|
Long time player here, I can't see why people don't see 3rd edition as a natural progression to 1st and 2nd. .Considering that one of those people was a little known designer by the name of E. Gary Gygax, they might have had a point.
The key word there, of course, is 'natural'.
Back when 3e came out I bought a few of the books (players handbook, dungeon masters guide, monster manual, and the Forgotten Realms campaign setting) because I was interested in seeing how skills and feats were being handled. The general opinion in our gaming group was that this was potentially an interesting innovation, but it wasn't a compelling reason to switch from the gaming style familiar to us.
Compare it to cell phones:
Those old brick or suitcase style phone are the early editions, 3E is a a smart phone, 4E is a IPad.
3E, expanded on Proficiencies (they basically turned into skills and feats)cleaned up and made the combat much more tactical (which I am not really of fan of anyway, but is fit the 6 second round thing better), instead of rolling all sorts of different die, it all became D20. You miss THACO? Miss those early Thief Skills (not sure who any of my Theives survived early editions)?
And yes, 3E in part incorporated some GURPS and some (GASP) Palladium style rules it it too, but that what moving into the future is. Some of us still like playing our Intellivision every so often, but it isn't my full time video game experience.
Again, I have been playing since 1978. I like 3E/Pathfinder. Would I play of Old Edition? Sure but not full time.
I wasn't aware of that. Do you have an example (without spoiling anything if possible)?Paizo's "old school" roots aren't in the rules (obviously - calling 3.5 "old school" is just wrong on so many levels - heck, I call 2nd Ed. "middle school" because it was the fifth version of the D&D rules published). Their old school roots are in the way they approach world building and adventure making. Much of it is homage, really, Easter Eggs of a sort in many of the adventures and in the campaign setting.
Do you remember the cover of the old Player's Guide with the adventurers plucking the gemstone eyes from a large statue of an efreet? There were also lizardman corpses scattered about. The Legacy of Fire adventure path included an encounter set on the plane of fire, in an efreet's castle that ended up recreating that cover. (Assuming the party didn't end up dead.)
|
In my opinion there are three axis which govern the priorities of fantasy RPGs.
The first is play-balance vs realism, and I think in this regard D&D 1/2/3 and PF are all on the play-balance side.
Back in 1st ed days, Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery were more simulationist, and advocates thereof would frequently ridicule the fact that high level fighters in D&D could fall 100' and just get up and walk away (they still can, of course)
The second axis is player-options vs ease-of-GMing, and here the trend to move towards player-options begun with 2nd ed has gone almost as far as it can.
Back in first edition days there were no stat blocks for monsters at all. Special abilities and feats, which make character creation so much fun, make GMing much much harder.
This is coupled with the third axis which OSRIC and the like often go on about, which is rule-precision vs GM-discretion, and again in this regard PF has gone to the opposite extreme of D&D.
To illustrate these two points, let me quote the first encounter from the 1st ed module G1 - The steadying of the Hill Giant Chief:
"2 snoring hill giants, supposedly guarding the entrance (hp 40,34). There is a nearly empty keg of ale between them. Unless attacked and slain immediately, any molestation will enable one to alert the other guard at B. There is a 1 chance in 20 that any well-planned scheme to kill them will fail, otherwise they can be slain simultaneously and quiet maintained."
Richard
|
|
My D&D meetup group had a discussion about this. We are all in our 30's and 40's and grew up on the old game.
Not many younger people we meet have played 1st & 2nd edition and we are concerned that this could translate into the designs of what Pathfinder puts out. Does Pathfinder have their collective finger on the pulse of the "old school" gamer demographic?
I appreciate the feedback.Thanks!
Thematically - Sort of but No
Mechanically - No way in hellI think they place several nods to old school gamers in various modules, APs and in the campaign world - but they are just that - nods. I think they acknowledge the past, but they are 110% new school when it comes to the overall package. This in regards to: it’s 3.5 based, increased PC power, common high magic, modern day morality in fantasy world, more frequent inhuman characters and a whole slew of things different from 1st and 2nd ed.
If you like that kind of stuff – great, if you don’t, stick to 1st or 2nd ed.
I would say that over time as people's influences and experiences change (from sources of fantasy stories and even from gaming) that the game will change over time. In many respects both Pazio and Wotc try the "Appeal to Grognard" when it comes to advertisement, product and Easter eggs in the product. I do feel that this is deceptive (more so on the part of Wotc) because the end result is not a product which resembles or plays anything like 1st or 2nd.
Basically the "Appeal to Grognard" is just a sort of nostalgia trap to get you to buy their product (thinking about the more recent rehash of Gamma World/Far-go/Legion of Gold and the intro Red Box).
|
If I recall correctly the illustration associated with Kobolds in original D&D depicted them as small twisted Dwarf / Gnome like beings with wild hair.
I've just looked through all 8 of the original D&D booklets (the first "core" 3 and the 5 additional supplements such as "Greyhawk", "Blackmoor", etc.), and while the booklets have a few illustrations within them, the kobold is NOT among them (and while I have access to the "Strategic Review" magazine as well, I have not looked through those for any illustrations of kobolds however)...
As for the original description of the kobold:
Kobolds: Treat these monsters as if they were Goblins except that they will take from 1 - 3 hits (roll a six-sided die with a 1 or 3 equalling 1 hit, a 3 or 4 equalling 2 hits, etc.).
Notice, no hair, no scales, no horns, no tail, nothing...
|
|
If I recall correctly the illustration associated with Kobolds in original D&D depicted them as small twisted Dwarf / Gnome like beings with wild hair.I've just looked through all 8 of the original D&D booklets (the first "core" 3 and the 5 additional supplements such as "Greyhawk", "Blackmoor", etc.), and while the booklets have a few illustrations within them, the kobold is NOT among them (and while I have access to the "Strategic Review" magazine as well, I have not looked through those for any illustrations of kobolds however)...
As for the original description of the kobold:
Kobolds: Treat these monsters as if they were Goblins except that they will take from 1 - 3 hits (roll a six-sided die with a 1 or 3 equalling 1 hit, a 3 or 4 equalling 2 hits, etc.).Notice, no hair, no scales, no horns, no tail, nothing...
Sounds like someone who has about the same reference material I have :-)
But as my copies of "The Strategic Review" are upstairs on the shelves, it was easy enough to flip through them and confirm that there are no illustrations of Kobolds.The first-edition AD&D Monster Manual, though, does explicitly state that kobolds have no hair. Not only is there an illustration of a kobold (although as the kobold is wearing mail, this wouldn't serve to answer the question about hair if it hadn't been made clear in the text), but the following page is a full-page illustration of an encounter between kobolds and some adventurers.
Well, Gygax hated 2E. He never played it. So It depends on what you liked about 2E.
Actually I'm pretty sure you're thinking of 3rd Edition. He wrote 2nd ed. Unearth Arcanna, was editor for Dragon Magazine, and played Mordenkainen in a campaign. I'm also not sure that's much of an argument though because Gygax universally hated anything that wasn't his idea.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Gygax hated 2E. He never played it. So It depends on what you liked about 2E.Actually I'm pretty sure you're thinking of 3rd Edition. He wrote 2nd ed. Unearth Arcanna, was editor for Dragon Magazine, and played Mordenkainen in a campaign. I'm also not sure that's much of an argument though because Gygax universally hated anything that wasn't his idea.
Um, Gygax wrote 1e, he was tossed out of TSR four years before 2e was released.
If I recall correctly the illustration associated with Kobolds in original D&D depicted them as small twisted Dwarf / Gnome like beings with wild hair.I've just looked through all 8 of the original D&D booklets (the first "core" 3 and the 5 additional supplements such as "Greyhawk", "Blackmoor", etc.), and while the booklets have a few illustrations within them, the kobold is NOT among them (and while I have access to the "Strategic Review" magazine as well, I have not looked through those for any illustrations of kobolds however)...
As for the original description of the kobold:
Kobolds: Treat these monsters as if they were Goblins except that they will take from 1 - 3 hits (roll a six-sided die with a 1 or 3 equalling 1 hit, a 3 or 4 equalling 2 hits, etc.).Notice, no hair, no scales, no horns, no tail, nothing...Sounds like someone who has about the same reference material I have :-)
But as my copies of "The Strategic Review" are upstairs on the shelves, it was easy enough to flip through them and confirm that there are no illustrations of Kobolds.The first-edition AD&D Monster Manual, though, does explicitly state that kobolds have no hair. Not only is there an illustration of a kobold (although as the kobold is wearing mail, this wouldn't serve to answer the question about hair if it hadn't been made clear in the text), but the following page is a full-page illustration of an encounter between kobolds and some adventurers.
And I can't find the illustration I was thinking of either. I plowed back through my white box, supplements, Swords and Spells etc. Not sure where I fixated on that image. Not going to unbox the SR or Dragons though, I'll take your word on it :)
*Edit* I'm thinking with the lack of illustration / description I went looking and found something like an illustration of a Knocker, Kobold etc. presented that way. I put them into my game world as degenerate off shoots of Gnomes... who are rustic wondering relatives of Dwarves who lost their underground citadels.
|
|
*Edit* I'm thinking with the lack of illustration / description I went looking and found something like an illustration of a Knocker, Kobold etc. presented that way. I put them into my game...
I was not fortunate enough to actually start gaming back in the 70's, and while my first D&D experience was with the "Holmes Blue Cover", at the time I started gaming; AD&D was already out...
It would have been a little frustrating for me I believe, to play without a decent illustration of most of these monsters. I at least had the AD&D Monster Manual to fall back on for that...
Um, Gygax wrote 1e, he was tossed out of TSR four years before 2e was released.Well, Gygax hated 2E. He never played it. So It depends on what you liked about 2E.Actually I'm pretty sure you're thinking of 3rd Edition. He wrote 2nd ed. Unearth Arcanna, was editor for Dragon Magazine, and played Mordenkainen in a campaign. I'm also not sure that's much of an argument though because Gygax universally hated anything that wasn't his idea.
Yup. He actually came back and wrote for 3rd edition - a third party publisher, mind, but he actually liked 3.0 much better than he did 2nd.
|
|
How did Gygax get tossed out of TSR? That's crazier than if Stan Lee got kicked out of Marvel.
Hostile takeover of some sort. He only owned a third of the company to begin with. Full details on the Wikipedia article.
|
|
Yup. He actually came back and wrote for 3rd edition - a third party publisher, mind, but he actually liked 3.0 much better than he did 2nd.Um, Gygax wrote 1e, he was tossed out of TSR four years before 2e was released.Well, Gygax hated 2E. He never played it. So It depends on what you liked about 2E.Actually I'm pretty sure you're thinking of 3rd Edition. He wrote 2nd ed. Unearth Arcanna, was editor for Dragon Magazine, and played Mordenkainen in a campaign. I'm also not sure that's much of an argument though because Gygax universally hated anything that wasn't his idea.
He didn't care much for 3x, either. I could scare up the quote, but I'm lazy right now. The stuff he wrote for Troll Lord Games was pretty much system neutral for the most part.
To me, the archetypes feel like 2nd edition kits.
I had quit 2nd edition because I had so many house rules that I had to print out manuals for people to play in my game. So I didn't play RAW 1st or 2nd ed anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A comment earlier on in this thread mentioning Pathfinder having more powerful PCs got me thinking.
There are, really, three different gaming styles, all of which are Pathfinder is some way or another.
The first is the PFS environment. In that, a lot of games are at lower levels (with characters sixth level or less). This pretty much corresponds to the lower breakpoint mentioned in another recent thread, where players generally do not yet have access to 4th-level spells. In that bracket the difference between Pathfinder and earlier editions is less marked. PFS scenarios do extend to higher levels, but going beyond 11th level is only possible under exceptional conditions. This, again, is still quite close to the character strengths typical of many old-style settings.
Beyond that are the Adventure Paths, which (if you run them all the way through) might take characters to 13th or 15th level. With the difference in powers (rather more noticeable at these levels) this is getting slightly beyond a lot of the old-style stuff. Level advancement also occurs rather faster than in old school - back in the original days Gary Gygax reckoned it might take three years to get up to those levels, while it seems to be possible to run through an AP at about twice that rate (assuming weekly play).
Even at 15th level, though, you're below another major breakpoint, where PCs get access to 9th-level spells. And you're still a long way below the 20th level, with the "capstone" abilities that provides. To get to those levels (which is what the third style of Pathfinder play strives for) you pretty much have to be running a home game; although some adventure paths offer suggestions on how to proceed further, it's assumed that the GM will be generating a whole lot of the material.
This third style of play is the most different from "old school".
In old school, a multi-season goal might be to clear out a castle, a temple, or a small region (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Dark Tower, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Barrier Peaks, The Underdark, Dragon Mountain, ...). The BBEG at the end of the final scenario would be a significant threat, but could be handled by a group of heroes (not superheroes).
By comparison, a 20th-level Pathfinder character is far more powerful; most of them would breeze past Elminster (or Drizzt, or ...) without batting an eyelid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did Gygax get tossed out of TSR? That's crazier than if Stan Lee got kicked out of Marvel.
I'm not sure if you meant to be this ironic, but you do know that Stan Lee was has actively sued Marvel Comics quite a few times over the years. Just like D&D was always more than just Gygax, Marvel Comics was always more than just Lee.
In my opinion there are three axis which govern the priorities of fantasy RPGs.
The first is play-balance vs realism, and I think in this regard D&D 1/2/3 and PF are all on the play-balance side.
Back in 1st ed days, Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery were more simulationist, and advocates thereof would frequently ridicule the fact that high level fighters in D&D could fall 100' and just get up and walk away (they still can, of course)
The second axis is player-options vs ease-of-GMing, and here the trend to move towards player-options begun with 2nd ed has gone almost as far as it can.
Back in first edition days there were no stat blocks for monsters at all. Special abilities and feats, which make character creation so much fun, make GMing much much harder.
This is coupled with the third axis which OSRIC and the like often go on about, which is rule-precision vs GM-discretion, and again in this regard PF has gone to the opposite extreme of D&D.
To illustrate these two points, let me quote the first encounter from the 1st ed module G1 - The steadying of the Hill Giant Chief:
"2 snoring hill giants, supposedly guarding the entrance (hp 40,34). There is a nearly empty keg of ale between them. Unless attacked and slain immediately, any molestation will enable one to alert the other guard at B. There is a 1 chance in 20 that any well-planned scheme to kill them will fail, otherwise they can be slain simultaneously and quiet maintained."
Richard
So, where would a GM-less game like Fiasco fit on your chart?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and I look at 2E as karma biting Gygax in the ass. One of the main reasons that he created 1E was to have a version of D&D selling for which Dave Areneson did not get any credit/royalties. So it's a bit ironic that he found himself in the same position a decade or so later.
|
|
Oh, and I look at 2E as karma biting Gygax in the ass. One of the main reasons that he created 1E was to have a version of D&D selling for which Dave Areneson did not get any credit/royalties. So it's a bit ironic that he found himself in the same position a decade or so later.
Well, eight years later if you take the publication of the AD&D Monster Manual as the first volley in the disenfranchisement of Arneson.
|
|
I think the illustrations take something away from the game. Its like whether Lovecraftian horrors are better described as text or drawings.
I would agree with you, however, many of the monsters as they first appeared within those original 3 D&D booklets did not have any description at all; text or otherwise (see the quote I posted above from Vol. 2 of those booklets concerning kobolds for an example of what I mean)...
|
|
He didn't care much for 3x, either.
I posted this on another thread here about a year back when this came up...
I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. Now, should I tell you what I really think?
The quote comes from a "Gamespy.com" interview with Gary Gygax back in 2004. Here is the full interview: Part 1 and Part 2
He didn't care much for 3x, either.I posted this on another thread here about a year back when this came up...
I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. Now, should I tell you what I really think?The quote comes from a "Gamespy.com" interview with Gary Gygax back in 2004. Here is the full interview: Part 1 and Part 2
Rember that 2004 is after he parted ways with the publisher again. He was all for 3.0 in the Dragon articles he wrote for it. The revival of Sword and Sorcery, less Elminster and more Greymouser, pretty much responsible for the whole "Vancian" buzzword of the early millenium.
Um, Gygax wrote 1e, he was tossed out of TSR four years before 2e was released.
Wow, you're right, for some reason I was thinking Unearthed Arcana was 2nd edition.
It still stands that Gygax wasn't a fan of anything he didn't come up with. He sort of reminds me of George Lucas, the more I read about them the less I like them as people.
The problem with Heroes is that when you look close up at them, they turn out to be Human after all.
Maybe, but I'd hardly call either one a hero. The only Star Wars movie I like is Empire, and that's the one George had the least to do with, and by the time I knew who Gygax was, D&D was no where near my favorite game. I think it is just more a case of I didn't realize what pompous self-righteous pricks they were before. JMHO and YMMV
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Jobs was in many ways a pompous, obsesive jerk. But he's still a hero to me because of the great waves he made in the personal computing paradigm, in manyways redefining the paradigm itself to one of a digital lifestyle. If there's anyone that he can be compared to, it would be Thomas Edison (who had ample levels of Jerkass in his psyche as well) The main difference is that while Edison revolutionised four industries, Jobs did it to five.The problem with Heroes is that when you look close up at them, they turn out to be Human after all.Maybe, but I'd hardly call either one a hero. The only Star Wars movie I like is Empire, and that's the one George had the least to do with, and by the time I knew who Gygax was, D&D was no where near my favorite game. I think it is just more a case of I didn't realize what pompous self-righteous pricks they were before. JMHO and YMMV
If you're going to go that far out onto the Steve Jobs Fanboy Limb, then you have to give Edison credit for revolutionizing pretty much every modernized industry in existence.
Comparing Jobs to Edison is like comparing a set of high-powered floodlights to the sun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to go that far out onto the Steve Jobs Fanboy Limb, then you have to give Edison credit for revolutionizing pretty much every modernized industry in existence.
Comparing Jobs to Edison is like comparing a set of high-powered floodlights to the sun.
Eh, Edison stole some of 'his' best work from Tesla.
Now there was a genius.
|
|
Not many younger people we meet have played 1st & 2nd edition and we are concerned that this could translate into the designs of what Pathfinder puts out.Y'know, this isn't a bad thing. You may not enjoy it, but that doesn't make it bad.
I think that for him it would make it a bad thing, since he wouldn't enjoy it.
I will say that I think that PF does a much better job at explaining why things are where they are than older editions. They tend to use the traditional monsters and even old school fluff but do it in a way that seems to make more sense give a much more realistic feel to ecology of creatures and why they might live in dungeons, sewers or other locations and why a city full of normal commoners has monsters and dangers nearby. Also I enjoy that old school flavor in a resonably sized 5 room dungeon rather than making my way through a 50 room dungeon with deadly magical puzzle traps, powerful blood thirsty intelligent monsters who for some reason live on random adventurers and the occaisional rat that runs the gauntlet to find them.
Sounds like it is.But that doesn't make it universally bad.
Me not liking 4E does not make it a bad game.
What if you don't like it because it is a bad game.
If 4e was a good game PF would not be the best selling pen and paper RPG. If 4e was a good game it would not have been revamped with in half the time it took them to revamp 3.0 to 3.5, they spat out the essentials line pretty quick. If it was a good game they would not be already talking 5e. Lets face if 5e is above all else an attempt to get Pathfinder players back into the DnD*tm fold before they forget that Pathfinder is DnD. Before long they way they are going PF is going to have the name recognition simply because of market share. WOTC is desparate 4e was too much change too fast for some.
I am sure that there are plenty that love 4e, they love the changes and enjoy the game. But if 4e was still the industry standard we would not be talking 5e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how one would define a "good" game, but if it requires popularity and market share then RPGs are not good games. Which seems silly.
The problem with Heroes is that when you look close up at them, they turn out to be Human after all.Maybe, but I'd hardly call either one a hero. The only Star Wars movie I like is Empire, and that's the one George had the least to do with, and by the time I knew who Gygax was, D&D was no where near my favorite game. I think it is just more a case of I didn't realize what pompous self-righteous pricks they were before. JMHO and YMMV
I mostly agree.
Gygax was awesome, because he helped make the game that spawned one of my favorite hobbies. When I read what he writes about gaming though, it makes me cringe though. I'm sure if I had had a chance to play in one of his games I would have enjoyed myself, but I find that after almost 20 years of gaming, my tastes have changed enough that he and I would rarely agree on anything.
|
|
I had quit 2nd edition because I had so many house rules that I had to print out manuals for people to play in my game. So I didn't play RAW 1st or 2nd ed anyway.
Just out of curiosity, what was the combined page count of the 2E PHB, DMG, and your house rules vs the page count of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook?
And do you really play Pathfinder fully RAW?