 4E's 1-30 level range rather than 1-20, so even character level doesn't translate very well. In my opinion, 4E characters are considerably tougher than other edition PCs early on, but considerably weaker at higher levels.
Wow. That is certainly a difference in scaling. Certainly as far as conversion goes. I guess, to the extent it didn't mess with the theme, I'd ignore what the monster was and look for something more in the CR-appropriate range. So, undead Ogres would probably be out. Though maybe something tough if there is an alternate mode of entry. Force the party to choose how to get in.
Thanks!
If you're converting between 4E and PF another very significant factor which is surprisingly easy to forget for some reason, is the difference in encounter design.
In PF, it's far more common to encounter a single, super-tough enemy than in 4E. The latter expects PCs to fight lots and lots of varied enemies (a brute, some soldiers, etcetera - the monster roles were as significant as the player roles).
When I used to convert over, I'd often change the encounters substantially. If you try and just copy the number and type of monster you sometimes get anomalous results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was digging into the history of T1 - The Village of Hommlet over the weekend. That was some interesting reading. I'm going to posit (in another Black Gate post) that there were two reasons (one business, one gaming) that The Temple of Elemental Evil was delayed so long.
Step 17 coming this week. Then we'll explore some other parts of the book. I've also been reading Gygax' book on GMing, but it's not as smooth.
My post on S&W vs. Pathfinder has turned out to be the second most read post of the entire year over at Black Gate. I've started putting together a similar post looking at reasons to make the opposite choice (personally, I LOVE character creation and all the options).
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
Step Seventeen - Continue to learn and grow even after you achieve mastery.
Mastery is like any other acquired skill. If you do not continually use and exercise it, the skill will atrophy. But if you remain actively involved in the hobby at the highest level you can attain, you will be pleasantly surprised to find that your level of expertise keeps rising
all the time. The sky is not the limit to mastery, for - as any science fiction enthusiast can tell you - there are infinite worlds left to explore once the sky is left behind.
That last bit seems a little cheesy, but it's actually a neat way for Gygax to end his 17 Steps. He was barely a quarter of the way through the book, but still, it's a nice RPG type of closure.
I agree completely with Gygax here. I used to play Ultimate (Frisbee), competing at the Nationals and Worlds levels. Practice and skill repetition was crucial to excelling. And when I stopped playing competitively and practicing, my game wasn't as sharp out there on the summer league fields.
I'm currently shaking the rust off of my GMing skills after several years of not running (or playing) any campaigns.
The more you play (and run) RPG games, the better you can expect to be at them. Step 12 was Play as Frequently as Possible, which certainly feeds into this Step.
I belong to an Evangelical Christian church. And we believe that if you are a Christian, you need to attend services. You can study scripture (which I do, being a voracious reader) and try to figure things out on your own, but entering into community is a part of the New Testament's instructions to us.
I think Step 17 is similar. I've read far more 3rd Edition and Pathfinder products than I can keep track of. But I didn't play for several years. So I enjoyed reading things, and consciously or not, I was trying to learn, but without the practical experience of playing: Of being around the table, or even a PbP on the boards (which is how I got back into RPGing), it's clear to me that my game skill wasn't increasing. And I wasn't advancing any mastery (not that I was even thinking about that).
Even playing PC games during that time kept me "in the genre" to an extent, but it wasn't a substitute for actual RPG playing. Something I'm becoming more aware of as I spend some time playing the Neverwinter Nights MMO. It's enjoyable, but for RPG skill development, it's like popcorn vs. a steak; no substance.
All of Gygax' prior 16 Steps are related to achieving his definition of mastery. But I agree, even if you get really good at RPGing, you need to keep learning and getting better to not see a decline.
Which is one reason you see owners and execs at the 3rd Party companies playing and running games at Cons.
We've been playing the Temple of Elemental Evil board game at lunch for the past week. I find the "Advantaged/Disadvantaged" rule from 5th Edition interesting.
If you're not familiar with it: if your character has the Advantaged condition, they roll two dice (instead of one) and take the high roll. Likewise, for Disadvantaged, your roll two and take the lower one.
Normally, the condition only applies for one turn. Some of the Utility and Daily powers (I think) allow your character or someone else to gain Advantage for that one turn. That can be a big help at a key moment.
However, the Rogue has an automatic power choice: Every turn, it can automatically reveal and disable a trap (there are a LOT of traps) on its tile, or have Advantage. Our Rogue has kept the Advantage condition about 90% of the time. And it's made a HUGE difference, with several failed rolls actually being successful.
By making a powerful condition essentially be a bonus at will power, it has, I think, over powered the Rogue compared to the other characters and the monsters.
A gamer at a stats website did some analysis and wrote "The effect is huge. There’s less than a 9% chance of rolling 15 or higher with disadvantage, whereas there’s a 30% chance normally and a 51% chance with advantage."
As a variation from the conditions used in prior D&D board games, I find the Advantage/Disadvantage a neat idea, but I think it has been abused regarding the Rogue character.
I'm not certain it applies, but stuff like this always makes me think of a Gygax sentence from 'Role Playing Mastery':
"Too often, new material purporting to add to a game system is nothing more than a veiled attempt to dominate the game milieu through power, not skill."
Similarly, I felt that Drizz't Do'Urden, through his abilities, was overpowered compared to the rest of the Legend of Drizz't game cast. It's an imbalance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similarly, I felt that Drizz't Do'Urden, through his abilities, was overpowered compared to the rest of the Legend of Drizz't game cast. It's an imbalance.
Holmes, we've established a pretty decent friendship over the years, so I think I can say this and you'll understand the tone in which it is meant.
The name of the game is The Legend of Drizz't, and you really thought Drizz't's power level would be on par with the rest of the cast?!
Come on man.
Similarly, I felt that Drizz't Do'Urden, through his abilities, was overpowered compared to the rest of the Legend of Drizz't game cast. It's an imbalance.Holmes, we've established a pretty decent friendship over the years, so I think I can say this and you'll understand the tone in which it is meant.
The name of the game is The Legend of Drizz't, and you really thought Drizz't's power level would be on par with the rest of the cast?!
Come on man.
I know... But as I recall, he can have two attacks every turn. He's the only character out of 20 heroes in the series (not 100% sure on Ravenloft, though) that has that ability. That seems a wee bit excessive.
I was out getting lunch today with the guy who always played Drizz't. And he said, "Who cares about game balance? As long as it leads me to have more fun, I'm all for it. And Drizz't killing more monsters is more fun."
So he'd ascribe to your thought!
I did think of playing a ToEE using the four main Drizz't characters and writing up a short story of Drizz't and company adventuring in the Temple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creighton Broadhurst of Raging Swan Press had another good post. He listed 8 Tips for Beginning GMs.
1 - Everyone at your table is there (hopefully) to have fun.
2 - At the table, you are the ultimate arbiter about how the game is run.
3 - For your first adventure, keep it simple.
4 - Accept You’ll Get Stuff “Wrong.”
5 - Prepare: Be as ready as you can for the game.
6 - Delegate: You don’t need to do everything.
7 - If You Need Help, Ask.
8 - Relax and enjoy the game.
You can click on the link to see his comments on each item. What do folks think? And what would you add to the list?
Creighton Broadhurst of Raging Swan Press had another good post. He listed 8 Tips for Beginning GMs.
1 - Everyone at your table is there (hopefully) to have fun.
2 - At the table, you are the ultimate arbiter about how the game is run.
3 - For your first adventure, keep it simple.
4 - Accept You’ll Get Stuff “Wrong.”
5 - Prepare: Be as ready as you can for the game.
6 - Delegate: You don’t need to do everything.
7 - If You Need Help, Ask.
8 - Relax and enjoy the game.You can click on the link to see his comments on each item. What do folks think? And what would you add to the list?
If you are running it old school...
Expect to use your Imagination and utilize the ability to improvise on the fly.
GrayWolf - Though as a beginning GM, I don't think I was very good at improvising at all. That was something that I got better at as I got more experienced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came across this today:
Clerical spells, including the druidic, are bestowed by the gods, so that the cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. First, second, third and even fourth level spells are granted to the cleric through meditation and devout prayer. This spell giving is accomplished by the lesser servants of the cleric’s deity.
Fifth, sixth and seventh level spells can be given to the cleric ONLY by the cleric’s deity himself, not through some intermediate source. Note that the cleric might well be judged by this or her deity at such time, as the cleric must supplicate the deity for the granting of these spells. While the deity may grant such spells full willingly a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required. The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric some other spell (or none at all).”
It's from a version of the Player's Handbook - not sure which edition. I enjoy running across stuff I'd either never noticed or didn't remember from previous D&D iterations.
The idea of a quest to gain an upper level spell is great! Necromancer Games' 'Raise the Dead' supplement had some adventures related to raising a dead character - instead of just paying some gold and moving along with all the same gravity involved in buying a horse. It made it an event.
I like Gygax' idea of having the character some how "earn" the spell, rather than it just being a flat reward for leveling up.
Wow, in this one instance, I could not possibly disagree more. Spells, especially those upper level spells, are as much a part of how a cleric operates in the game as a magic sword is to a fighter. Making a cleric undergo a quest just to be granted what is their right given by class, is not part of a game I'd like to play. I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree Holmes.
Nothin' but love for you. Just disagree on this situation. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, in this one instance, I could not possibly disagree more. Spells, especially those upper level spells, are as much a part of how a cleric operates in the game as a magic sword is to a fighter. Making a cleric undergo a quest just to be granted what is their right given by class, is not part of a game I'd like to play. I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree Holmes.
Nothin' but love for you. Just disagree on this situation. :)
The idea is not to nerf the cleric, but so the DM has control over what spells get into the game, just like he should do with wizard spells.
Gate, for example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Gygax' idea of having the character some how "earn" the spell, rather than it just being a flat reward for leveling up.
Yeah, spells weren't a "given" in the earlier editions (at least by the RAW). Magic-users needed to find new spells, even upon attaining a new class level, the magic-user still had to find new spells - nothing was free (the DM even chose what spells the newly made Magic-user received upon the character's creation). Clerics were held to the tenets of their faith, so those clerics not acting in accordance of their god, could have spells withheld from them until their god is satisfied the cleric has properly atoned.
I personally like (and continue to use) these rules regarding spells.
Of course there are those that ignored all of this and just gave whatever spells the player desired...
|
I came across this today:
Clerical spells, including the druidic, are bestowed by the gods, so that the cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. First, second, third and even fourth level spells are granted to the cleric through meditation and devout prayer. This spell giving is accomplished by the lesser servants of the cleric’s deity.
Fifth, sixth and seventh level spells can be given to the cleric ONLY by the cleric’s deity himself, not through some intermediate source. Note that the cleric might well be judged by this or her deity at such time, as the cleric must supplicate the deity for the granting of these spells. While the deity may grant such spells full willingly a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required. The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric some other spell (or none at all).”
It's from a version of the Player's Handbook - not sure which edition. I enjoy running across stuff I'd either never noticed or didn't remember from previous D&D iterations.
The idea of a quest to gain an upper level spell is great! Necromancer Games' 'Raise the Dead' supplement had some adventures related to raising a dead character - instead of just paying some gold and moving along with all the same gravity involved in buying a horse. It made it an event.
I like Gygax' idea of having the character some how "earn" the spell, rather than it just being a flat reward for leveling up.
It is from the 1e PHB. I still use a variation of this rule in my games, mostly based on which deity the player character worships and which spells are appropriate to be granted by that deity. And of course how well that player is living up to the tenets of that religion.
As far as wizard spells go, any spell of 5th level or above requires either lengthy research/quest or to be obtained from treasure, a wizened mage, etc.
At the higher levels it isn't a given that someone will be able to easily obtain all that they desire - they have to work for it. My players enjoy that and wouldn't have it any other way.
I like Gygax' idea of having the character some how "earn" the spell, rather than it just being a flat reward for leveling up.Yeah, spells weren't a "given" in the earlier editions (at least by the RAW). Magic-users needed to find new spells, even upon attaining a new class level, the magic-user still had to find new spells - nothing was free (the DM even chose what spells the newly made Magic-user received upon the character's creation). Clerics were held to the tenets of their faith, so those clerics not acting in accordance of their god, could have spells withheld from them until their god is satisfied the cleric has properly atoned.
I personally like (and continue to use) these rules regarding spells.
Of course there are those that ignored all of this and just gave whatever spells the player desired...
I randomly choose my spells as a player. I find it a spur to creativity.
As a DM, I leave it to player choice as to whether they select spells or have them randomly selected. I've found there are many players who really don't enjoy random elements of PC creation, so I don't really see much to gain from insisting on it.
@Kyrt-ryder: Yes, but once they've made the quest they keep that sword until it is stolen, or destroyed. A cleric's spells, to me at least, are their "magic-sword" once they've attained the level appropriate to casting certain spells, they should be able to cast them. Especially clerics, their class says
A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.
That's part of their class ability. I realize Holmes' quote comes from a previous edition, and I guess, what I'm saying is, having played with the new edition for so long, I would not want to play in an edition where a cleric has to quest just to be granted the ability to cast a high level spell.
@DrDeth: Again, I guess I have to say that my opinion on this is completely different. Even as a GM I would never think about putting clamps on what spells can be cast in my game. If it's in one of the books that I've approved for character creation, it's going to be pretty readily available. This, of course, as is my personal philosophy, means what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and PCs better be prepared for NPCs and monsters to have all those same spells to hand.
I definitely respect the opposite viewpoint and can see the benefits to it, but I would want no part of a game like that. I guess that makes me the rebellious "young" whipper-snapper of the discussion. :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mostly based on which deity the player character worships and which spells are appropriate to be granted by that deity. And of course how well that player is living up to the tenets of that religion.
Yeah, this how I handle it most of the time, as players (in general) tend not to stray to far from their character' religion. So where I will set an absolute on which spells a cleric cannot cast would be a good aligned cleric wishing to cast spells such as Cause Light Wounds for example.
So, for D&D 5th Edition, 'Classic Modules Today' are conversions of old D&D modules to the current system. People sign up to 'claim" a module, then update it. Kinda neat.
I downloaded the very short, two page conversion guide (not much in it, actually), but I found this analysis an interesting read:
The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.
1. OSR adventures were as much as, if not more of, a test of the players' abilities as their characters. Many adventures had scenarios that required the players to think of solutions themselves, rather than rely on the abilities of their characters.
2. The rules for early edition games were often simpler or heavily customized for ease of play. The DM was granted absolute power to make rule decisions on the fly, with the understanding that fair arbitration would be upheld. This is often simplified to the phrase "Rulings, not rules".
3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.
4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. Strange magic could help a character or slay him instantly, sometimes without even a saving throw allowed to help him avoid that fate. The characters were not guaranteed level appropriate fights - they could easily wander into the wrong dungeon and be summarily wiped out by an annoyed dragon or angry undead. Running away when faced with a too-powerful foe was an acceptable tactic.
5. OSR character advancement required a lot of experience points. The gold piece value of treasure acquired was added to the pool of experience from killing monsters before dividing amongst the characters. Because of this, adventures give out of lot of monetary treasure. The DM will want to reduce the amount of monetary treasure
awarded to the characters to be in line with D&D 5th edition.
We've been talking about some of these very points in this thread.
3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.
It was my understanding that the original D&D was based very heavily, if not exclusively, on Tolkien's Middle Earth literature. Some of the qualities of the races still owe their legacy to this material. Which I find widely different than mercenary instead of hero, and uncommon happy endings. It's possible the old school revival modules were based on a different set of literature, but that would have been a break from the canon that spoke to the origins of the game itself, and could have been a bias of those people partaking in the revival, more than an owing the original material.
[I]The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.1
3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.
4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. .
Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.
Happy endings were quite common.
High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.
You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.
But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.
So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.
3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.It was my understanding that the original D&D was based very heavily, if not exclusively, on Tolkien's Middle Earth literature. Some of the qualities of the races still owe their legacy to this material. Which I find widely different than mercenary instead of hero, and uncommon happy endings. It's possible the old school revival modules were based on a different set of literature, but that would have been a break from the canon that spoke to the origins of the game itself, and could have been a bias of those people partaking in the revival, more than an owing the original material.According to Gygax in Appendix N, the main influences on AD&D were "de Camp & Pratt, R.E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H.P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt."
It's possible he was downplaying Tolkien's influence. There were some legal issues, IIRC. And some things drawn directly from Tolkien, most obviously halflings.
Still the early stuff does have a very strong mercenary flavor. Go down to the dungeons for loot. Hire minions. Eventually build strongholds and get followers.
Having read much of the stuff from the Bibliography, while it may be said that Gygax did borrow from Tolkien, Lieber, Vance, Howard, Moorcock, and Lovecraft and the rest of that crew as a package, are far greater influences on the game.
My almost fourteen year old son has just taken up reading the LoTR series. I have all six books (three novels) in one volume, with great appendices, maps and drawings. I know for a fact that his gateway to the novels was a combination of our home Pathfinder game, and watching the movies. Which is sort of the reverse of my own experience back in the 80s. I read the hobbit, then LoTR, and that was my gateway to D&D and Fantasy movies like: Legend and Willow. Obviously Peter Jackson's LoTR and Hobbit series of movies were fanboy geekfests for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I]The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.1
3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.
4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. .
Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.
Happy endings were quite common.
High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.
You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.
But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.
So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.
I think they don't know what old school roleplaying IS nor do they know how it was done or what even made people love AD&D in the first place.
Personal opinion, of course.
Part of that, is if what they said was true, there would be no Robilar, nor any Mordekainan, nor any Tenser, nor any Otiluke.
Gygax was FAR more forgiving in his personal campaigns and dungeons than what it appeared or occurred during tournaments with the tournament modules...which is where you saw the high death rate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I]The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.1
3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.
4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. .
Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.
Happy endings were quite common.
High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.
You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.
But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.
So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.
I think they don't know what old school roleplaying IS nor do they know how it was done or what even made people love AD&D in the first place.
Personal opinion, of course.
Part of that, is if what they said was true, there would be no Robilar, nor any Mordekainan, nor any Tenser, nor any Otiluke.
Gygax was FAR more forgiving in his personal campaigns and dungeons than what it appeared or occurred during tournaments with the tournament modules...which is where you saw the high death rate.
Yes, the Infamous Tomb of Horrors was designed as a challenge game, not really as a killer dungeon.
In other forums, I've discussed how Robert E. Howard's The Scarlet Citadel reads like a dungeon crawl - decades before Gygax invented D&D. The Tower of the Elephant as well.
It's all but impossible to deny that Tolkien heavily influenced Gygax, despite his minimizing of the impact (which I do believe is primarily related to the legal issues). And people who know better than I say agree that the magic system is Vanceian.
The flip side would be to look at how D&D has clearly influenced fantasy authors. Raymond E. Feist and Scott Erickson's popular series are based on their own RPG worlds.
Recently read through the 5th Edition Dungeon Masters Guide. There was some interesting stuff in there about different genres of fantasy RGP, how to apply rules, etc.
Deciding if its worth buying the Player's Handbook as well.
Pathfinder has spoiled me in having both those tomes together in one volume. I think that should be a standard for RPGs.
Also proofing the Conan 2d20 handbook. I still haven't wrapped my head around how that one works. I'm very d20ish.
I'm currently waiting for some miraculous windfall of expendable income to justify switching from Pathfinder to 5E. I've invested so much in PF over the years, to make the switch now would feel like a betrayal of my own wallet. It would not, however, feel like a betrayal of my inner RPG purist. I've checked out the 5E PHB from my local library multiple times already, and each time I like it more and more. The ditching of the skill system (as such) for on-the-fly adjustable ability checks, is very much to my liking.
If anybody here is a fan of T1 - Hommlet and the Temple of Elemental Evil, I did a two-part series about them, including recounting some of Gygax' play sessions in developing them. Just thought I'd mention that.
TACTICS
Chapter 7 of Role Playing Mastery is titled 'Tactical Mastery.' As with other parts of the book, you get a look inside Gygax' head.
Knowing the game system and its specific rules gives the master player insight into the strategy of the game. This knowledge also allows the player to devise a grand tactical plan for the success and advancement of his character.
I never thought of a tactical plan for my character. Within a group and in specific situations, we discuss tactics (ad nauseum sometimes), but that's about it for me.
He talks about how difficult it is to generalize tactics due to campaigns and scenarios being different, group composition varying, etc. However, he does come up with some Tactical Mastery Tips. We covered all 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery, so I'm going to do the Tactical Tips one by one.
Before enumerating the tips, Gygax says:
This specific general knowledge will enable the serious player to become a master of the tactics of his chosen RPG system, providing he assiduously applies his knowledge in a thoughtful and reasoned way.
As we've mentioned several times before, he certainly is taking these topics seriously. Which is both understandable and proper, since presumably someone paid money to buy this book.
As we've mentioned several times before, he certainly is taking these topics seriously. Which is both understandable and proper, since presumably someone paid money to buy this book.
There's a certain thin line that, I think, all gamers tread on, between serious and fun, because the game is seriously fun, and it does require a bit of serious thought in order to progress from beer and pretzels to successful murder-hobo. Interestingly the game does not ever need to progress beyond beer and pretzels, and there's nothing wrong with that. Clearly there is a section of the game population that takes it very seriously, and is always thinking about tactics, not only for specific game situations, but the tactical decisions necessary to make a powerful character, one that is equipped to tackle anything the game can throw at him/her. The production and sale of books, like the one this thread discusses, show that, even from the beginning, there were people who treated the hobby with a level of respect and, sometimes I like to use the word sacred, stature that is baffling to those outside the hobby. There are many things in life like that though. I, for instance, look at people who do high-flying jumps and tricks on motorcycles and think, "you're out of your mind!" My wife looks at me moving little plastic toys around on a gridded map with my boys, and says the same thing! :D
There's also a section of the gamer population that takes it seriously and has no interest in being a "successful murder-hobo" nor the focus on tactics or building powerful characters, etc. A focus on character and plot can be just as serious and as far from beer and pretzels as the intense survival approach. Not "old school" as such, but there were people playing that way back in the day.
So true thejeff, so true. In my experience, though, it is rare to find an entire table group where that is everyone's main focus. Rather it is usually a focus of one or two people, and therefore is made capable of happening, even if/when others at the table prefer a hack'n'slash heavy RP. I do agree, though, and would actually count myself as a GM that looks for all opportunities for rich character narratives, and intriguing plot points.
There's a certain thin line that, I think, all gamers tread on, between serious and fun, because the game is seriously fun, and it does require a bit of serious thought in order to progress from beer and pretzels to successful murder-hobo.
I dont know anyone who plays murderhobo style, nor would I play in such a campaign. In fact a game would regress from beer and pretzels to murder-hobo, since most who play that style arent old enuf to drink beer!
You guys take me too seriously. I didn't mean anything for murder-hobo more than adventurer. After all, you have to admit, there is more than a fair amount to this game that relies essentially on "kill it and take its stuff." :D