D&D/Pathfinder is not what it used to be. Players don't respect the DM like they did back in 2nd edition. Game Rules/mechanics debates at the table take the life out of the game
For now I'm thinking about just sticking with the Core book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a time when people respected the DM?
What about resuming your copies of AD&D 2nd ed books?
So is there a question in there somewhere? Or is this just a cry for attention? In any case I think its a matter of different play styles clashing.
Just run a more disciplined table. Explain that the GM is going to make rulings during encounters, and anyone who disagrees with the ruling can respond via email after the game. This keeps the ball rolling, and allows players to explain their points of view and influence future rulings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've debated going back to an older edition myself. But I realized it won't help - the majority of the problem isn't what edition of the rules you are using, or what materials you are using in a particular edition, its a problem with the players themselves.
Its the players not respecting the DM, not the system disrespecting the DM.
Its the players debating rules, not the system debating the rules.
Fix the players, fix the problem.
And remember, to get your players to respect the DM, the DM has to earn that respect.
So is there a question in there somewhere? Or is this just a cry for attention? In any case I think its a matter of different play styles clashing.
This is the detail on General Discussion:
This forum is for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other gamers.I posted it with the idea that many other people might feel the same way or possibly contribute to the coversation about the topic.
Is there anything you want to contribute to the discussion?
Just run a more disciplined table. Explain that the GM is going to make rulings during encounters, and anyone who disagrees with the ruling can respond via email after the game. This keeps the ball rolling, and allows players to explain their points of view and influence future rulings.
True!
What about resuming your copies of AD&D 2nd ed books?
I like 3rd edition. You can do a lot more with the character. It gives mechanics to most of the "stuff" in 2nd edition.
There was a time when people respected the DM?
Yes! It was an age of high adventure!
A time before the dreaded race of the Rules-Lawyer was spawned. Some sages say they came to the Prime Material plane from an extra dimensional rift from some unknown realm.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, it my table, game rules/mechanics debates are part of the fun.
See, it my table, game rules/mechanics debates are part of the fun.
this
|
There was a time when people respected the DM?Yes! It was an age of high adventure!
A time before the dreaded race of the Rules-Lawyer was spawned. Some sages say they came to the Prime Material plane from an extra dimensional rift from some unknown realm.
Well, the first edition AD&D DMG talks about rules lawyers, even if it doesn't quite call them that.
Really Pathfinder, 4th ed, 3rd ed, 2nd ed and so on are just rules systems and its how they're being used that the game what it is. So I'd sit down with your group and say you've noticed a change in your play style thats killing the fun for you.
Must admit though that I've noticed that since we switched from 2nd ed to 3rd and the evolution of the d20 system we've become more number crunching, optimizing and rules focused.
For the current AP I'm Gming for some of the combats I havn't put out the battle map and miniatures. I'm noticing that for these encounters my players take a less rules intensive approach to the game when I do this. Brings me back to the games of ye olden days and they focus more on the story and character interaction.
Naturally you can't do this for all encounters and I still bring out the battle grid and mini's for the big combats or mass numbers, but its worked well for just a few opponents in either a massive wide open space or single opponent in a small space.
One tip I picked up from the Paizo boards is if the majority of encounters are near death and deadly then you get an arms race with players upping the power levels to ensure survival and the GM upping the encounters in response to the power of the PCs to keep things challenging. If this happens have the GM dial it down a few notches and low ball encounters for awhile to get players out of the power up mentality. A few soft encounters can take the intensity out of the sessions.
|
What about resuming your copies of AD&D 2nd ed books?I like 3rd edition. You can do a lot more with the character. It gives mechanics to most of the "stuff" in 2nd edition.
Indeed. A lot of people talk about how modern systems are too codified, and how it doesn't allow for imagination and going outside the rules to make stuff up.
I say they are allowing themselves to be constrained.
I've heard it said that every new feat means characters can't ask the DM to do something, because they don't have the feat.
Player: "Hey, can I lunge forward to strike someone out of my reach, but take an AC penalty?"
DM: "No, you don't have the Lunge feat."
I say this is not a fault of having the feat, but a fault of the players and DM letting the rules constrain them.
You want players to be able to ask to do things on the fly?
Let them.
Abolish the feat progression in your game. Let ALL feats be available to all characters. And when a player says 'hey can I do this' say 'yeah, here are the rules for it'.
People talk about 'rulings instead of rules', but rulings are just rules you haven't made up prior. The benefit of having feats instead of making it up off the top of your head is that you don't have to waste time figuring out a fair way of letting the player do what he asked. You've already got the tool, and you don't have to worry about remembering how you did it last time. It's consistent and, if written well, balanced.
If a rule constrains you, consider not using it. If you have a rule that works, use it.
What about resuming your copies of AD&D 2nd ed books?I like 3rd edition. You can do a lot more with the character. It gives mechanics to most of the "stuff" in 2nd edition.
I will never go back to 2nd ed.
It wasn't clear whether the OP was saying he would prefer to do so.
People/players are not what they used to be.
Play the game, not the rules.
Well said,but that depends on a case by case basis.I'm currently introducing a group of guys completely new to RPGs and choose Pathfinder for their first game.They are liking the game but have to learn everything from scratch,so i'm using the rules as written.
I'll overload them otherwise.
Now that I entirely disagree with.
The terms 'rules lawyer' and 'roleplay not rollplay' have been around a lot longer than that.
True, I remember that discussion as far back as about 1984ish.
I've been a DM/GM for over 20 years now.
There are two elegant ways of stopping players that like to discuss rules at the table endlessy:
- know the rules better
- make a game where the exact rules do not matter much (aka Roleplaying)
There are also two less elegant ways:
- make it clear that there will be no discussion until after the game
- kick repeated offenders
Nothing has to do with Pathfinder / D&D really so this should be in "Gamer talk".
|
|
See, I'm a big fan of just the core rules too. While I prefer 3rd ed to 2nd ed in most respects, one change I didn't like was all the extra classes. In 2nd ed I rolled an 18/70ish strength fighter. Not wanting to waste it I gave him a 2-handed sword, which meant I didn't have enough money for decent starting armour. I bought him hide armour, and lo! I played a Barbarian.
There just isn't the need for 11 classes, plus another 6, plus some more. Especially in 3rd ed, where you can already tweak your character so much.
Fewer rules, fewer arguments.
But you do need to be firm but fair with players. Rules or lack thereof won't help you if you're not.
...geez I feel young.
Git off my lawn!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
second edition pissed me off so much. rules light games are all about ego. what does your dm think about this, or that. can i do this? yes because..., but then from my experience from 3 different gms, they dont apply logic evenly.
example (my first second edition game):
*i just got hit by an arrow*
player: i cast cure light wounds on my self.
GM: you need to remove the arrow first.
player: what? why do i need to do that?
GM: because it dosent make sense that you can heal yourself with an arrow in your chest. it takes one turn to remove all the arrows from your body.
*later in that same combat*
player 2: i cast fireball
player 1: gm dosent allow anything in his games that dosent make sense. so you cant cast fireball.
GM: what? i never said that, this is a game about magic and fantasy things dont need to make sense!
player 1: WHAT THE F+*! DO YOU MEAN THEY DONT NEED TO MAKE SENSE!!!!
this actually happened to me in 3 different second edition games with 3 different gms. people have a hard time with being biased, and if the player dosent have a rule to back up his actions a gm can just be a complete moron and cock block you. i will never play in a system that gives a gm absolute uncontested athority over my actions without ATLEAST a written rule to back up said actions. the unfortunate byproduct of this is you get people who use the rules to get over on people, or have some self satasfaction in proving someone else wrong.
yes its annoying but rules light is even worse IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an old school gamer. I mean like "just after the pamphlets became D&D" old school. I grew up literally alongside core D&D (TriO - you should now feel like a newborn). That being said I have to say that less rules IME = MORE rules lawyering.
Now a lot of factors play into that statement like play styles and angry youth and all that but I remember DISTINCTLY when I finally and stubbornly made the jump from 2e to 3e; I felt like part of my childhood had died. I decided not to GM even though that was my traditional role, so a friend picked up some of the books and made an FR campaign.
My main complaint was feats. If my players WANTED to try 6 impossible things before breakfast, I always used to just let them with some rolls. But it would almost ALWAYS break down into them either failing and nit picking the fail because "I should've gotten THIS bonus or THAT result", or they'd win and my other players would try to one up the first so I felt like I was constantly re-inventing the wheel.
Then I sat down with a 3.0 fighter, converted from 2e, right at 16th level. The feats were a lot around sundering which was my bag back in the PC's previous incarnation. Then with those feats firmly in place we attacked a conversion of Baba Yaga's hut.
I watched as myself and 3 other friends tore through a NEW system, in one of the most confusing modules I've played, and did it with smiles and NO hint of frustration. It was SO freaking epic! The reality was we were STILL trying things but our GM would say: "do you have X feat?" we'd respond "no" and then he'd look it up and tell us how what we wanted would work...and then it just happened. If we failed we felt like we knew why (FYI - it's REALLY hard to great throw a clay golem as a halfling, no matter what Str the artifact gauntlets you're wearing give you) and when we succeeded it was measurable.
So I guess my point to all this is: more rules for me ended up just clearing the decks for more fun. Since that first campaign I've not gone backwards in eds. And on the flip I've had more creativity and epicness since 3.0 than in the previous eds since, with the rules out of the way my pc's and I have felt like we're free to create.
And just a nod to Paizo and PF: my guys and I meet once a year to play and last year we converted some PF stuff into our homebrew world. We have collectively and individually in our own personal games had such a good experience with it that this year for the first time in 11 years are running boxed adventures. Our GM is running ROTRL as our game.
I agree, the rules are there to work with, not constrain.
You can still try a lot of stuff at my table, and I will ask if you have a Feat to do so, if not I tend to draw similar trick/feat might work and then determine how much of a penalty there is to try pull off said action.
Feats just make things easy.
They aren't there to limit imagination.
Yup, i'm with ciretose here.
I dont seem to have any problems with playwrs respecting the gm... Regardless of what system i use.
Mind you, the grey hair probably helps.
|
|
I watched as myself and 3 other friends tore through a NEW system, in one of the most confusing modules I've played, and did it with smiles and NO hint of frustration. It was SO freaking epic! The reality was we were STILL trying things but our GM would say: "do you have X feat?" we'd respond "no" and then he'd look it up and tell us how what we wanted would work...and then it just happened. If we failed we felt like we knew why (FYI - it's REALLY hard to great throw a clay golem as a halfling, no matter what Str the artifact gauntlets you're wearing give you) and when we succeeded it was measurable.
Kudos to you for figuring out in your first game what took me five years to realize. :)
There was a time when people respected the DM?
But of course. Occasionally, there still is.
It usually won't last more than 10 minutes into the gaming session, though...I wonder how many on here were even born in 1984.
*waves*
Find new players.D&D/Pathfinder is not what it used to be. Players don't respect the DM like they did back in 2nd edition. Game Rules/mechanics debates at the table take the life out of the game
For now I'm thinking about just sticking with the Core book.
Pathfinder has come out in Italy for about two years,and i just only recently found new players and am finally playing it other than PbP.But it is hard to make newbies learn a modern d20 system;but i'ld have never resumed my "red box" edition (i never liked that system,even though it was my first one)
edit:and i have to be the DM (not a real problem,have been for more than 20 years) but now i have to find another DM to let me play for a change :(
...geez I feel young.I wonder how many on here were even born in 1984 (I have vague memories of Return of the Jedi, but that is pretty much it.
1971 here
1971 here
1970 here... do I get any lower bids?
1984... The only thing I remember was my grandparents moving to another city. I think that it was '84 at least. Or was it earlier?
EDIT: It took 10 more years before I started playing RPGs.
I run games with a more 'fluid' system. The rules from all the books provide a nice, solid framework to launch from but they are just that, a framework. I don't care if the fullplate tower shield tank just rolled a natural 20 on acrobatics, his a$$ is going prone. If the players don't like it, they can kiss my derier.
I was born in 1970 as well.
"Deep roots are not reached by the frost," I'd say. A balanced and streamlined Old School game is all we need. Tons of rules are just good for memory contests, not for fast-paced, creative, fun gaming.
|
|
My experience doesn't hold that out, Tito.
I run games with a more 'fluid' system. The rules from all the books provide a nice, solid framework to launch from but they are just that, a framework. I don't care if the fullplate tower shield tank just rolled a natural 20 on acrobatics, his a$$ is going prone. If the players don't like it, they can kiss my derier.
You realize the rules already say Acrobatics can't be used in heavy armor, right?
In any case, I wouldn't continue gaming with a DM that copped an attitude at me. There are far too many gamers out there for me to waste time with a jerk.
1969...
|
I run games with a more 'fluid' system. The rules from all the books provide a nice, solid framework to launch from but they are just that, a framework. I don't care if the fullplate tower shield tank just rolled a natural 20 on acrobatics, his a$$ is going prone. If the players don't like it, they can kiss my derier.
You seem to lack imagination and knowledge about how full plates work, and voluntarily gimping a character that has most probably a mediocre saving throw already but yet succeeded at this reflex roll by sheer, awesome luck ?
That's not what I would call a fun game, and if you were to say I can kiss your "derrière" for pointing it out, I would simply move away where people aren't jerks.