Why remove Leadership? I thought one of the goals for the Fighter was to build up his own army eventually? Perhaps it might be me misremembering it. I was six when I learned how to play 2nd edition with my dad so my handle on the 2nd edition rules is tenuous at best.
@Ascalaphus
Getting vets into that mindset will be easy enough, and it makes sense that, if you're waling through the forest and you're at the level where you can fight wolves easily, it's probable that you'd run into a Grizzly bear, which would wipe the floor with you. My thoughts are...How would you get a group of people, whom have never been exposed to AD&D, into that mindset?
I think there's a third element in play. A lot of gamers, especially those recidivists who are playing Pathfinder because D20 is the only game they're willing to play. Quite frankly it's age. Many of us have fondness of "old school gaming" because when it wasn't "old", neither were we. :)
Here here!
I think there's a third element in play. A lot of gamers, especially those recidivists who are playing Pathfinder because D20 is the only game they're willing to play. Quite frankly it's age. Many of us have fondness of "old school gaming" because when it wasn't "old", neither were we. :)As far as I can figure, there are two elements to the old school AD&D feel.
I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Pathfinder/3.x in about 20 years...I still envy you guys for having been around to see Tabletop RPGs coming into their own. I feel like I missed out on something awesome. Sure, I can go back and play AD&D or a retro-clone, but it won't be the same as some college student picking up AD&D when it was still in First printing. Maybe I've just idealized it and spent too much time with vets.
I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Pathfinder/3.x in about 20 years...I still envy you guys for having been around to see Tabletop RPGs coming into their own. I feel like I missed out on something awesome. Sure, I can go back and play AD&D or a retro-clone, but it won't be the same as some college student picking up AD&D when it was still in First printing. Maybe I've just idealized it and spent too much time with vets.I think there's a third element in play. A lot of gamers, especially those recidivists who are playing Pathfinder because D20 is the only game they're willing to play. Quite frankly it's age. Many of us have fondness of "old school gaming" because when it wasn't "old", neither were we. :)As far as I can figure, there are two elements to the old school AD&D feel.
Yeah, you are definitely idealizing it, although as one of those early adopters you are talking about, there was definitely a feeling of newness and exploration involved in the whole RPG experience.
However, there was also the social stigma attached which cost friendships, drew accusations of pagan idolatry and devil worship, caused parents or family members to attempt "interventions" to save you and led to discretion and unwillingness to openly admit to participating in a potentially stigmatizing activity.
Today RPG stereotypes are bad enough with the "overweight, basement-dwelling, socially inept nerd/geek" meme, but back then it was the "mentally deranged, potential mass-murdering, idol-worshipping satanist who wants to kidnap children for ritual sacrifice."
I literally had friends who cut ties with me when they found out I played D&D. Now I don't consider that much of a loss, but it happened.
To the OP:
You might consider letting/forcing Bards use the Fochlucan Lyrist prestige class (appropriately Pathfinderised, of course). You can find it in Complete Adventurer (an early 3.5 splatbook from WotC). It's a fusion of the druid and bard base classes (and suggests another variant using the druid and ranger classes), with clear echoes of the 1e bard dual-classing process.
|
I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Pathfinder/3.x in about 20 years...I still envy you guys for having been around to see Tabletop RPGs coming into their own. I feel like I missed out on something awesome. Sure, I can go back and play AD&D or a retro-clone, but it won't be the same as some college student picking up AD&D when it was still in First printing. Maybe I've just idealized it and spent too much time with vets.I think there's a third element in play. A lot of gamers, especially those recidivists who are playing Pathfinder because D20 is the only game they're willing to play. Quite frankly it's age. Many of us have fondness of "old school gaming" because when it wasn't "old", neither were we. :)As far as I can figure, there are two elements to the old school AD&D feel.
Perhaps - you make it sound rather romantic. At a core the new and old are the same, friends getting together to laugh and roll dice, just in the new you have A LOT more mathematics. Of course I still remember as a young'n my sister in law getting back from the big city with a copy of the 1e AD&D PHB for me - I randomly opened a page, it was the Paladin. I went to sleep that night dreaming of the day I would roll a 17 or 18 for CHA... Didn't happen, my first AD&D character was a Druid. Funny I remember that Druid more than the girl friend I had at the time, still she couldn't Pass Without Trace - actually on reflection she sort of has now.
My best memories of running a long term campaign was 2e, which no doubt colours my opinion of 2e. We pretty much used 2e RAW, whereas 1e we dropped many things - Gygax has taken the exact way the 1e initiative system was meant to work to his grave. So (like many I imgaine) just rolled a d6 for each side.
S.
I forgot to mention this in my earlier post:
Someone up-thread mentioned the 1e/2e high-level druid's need to fight for her place in the ranks and the fact that there are only a limited number of positions open at the top end of the druidic hierarchy. This has been echoed in the Green Faith Acolyte prestige class, found in Paizo's Paths of Prestige supplement. You can also find it on www.d20pfsrd.com.
It is great that there are people like you that can do this as a complete free form and have it all work out. That is amazing.
Most of us do not have that ability and probably never will. I have seen one other GM that could do a good job of running like that. He was a blast to play with. Everyone else I've seen try that, it just does not work. It either comes accross as the players just listening to the GM tell a drug addled dream or it is very disjointed and unconnected where the...
And you decided you couldn't learn that skill when? None of us had it. It takes a while to acquire because (as a DM) you have to learn that you actually aren't in control of the game. Your players are.
Scripted modules and adventure "paths" are one thing, tournament style (aka PFS) is another, and "free form" is something else again (though it can easily be combined with the former, not so much the latter).
Remember, there's 1 DM and a bunch of players - be prepared to allow them to come up with their own ideas about what is going on in your campaign world (sit back and enjoy it actually) and then grab the best ideas they've come up with and make THAT your game. I've clearly remember one game night where my players game up with a series of political plots about what could be happening with the various groups in my world (this was a forgotten realms campaign) that just blew me away. I was smart enough to ditch everything I planned and make that the skeleton of the plot which took almost a year to play out. And it spawned years of plotlines after that. We still use (after 15 years or more) some of the threads from those campaigns in our current games - especially when I'm the DM (in FR). For example those old characters got to hire the latest bunch to do some adventuring for them because they were just "too busy". What's more, since I still have some of the same people in our group I had them role play their old characters as they hired the new group - with the "new" players/characters doing the negotiating.
In fact, maybe the best way to think of it is that it's a collective game - not YOUR game. Let yourself just be there to run the mechanics of the world rather than to "tell your story" or run your plot. The players will choose where to explore. Unused dungeons and plots are always there for you when you need to jump start things. Even if the only thing you do is change the name of the bad guy and move the adventure to the new city the players decided to check out, rather than the one you originally planned.
To get back to your doubts about acquiring these skills, our current DM is one of those "original" players. He's been gaming with me for about 20 years now. And it's taken him about a year of gaming to learn how to do this consistently. Do we still have our "deux ex machina" moments? Yeah. But they're getting fewer and more and more often they're actually the world reacting to what *we* are actually doing as players (we just don't see the big picture yet, but the pieces are there and we're putting it together).
So you'll make mistakes. We still do. Heck sometimes those mistakes become your favorite house rules...ahhh sepia snake sigil, itemize, bigby's construction crew, zombie bombs...good times, good times.
Hope this helps an have fun.
JohnBear
In 1988 I brought D&D to the catholic school I went to. I taught it to a few pals in my 6th grade class, and it spread quickly after that. Even some of the girls bought books! Our mistake was excluding the kid in my class who we always excluded from things. After a few brief months he told the pricipal the game had satan worship, and it was quickly banned, no if and or buts.
To my knowledge I was the only one who continued to play, aside from some who continued for a few years. Last year however, I ran into one of those pals at a gaming store (The Dreaming in Seattle). His co-workers wanted to learn an RPG and since he was the only one with a background in gaming he volunteered to learn a system and run it. He was there to buy the Pathfinder core book!
|
To the OP: This popped into my head today...
When we played the older editions, we declared what we were doing at the start of each round, then followed through. Today, each player declares on his/her count in the initiative.
In the very early days 1d6 was rolled for initiative. The GM rolled for the party, and 1 player rolled for the GM's enemies. A 1-2 meant surprise. Magic and missiles went first, then melee. I'm not sure you can recreate this tempo in modern games.
It sounded something like this:
GM: Roll for initiative!
Player: 2
GM: You see the hobgoblin and his goblin slave monitoring the passageway, but they are unaware of you at the moment.
PC: I attack with my bastard sword! *rolls dice* I hit AC 6
GM: You hit the hobgoblin. Roll for damage.
PC: 6 points.
GM: You cut him down and the goblin cowers, begging for mercy from his new master---you! Everyone else declare what you are doing.
PCs: I speak goblin and say, "Lay down your weapon."
PC: I shoot him with an arrow
PC: I attack him with my bastard sword
GM: Okay you are first in initiative. You shoot your arrow. Roll to attack.
PC: *rolls d20* I hit AC 8
GM: Your arrow misses and skitters down the cave hall. Rag attacks with his bastard sword. Roll to hit.
PC: *rolls d20* I hit AC 3
GM: You hit. Roll damage.
PC: 7 points
GM: The goblin is dead. You attempt to parlay with the goblin, but he does not respond, blood pours from his hairy neck. You hear footsteps coming down the hall toward you, and see a hobgoblin holding an arrow curiously looking in your direction. Roll for initiative!
Thus combat was fast.
To the OP: I noticed you said you would kill PCs, often. The role of the early GM wasn't/isn't to kill-- but rather follow this code: "Play the monsters as they would be played, follow through on their intentions. In the case of near death, provide some clue or warning of the danger--characters who still choose to proceed against the odds can die, depending on failed saves, poor dice rolls or big hits (creatures did max damage on natural 20s)."
Thus, you need not be adversarial, but fair, and true to playing the enemies. Really interesting PCs can be spared their lives if the story justified it i.e. once unconscious, the PC could be left to bleed rather than destroyed. Of course, back then, injury below 0 meant up to a week in the infirmary bed prior to adventuring again!
Have fun!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ascalaphus
Getting vets into that mindset will be easy enough, and it makes sense that, if you're waling through the forest and you're at the level where you can fight wolves easily, it's probable that you'd run into a Grizzly bear, which would wipe the floor with you. My thoughts are...How would you get a group of people, whom have never been exposed to AD&D, into that mindset?
It's tricky, and may actually require a few PC deaths. When the players complain that the bear killed them and that it's not fair to drop a bear in their path, counter with "but WHY did you ATTACK the BEAR?!"
There's an important component to this though: can the PCs get away from it?
Some monsters are too tough to fight, but also fast enough to chase the PCs, and malicious enough to do so. The Will-o'-Wisp is an example. These are bad monsters to put on your random encounter table, because you can't really outrun it (it flies very fast), it's sadistic and nearly impossible to injure.
It's not very sportsmanlike to pit PCs against monsters they can't fight AND can't get away from. One or the other is fair though.
So to avoid a fight, a monster should have one or more of the following:
* not fast enough to keep up with the slowest PC
* not aggressive; while dangerous, won't attack if not provoked (big animals like elephants)
* can be "bought off", like a bear that'll leave you alone if you leave your food reserves
* stupid enough to trick; an illusion of your duplicate running away in the opposite direction can get rid of a lot of monsters
* the PCs' techniques to evade pursuit would work on the monster (fog clouds, caltrops etc.)
It's possible that a few PCs die, but if you show you're not unwilling to kill a PC that refuses to run when needed, they'll start looking at monsters more carefully, wondering if they should fight it.
It helps when monsters behave in an understandable manner; if your big predatory animals are looking for food without too much effort or danger, players can come up with clever stunts to deal with them.
I think one of the important parts of older D&D was monster morale; monsters didn't just fight to the death, they too would run if it looked grim.
Monsters check for morale if:
* The first time the PCs drop one of the monsters
* When a monster leader is defeated
* When 50% of the monsters are defeated
* The monsters suffer a dramatic setback
This is a die roll; apply some modifiers for:
+ monsters have magic
- players have magic
+ monsters have superior numbers
- players have superior numbers
+ monsters have competent leader
(etcetera)
Invent some base number based on how tough/cowardly the monster is; goblins would have lower morale than orcs, who have lower morale than trolls. Make it a base number + modifiers DC 20 check. A base number of 0 is extremely cowardly; will almost certainly run at the slightest setback. A base number of 20 will almost never run.
If the monsters fail a morale check, they retreat or surrender, as appropriate. If the monsters succeed at two morale checks, they're unshakable for the rest of the battle.
If the players force the monsters to retreat, that's a victory, worth just as much XP as when the monsters were killed. By the way, don't make killing random encounters too profitable; players shouldn't feel like they HAVE to seize the "opportunity"; when faced with a big monster they should wonder "is it really worth it?"
Summary
* Take away the need to fight everything you meet, by not rewarding it with a lot of treasure and XP (compared to the real quest).
* Don't be afraid to show up with super-dangerous monsters, but keep in mind that the PCs should be able to either beat it or somehow get away from it.
* Run the monsters believably, that makes it possible for the players to use smarter solutions than brute violence.
Bonus tip :P
* Also insert enough weaker monsters so that the players occasionally have a real victory, not just running all the time.
|
|
In the very early days 1d6 was rolled for initiative.
While true a d6 was rolled, the initiative system in 1e AD&D was convoluted to say the least. Segments in spell casting and when initiative was tied and then fighters with multiple attacks.
I really liked the 2e d10+speed factor, worked a treat. Hmmm, Power Words...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
kill PCs, often
As I see it the goal is to remove the 'presumption of balance'. Pathfinder teaches players that any enemy they see will be somewhere between CR-1 and CR+3 and can be defeated by any competent group. They will then usually receive loot that keeps them on track for the Wealth By Level table. In old school D&D this was never a safe assumption, which kept players on their toes.
|
And you decided you couldn't learn that skill when? None of us had it. It takes a while to acquire because (as a DM) you have to learn that you actually aren't in control of the game. Your players are.It is great that there are people like you that can do this as a complete free form and have it all work out. That is amazing.
Most of us do not have that ability and probably never will. I have seen one other GM that could do a good job of running like that. He was a blast to play with. Everyone else I've seen try that, it just does not work. It either comes accross as the players just listening to the GM tell a drug addled dream or it is very disjointed and unconnected where the...
Well, yes. But it's sure a heck of a lot easier to be a GM today.
I don't think it's really possible to seamlessly merge a rules-heavy system such as PF with the 'old-style' way of running a campaign. Today, the player gets to tell the GM what modifiers to apply: "I've got this feat that adds 2 to my roll under these circumstances, I've put three levels into the skill, a +1 modifier from my attribute, and I've got a miscellaneous enhancement bonus that gives me another +1". Back in the day I'd just decide (possibly with the help of a hidden die roll) whether the fighter in plate mail tripped over the half-buried rock. While that looks as though the DM was in control of the game, that's not really the case - while I'd use what today is referred to as a circumstance bonus, that would depend on how the player had run the character. If the fighter had a history of blindly rushing in to get to the enemy, rather than cautiously checking before setting foot in a strange place, I'm far more likely to have him fall flat on his face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if you want to have 3.x/PF with a 2e feel you just need to make a couple of tweaks.
1) Make Casting Slower- Extend the casting action of most spells to full round actions. If there is no move and shoot (unless the Wizard is riding a mount which has it's own complications) and the casters are limited to 5' steps then wizarding is much riskier. Gank the squishy mage becomes a much more reasonable task. No Quicken spell at all.
2) Make martial types more mobile- If you don't want full move + full attack then go with a partial move that you can split attacks anywhere in between. Move 10' swing a sword move 5' more and swing another time.
3) Consider eliminating AoOs- they slow combat down
4) Consider revising Iterative attacks- I like the Trailblazer revision (2 attacks at a diminishing penalty).
Well I have been playing & DMing since 1974.
Some of those are great.
Yes, no Quicken Spell.
No AoO, this gets rid of the chess-board like tactics. In fact, you can then get rid of the map board, with it's 1" squares. Move is by inches. Speeds things up a lot, allows more RPing. (you can Roleplay in any system. But the more time you need to spend on tactics, generally the less time you spend role-playing.)
No grapple, trip, sunder or other special attack, unless the Monster has it as part of it's make-up. These should be very rare, and yes, trip won't be as dangerous any more (noAoO).
Allow a Full Attack after a move, but reduce iterative attacks. Hmm, maybe not, this would reduce the Linear Warrior vs Exponential Wizard gap.
Treasure- scads of it, esp low level stuff. Bad guys are often boosted by giving them +1 or +2 weapons and armor- even mooks. But that first magic weapon should be special, and yes, PC's should run into a occ monster who has DR magic before they get that 1st magic weapon, unless it's a dagger or some expendable arrows. Nothing sez "Old School" like the Greatsword specialist Fighter having to kill the monster with the parties sole +1 weapon, a dagger.
But "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" are few and far between. Potions, scrolls, magic arrows, and that's about it . But other stuff is hard to find and hard to sell. Make selling magic maybe 1/4 on the common items, maybe less.
No Magic item crafting except potions and scrolls. Maybe when they reach capstone.
- 15 point buy character creation with max hp at 1st level and the chance to roll for starting gold or taking average. Slow Advancement on XP.
Ability score cap at 18/20, depending on the class in question (e.g. Casters, not including Ranger and Paladin, will have their primary casting stat capped at 20. The 20 cap for most other classes will be in Strength.) The ability score point gained at 4th level intervals will go into the lowest or second lowest stat. Class/Race restrictions much like what were in AD&D. I will be allowing Half-Orcs remain as character options as well as Barbarian and Monk. The Sorcerer will be limited to Arcane Bloodline only. I will be sticking to the CRB only. I will probably also try to bring the Bard back to it's druidy root and modify the spell list accordingly, either by stating that bards get their spells from the druid spell list or some other way. Multiclassing will only be allowed in one other class based on the same limitations due to race. There will be no Prestige Classes. No Item Creation feats or Leadership feats. Magic items will be rare and the subject of quests. I will keep ability score modifying items to a minimum. I will be allowing them to use the craft skill to make/repair their armor and such if need be. I'm on the fence about Craft (Alchemy)... I will be making a majority of skill checks for the players behind the screen. I won't make all of them, but most of them, overruling any roll that is roleplayed out to the point where a roll isn't needed. Wandering Monsters could be much more power than the PCs....
No. Make them roll, 4D6 drop 1, IN ORDER, then decide which class to play. But to be fair, if the rolls come out to less than 15 pts, call it a "hopeless PC" and allow a re-roll.
Yep.
Yep.
Scribe scroll and Brew potion should be allowed. Permanency would make "Magic weapon" spell permanent. Leadership was a big part of early editions.
There's no reason to make Skill check for the players. This reduces their fun.
Wandering Monsters could be more powerful than the PC's. Generally, the further you went from Civilization, the more dangerous the charts. PC's and players all knew this. Thus, staying within a couple day of the City or traveling along the main roads was pretty safe. Brigands, orcs, animals. But yes, if the PCs ventured out into the Mountains or the deep forest, they could easily run into something that would TPK them.
Low level PC's died quite a bit. But once you got to mid levels not so much, and after that there was Raise dead.
Slow advancement? Not at all. In fact the general rule of thumb was "you level is the number of 8 hour adventuring sessions required to go up a level". So, a 1st level PC might well advance to level two after one really good nite of gaming. More likely two nites, as the first nite was mostly intro and a couple small combats.
Random character generation - 4d6 and take best three, allow one swap. Then they have to find a character class they can play with those stats.Roll all hit dice; no 'maximum hit points at level 1'. Some monsters should have HPs reduced for balance.
Traps are often lethal. Disarming traps is done by 'I poke it with a stick to see what happens'. Rogues get a bonus only to the extent that the GM will explain to them what it looks like the trap does.
No miniatures - combat positioning is done through descriptions and stored in the GM's head.Bring in new characters at level 1 - if that gets annoying allow them to be higher level, but with all-mundane equipment.
Yep.
No, we almost always allowed max HP @ 1st level, standard houserule.
Nope, the thief could roll to disarm a trap ever since the class was invented.
We used Mini's since day one, but mostly for marching order and to see if a spell or dragon breath hit us all. Positioning wasn't important besides that.
Some Dm's did that, but after level 4 or so, this stopped.
|
|
Also add in "If a caster is distracted (e.g. damaged) before casting their spell then it is lost - no concentration rolls". Also casters get no DEX bonus while casting. This should put caster back in their proper place :)
This does mean to might have to roll for initiative each round.
Gygax in the 1e DMG states that a caster trying to cast in combat = dead caster. His suggestion is use a wand/rod/staff. Fighters were the protection. You might want to keep AoO maybe then? Under 1e the penalties for running past the fighter to bash the magic-user were severe.
S.
|
|
kill PCs, oftenAs I see it the goal is to remove the 'presumption of balance'. Pathfinder teaches players that any enemy they see will be somewhere between CR-1 and CR+3 and can be defeated by any competent group. They will then usually receive loot that keeps them on track for the Wealth By Level table. In old school D&D this was never a safe assumption, which kept players on their toes.
Well said!
Pre-3rd was more uncertain; WBL and CR give you an idea of what to expect. Feat-Item crafting also gives you a "guarantee" that you will have the items you want/need.
You need to get rid of that kind of certainty; 2nd/older ed was a dark and uncertain place.
|
|
The chesslike nature of PF isn't ideal, but I do think the AoO is a good thing, in general. It keeps people honest; you can't just saunter past a monster or start casting spells in their faces, without getting into a little spot of ouch.
Maybe a gridless map, with 1 inch = 5ft, will psychologically reduce the chess-ness? Threatened areas are obvious (within one thumb's thickness of the opponent), but the whole space looks much more organic.
---
As I recall variable initiative, it went like this:
1) Everyone announces what they want to do that round.
2) Everyone rolls a d10 and adds the speed of their chosen action to the die roll result.
3) Actions are resolved from low to high.
High-damage weapons often had high speed numbers, which meant they hit late in the round. Not more or less often, but just later. Wizard spells had a speed of [level], priest spells a speed of [level]+3.
If you were casting a spell and got hit for damage before your spell was completed, the spell was wasted; no Concentration checks allowed.
So one of the main reasons for fast (speed 2) weapons like a dagger, was to have a real chance of interrupting enemy spellcasters. Heavy weapons were good for chopping up dumb monsters, but against a wizard you needed to be fast.
---
In PF, that system is completely gone, but it's been somewhat replaced with the AoO concept. It's very hard to interrupt a wizard's spellcasting through initiative, but if he's in melee, he has to go the extra mile to get his spell through. That's why I think the AoO is a good thing; it keeps wizards honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some ideas for a grittier, more old school game:
Wizards get a d4 hit die.
Clerics and druids drop to a d6 hit die.
Remove channel energy.
Remove the natural spell feat.
Remove spontaneous casting from druids and clerics.
Limit the number of zero level spells casters can cast per day.
Arcane casters cannot cast spells in armor unless they are elves wearing elven chainmail.
Bards no longer cast cure spells.
Increase casting times to a minimum of 1 round.
Casters lose their dexterity bonus while casting.
Casting while in melee provokes an attack of opportunity.
Preparing spells requires 10 minutes per spell level.
Remove the precise shot feat line. Archers can hit their allies when shooting into melee.
Cure spells only convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage. Cure spells do not cure nonlethal damage.
Withdrawing from melee combat provokes an attack of opportunity.
Remove item creation feats (or at least delay access until 9th level).
Casters need to create a circle of protection prior to summoning creatures. If they don't, summoned creatures can attack them.
---------------------------------
The idea, of course, is to look at the game, find aspects that made it easier (for casters mainly), and ruthlessly yank them away. ; )
Well, yes. But it's sure a heck of a lot easier to be a GM today.I don't think it's really possible to seamlessly merge a rules-heavy system such as PF with the 'old-style' way of running a campaign. Today, the player gets to tell the GM what modifiers to apply: "I've got this feat that adds 2 to my roll under these circumstances, I've put three levels into the skill, a +1 modifier from my attribute, and I've got a miscellaneous enhancement bonus that gives me another +1". Back in the day I'd just decide (possibly with the help of a hidden die roll) whether the fighter in plate mail tripped over the half-buried rock. While that looks as though the DM was in control of the game, that's not really the case - while I'd use what today is referred to as a circumstance bonus, that would depend on how the player had run the character. If the fighter had a history of blindly rushing in to get to the enemy, rather than cautiously checking before setting foot in a strange place, I'm far more likely to have him fall flat on his face.
I'll grant you it's easier from a mechanics standpoint. Everything you just described takes away most of the "fudging" we used to do, even though in the case you just described the "circumstance" bonus/penalty with the dm rolling the die would still work. Heck, half the time for stuff like that we *still* roll a die to "see if it matters" before we even figure out the difficulty.
|
|
I don't think it's easier to be a GM today. Honestly, I knew how to wing it well, think through natural reactions, and create a story with only a bare-bones plot. Give me a basic map and I was good to go.
Now, with all the plotting out of encounters, balancing, treasure, accounting not only for myriad character powers, but stuff like the Magic Mart, it's much more difficult.
|
I remember players not knowing near as much about the game mechanically as they do now. Of course I'm a lot older now, have years of gaming experience, and can actually afford to buy the rulebooks... but back when I was a kid in high school my players (as I was the DM), looked to me for the rules. The DM/GM truly was a referee or official of the game. Sure we would look up spell effects, magic items and so forth. What we didn't do was meticulously break down every aspect of a round into microseconds and try to figure out how much we could cram into our allotted time slot. I remember initiative being determined by two d10 rolls, one for the PCs and one for the Bad Guys, highest roll indicated which group went first, highest Dex went first in each group... There were a ton of house-rules, as the books just didn't cover everything (and they still don't). It was more free-form storytelling than a structured rules oriented exercise in minutiae. PF has taken the best of D&D, trimmed the fat and provided a pretty streamlined rule-set that anyone can play (especially at low levels). Of course, once you get up to 15th level or so, all the Feats, special abilities, class benefits etc do get to be a little burdensome. I think that is impossible to avoid at high levels...
As for going "old school", I think running a looser game and being more open to try/explore/use things that aren't covered in the rulebooks is a good first step.
As far as I re-call from 1e/2e, it was the rogues (thieves) and 2e bards who used a d6 for HD. Clerics and druids used d8. Not the other way around!
My suggestion is to put in more freeform into the game. That was 2e strongest mark. The rest of it requires a lot of mechanical changes.
|
|
No. Make them roll, 4D6 drop 1, IN ORDER, then decide which class to play. But to be fair, if the rolls come out to less than 15 pts, call it a "hopeless PC" and allow a re-roll.
A somewhat more flexible alternative to this which, as I understand it, has actually been adopted by a fair number of old-school renaissance GMs, is the "organic method" from 3e. Roll 4D6, drop one, in order as above, but allow the player to swap any two ability scores at the end. This will generally allow people to play the classes they want fairly effectively, but won't allow them to optimize their ability scores to fit a build.
A vary "old-school" kind of addendum to that method would be to allow the player to reroll from scratch if they don't have at least 2 scores of 15 or above. Gary Gygax personally reccomended something like that in the first edition DMG, though back then it was more important because you usually didn't get *any* bonuses from scores that were less than 15.
No. Make them roll, 4D6 drop 1, IN ORDER, then decide which class to play. But to be fair, if the rolls come out to less than 15 pts, call it a "hopeless PC" and allow a re-roll.A somewhat more flexible alternative to this which, as I understand it, has actually been adopted by a fair number of old-school renaissance GMs, is the "organic method" from 3e. Roll 4D6, drop one, in order as above, but allow the player to swap any two ability scores at the end. This will generally allow people to play the classes they want fairly effectively, but won't allow them to optimize their ability scores to fit a build.
A vary "old-school" kind of addendum to that method would be to allow the player to reroll from scratch if they don't have at least 2 scores of 15 or above. Gary Gygax personally reccomended something like that in the first edition DMG, though back then it was more important because you usually didn't get *any* bonuses from scores that were less than 15.
Yeah we did that. Or we rolled 7 times and you could swap out the last roll for any OR swap any two rolls.
Yes, indeed, we didn't play "hopeless" characters very often, unless a Hireling/Minion became a PC thru some weird circumstances. One fave was "Irving the Crusader"a hireling who had pretty average stats, but got a huge bonus to CON due to some weird magic, and also got handed a halberd +2, and a dagger +1/+2. He called himself a Paladin, even tho he was just a Fighter, and only had a CHA of 12. But he kept to the ideals, and finally was given a high even CHA by his Goddess, and became a "real" Paladin. I think his starting stats were 13, 9, 13, 8, 12, 12. (NPC's usually got 3d6 but no 1's in our games). But a bump to his CON to 18 and the fact that my PC died made him a fun back up. Oddly Halberds+2 were fairly common as they showed up on the chart and few PC's wanted to use a halberd.
That is why I suggested allowing a complete re-roll if the end rolls come out to less than 15 pts.
True, scores less than 15 didn't mean much unless they were very low.
The chesslike nature of PF isn't ideal, but I do think the AoO is a good thing, in general. It keeps people honest; you can't just saunter past a monster or start casting spells in their faces, without getting into a little spot of ouch.
Maybe a gridless map, with 1 inch = 5ft, will psychologically reduce the chess-ness? Threatened areas are obvious (within one thumb's thickness of the opponent), but the whole space looks much more organic.
The "really simple threatened area" concept from the Beginner Box might be a good PF-style way to go - basically, apart from movement, you just can't do a lot of stuff that provokes when you're adjacent to a foe (presumably because you can't keep concentration). Seems to work quite well & it's much simpler. That - plus ditching the grid - and you'll have a good vibe with no chess, I think.
Since you'll be using the PF system, you should probably present the game as is, and as a group decide what you want more or less of. They might actually like the game, without trying to recreate the past.
Re attacks of opportunity:
The good they allow a zone of danger around dangerous foes
The bad they slow things down and encourage chess like moves.
A possible suggestion is to allow attacks of opportunity ONLY if you leave a threatened square ( we always had the ' if you run away the other guy gets a free hit' rule) and any other thing that might provoke an attack of opportunity just drops your AC by 2 until your next turn.
We didn't allow casting if 'in combat' .
To the OP: I have to say pathfinder is a very rules intensive game with a fair focus on the grid style combat. This is a big part of 3.x gaming and for the style of gaming it is well done imo. For some players I know the grid is the thing that brought them back to gaming. You do appear to be trying to hack it into something it is not. AD&D 1e is available to buy and play, other rules lite versions of D&D may be better as they may evoke the less controlled combat style you are looking for. I found crossing over too confusing and going back the old rules seemed clunky ( nostalgia sometimes means leaving memories alone) so play Savage Worlds when I want rules lite grid free gaming.
Edit : having glanced at the Op recent dot points about how they will make it feel like AD&D I may have gone off on a tangent and focused too much on the feel of combat in the two games. Maybe to change the feel is by racial class restrictions, wilderness danger and making the PC's weaker but keeping the current combat system. That would be fine as a campaign flavor that has an old school feel.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a card-carrying grognard who began with B2 Keep on the Borderlands circa 1982 (late I know, but i was only 8) I can emphatically recommend the following:
Keep all the PF rules as they are. The return-to-old mechanics concept is not going to impress gaming vets, and master GMs at that. It would seem patronising and archaic to me. Find some old adventures from "back in the day" and model your story on those - especially taking into consideration the points Pax Veritas quoted upthread from Frog God Games re: the Black Monastery.
I loved the simplicity of the old rules, but I don't venerate them. The approach is key.
P.S. Anyone saying 2e is oldskool is sadly mistaken. There is little to recommend 2e's approach with regard to story. I have read much about the different gamist philosophies inherent in each edition, but I would say those approach labels were misapplied later by gaming historians who weren't there. In my grumpy opinion, 2e arrived the multiverse sank into a quagmire... I have only one word to say about that. Kits. 'Nuff said. ;p
Funny, I like splatbooks, and do not believe in bloat. I like 3e, 3.5 and 4e. I like PF.
Perhaps my disdain for 2e was, back in the day, a traditionalist's hold out against change coupled with an unwillingness to peruse the system fully. I have the 2e PH and DMG (in two different cover versions!) more for the art than the little-used-by-my-group rules.
Possibly also that group stopped gaming on the cusp of 2e more for real life reasons than anythin else...
So, don't take notice of this ol' grognard. 2e just ain't oldskool for me...
That pretty much sums it up for me. I really liked the idea of new classes, always making up my own etc. Kits seemed so underwhelming, and gave so very little mechanical advantage. Sometimes the fluff outworded the mechanic.... The thief Bandit kit - - the 1e Bandit NPC class was a favourite from Best of Dragon - - the 2e Bandit thief kit goes on and on and on about skills, weapons proficiencies and non-weapon proficiences, and the hidrance for being known as a bandit etc, and finally a piddly +1 to..... surprise enemies in a wilderness setting?!?!?! OMG! Let me be one immediately.....!!! :p
Sorry for not reading anything but the OP, but 190 is A LOT, anyway, I was once in a Rolemaster game (I know, hard to believe). What was unique about the game was that the GM used several editions and took what he liked from several books to create a workable system. The time we had playing that game was so great, I went out and bought the Rolemaster books. However, I didn't have the old editions that HE had and thus when I tried to run a game it was a mess.
I am sure after all these pages it has already been said, but people like me who remember 2nd Ed also remember the best Modules from that time. It might be best just to create a Pathfinder game based on an old module. For example, it would be really cool to have a game based on Barrier Peaks (though I think that one is 1st Ed.).
It isn't so much the system as it is the story (in this case the module).
I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Pathfinder/3.x in about 20 years...I still envy you guys for having been around to see Tabletop RPGs coming into their own. I feel like I missed out on something awesome. Sure, I can go back and play AD&D or a retro-clone, but it won't be the same as some college student picking up AD&D when it was still in First printing. Maybe I've just idealized it and spent too much time with vets.I think there's a third element in play. A lot of gamers, especially those recidivists who are playing Pathfinder because D20 is the only game they're willing to play. Quite frankly it's age. Many of us have fondness of "old school gaming" because when it wasn't "old", neither were we. :)As far as I can figure, there are two elements to the old school AD&D feel.
Perhaps - you make it sound rather romantic. At a core the new and old are the same, friends getting together to laugh and roll dice, just in the new you have A LOT more mathematics. Of course I still remember as a young'n my sister in law getting back from the big city with a copy of the 1e AD&D PHB for me - I randomly opened a page, it was the Paladin. I went to sleep that night dreaming of the day I would roll a 17 or 18 for CHA... Didn't happen, my first AD&D character was a Druid. Funny I remember that Druid more than the girl friend I had at the time, still she couldn't Pass Without Trace - actually on reflection she sort of has now.
My best memories of running a long term campaign was 2e, which no doubt colours my opinion of 2e. We pretty much used 2e RAW, whereas 1e we dropped many things - Gygax has taken the exact way the 1e initiative system was meant to work to his grave. So (like many I imgaine) just rolled a d6 for each side.
S.
Try visiting the Q&A threads that GG was a part of on Dragonsfoot.org. I think several people wanted to know about that initiative system :)
|
|
Unfortunately a lot of those old modules don't stand up all that well when looked at without the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia. All too many of then live up (or down) to the oft-leveled criticism that they are nothing more than a random collection of monster-infested rooms with absolutely no reason for the monsters to be there (let alone all the traps, treasure, and the like.)
There are some successful updatings of older settings (from at least a couple of different sources), and a friend of mine reworked the original "Temple of the Frog" (from the 1975 Blackmoor supplement, not the version released as DA2 a decade later) to a modern (4e) ruleset. I've considered doing the same sort of thing with some of my older modules (TSR, Judges Guild, &c.), but I doubt if I'll ever get round to it.
Wow, I step away for an evening and I've gotten so many more excellent responses. I've been searching for some old modules to see if I can update them, or at least pull the story and environs out and stick it in the flesh golom that is Pathfinder. I've also gotten in conteact with the gentlemen that I'd be GMing for and let them know what I was planning. They all got really thoughtful when I was explaining what kind of changes I'd make to the game (my list from up thread). They said they'd like to be able to make most of their skill check themselves, although having me make them at key points (like Perception checks) would help keep the suspense going. When I told them that I didn't have a setting, however, they unanimously agreed that it should be set in Mystara, so I'm trying my hand at the Google-fu searching for resources. They all agreed that it's a fun idea and are looking forward to playing in the game. in fact, they all starting talking about rebooting an old character they loved and played, so I'm excited. I sat and listened to their stories for a couple of hours. I've got to tell you, I'm more comfortable around older gamers than around a majority of the younger ones who have the powergamer mindset. I'll quote the oldest one here for a moment:
"While I think its great that you're attempting something like this and I'm sure it'll be a fun trip down memory lane in a sense...you can accomplish this without going to all the trouble. Instead of focusing on all the crunch, just love the game and adventures and make it all about the quest. You can't go wrong...now, I'm going to roll up a dwarven paladin. I used to houserule that dwarves could be paladins since they're so rigid and all about tradition...*conversation degrades into a long ramble*"
The majority of people who posted here have given me very inspiring ideas. I'm honestly excited about this little project. I believe it will test me as a GM and help me hone my skills and gain confidence. Confidence has always been my biggest problem in the GM chair. I've always felt that my epic tale won't be good enough. It is a problem I plan to banish with this game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't try to be epic - epic comes from having an engaged player group who in turn make things epic...if that's why they're gaming. It's hard to explain but if your players want to have a low-level dungeon crawl there's not alot of room for epicness. If, on the other hand, they want to have a bildungsroman or monomyth-esque adventure then epic is what they're aiming for.
Have an outline, not a script. Months of planning and storywriting in your head will be dashed by a single player's actions. Make an adventure flow-chart if your going for epic and highlight the "required" scenes. The connectors that go between the scenes are where you have to be fluid because that's where the players have the most control and where you as a GM have to give the perception of choice or else the verisimilitude will be lowered.
The thing about old-school gaming is that no DM ran the game exactly the same. PF codifies things (actually the OGL did which is why, IMO, the d20 craze worked very well - every "old school" homerule could now be bound into the layers of the OGL and published) and is easily accessible via downloadable system reference docs (SRDs). 1st and 2e games had TSR material, Dragon Magazine, White Dwarf, some 3rd party publishers (Arduin, Judges Guild, other heartbreakers - my fave was Bard Games Arcanum) and fanzines for it's content. Due to the lack of material you were forced to make up alot of rules, content and this resulted in your own personalized brand of D&D that was only known by the amount of players you gamed with. With my cooking background old-school D&D was like chili...yes...chili. Most folks used the basics; meat, some tomato product, onions, garlic, and beans (for us northeners:)) but travel a few miles and then you find somebody who added broken spaghetti (ala Real Chili right here in Milwaukee) or someone who added cinnamon, or someone who did not use beans, etc. It was all "chili" but based upon the taste of the creator and his or her influences. In D&D this equated to all folks using a d20 to hit but some allowed no racial/level limits, some used Method V for rolling characters, some used Wolfgang Baur's Paths of Magic article from Dragon...all was D&D but each DM or gaming group adopted their own variations.
While this level of modification is allowable in today's PF world the intertwined aspect of the OGL makes adding or subtracting things more complex in that you have to do some litmus tests on your modifications, i.e. by removing a rule or option what downstream impacts may it bring forward. It mostly affects using pre-written material that does not follow your tweaks and thus increases prep time to modify the material to fit your variants.
I apologize for the stream of consciousness post but it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.
Greg Volz
Natural Twenty Games
(gaming since 1979 or thereabouts)
|
|
I agree with what some other people above said.. the old school feeling isn't necessarily about the rules. The old rules were rather messy; it looked like a lot of them were just thought up ad-hoc when some problem arose, then later added to the set. So you get all kinds of different mechanics. 3x cleaned that up a lot: resolve most things with a d20, where rolling high is a good thing.
Actually, maybe in some aspects the 3x rules are actually better for running an old-school game than the old-school rules.
I'm kinda surprised nobody's mentioned this website yet. It's huge, and has a lot of interesting articles about old-school gaming, but it's not dogmatic about old-school rules. It has good articles about random encounters, very thought-provoking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... And you decided you couldn't learn that skill when? None of us had it. It takes a while to acquire because (as a DM) you have to learn that you actually aren't in control of the game. Your players are.
Scripted modules and adventure "paths" are one thing, tournament style (aka PFS) is another, and "free form" is something else again (though it can easily be combined with the former, not so much the latter).
Remember, there's 1 DM and a bunch of players - be prepared to allow them to come up with their own ideas about what is going on in your campaign world (sit back and enjoy it actually) and then grab the best ideas they've come up with and make THAT your game. ...
You misunderstood me. I have no problem deciding minor rules on the spot or using player ideas and taking the campaign in a different direction based on what they want to do. The rules say nothing about doing tricks with a hula-hoop. I have no problem setting a DC 8 to just spin one, a 15 to get 3 going at the same time, or a +3 bonus if you spend an afternoon practicing before the performance. Last time the campaign started out with this whole mercenary band hired to fight undead thing going, then the players decided they wanted to switch to anti-slavery crusaders.
Not a problem. But I can't do it off the top of my head. To invent a whole slave camp stronghold that makes sense, will challenge them, interesting, exciting, possible, etc... takes some time and thought. We put the game on hold and I prepared something for the next week.The person to which I was responding, said to have virtually nothing written down, not use the rules, answer questions instantly without any thought, etc... Like I said, I've only seen one GM that could do that well.
Every other time I've seen someone try to run that way it has not worked out.
Since nothing was planned it was obviously slapped together while he was talking. Much of it didn't make sense. Hermit suddenly lives in a marble castle with servants and 100' deep dungeons in the middle of a swamp.
Since the GM didn't have anything written down, he constantly forgot what was said last week. Names, goals, history, alliances, enemies kept changing.
Since the GM wasn't using the rules, none of the players had any real idea what they could or couldn't do. Let alone what their odds of succeeding might be. With the rules I have a pretty decent idea if I can charge past the line of warriors to get at the caster in back (too easily imho). Without the rules, I have no idea if it will easily succeed because the GM thinks it will be cinematic or if my PC will die for trying something so stupid.
I have seen quite a few GM's try to run 'free form' as described. Either it was very frustrating for nearly everyone. Or it was sitting around listening to one person tell a stream of thought story with some input from bystanders. Yes there were a few people who enjoyed listening to the improvised story telling, but most of us got bored with it rather quickly.
Most people do not have the mindset to invent everything on the fly, have it all fit together, and be entertaining for all. Yes, if you do something over and over again, you will get better at it. Better but not necessarily great. People really do have natural talents and abilities.
I can eventually teach most anyone to be decent at basic mathematics or science skills. That doesn't mean that they will ever be happy trying to make a living at it. For most people it will still be a chore that they don't enjoy.
This is something that I don't believe most people will every be great at. And I'm not going to expect 5 other people to be annoyed with their hobby for the next couple of years on the off chance that I might get good enough at it to be entertaining. If you or someone you know are one of the few that can do this well, that is excellent. But to tell a newbie that it is the way he is supposed to run? I think that is setting him up for failure.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think improvization is a valuable skill to have, but it's not the end-all-be-all of good GMing. Likewise, preparation will only take you so far.
I used to be very preparation-focused, until I played in a game with a GM who had a real talent for improvization. I learned a lot from him; a great deal about giving the players more freedom, to step back from railroading.
On the other hand, I've also played with a GM who was really good at preparation. NPCs all had interesting tidbits to them that were well-thought it. There were all kinds of little historical details and local oddities based on the real world (this was a Dark Ages Vampire campaign), which really brought the world to life.
What I took away from it is a combined approach; when you plan a scene, don't focus too much on the outcome, but on knowing who the actors (PC, NPC) are. What do they want? What are they able to do? What are they willing to do?
If I know all the actors well (good preparation), I can easily improvize to respond to the unforeseen (players tend to do strange things). Because I know what the NPCs want and can do, I can figure out how they'd react to events.
I think there's real value in preparation, but it's best to focus preparation on the starting situation of a scene, knowing where all the pieces are and where they're trying to go; then step back and respond to events/players based on those motivations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
Well, that quote you provided confirms all of my advice said earlier. A good roleplaying group will never let the game down, and it sounds like you've got that. Again, its not about the rules, and you already know how to do it - this means, just run things naturally as your instinct guides you. Stay in the moment, be creative, come up with things on-the-spot. You can run Pathfinder RPG as your game, but as your friends pointed out: focus on the story and by extension the roleplay of NPCs etc.
I've had a blast running Mystara. The classic setting is in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos. The Pandius website is a good reference if you don't have the original boxed set.
http://pandius.com/index.html
http://www.cartographersguild.com/regional-world-mapping/2151-mystara-grand -duchy-karameikos.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/S
hadowTriad/karameikos.html
http://pandius.com/karameikos-8.pdf
A classic place to have that paladin dwarf be from is Rockhome:
http://pandius.com/rockhome.html
A classic place to start the campaign is in the Barony of Threshold:
http://pandius.com/thrshmp2.html
From there you're quite close to water, mountains, forest, badlands, ruins, moors, etc.
If you need anything else, just let us know. Grats on playing Pathfinder RPG, and kudos for playing it in Mystara.
Its best to start small, with a small local area, 1st level PCs, minor quest, then build the story from there. Introduce NPCs, travel a few hexes out, then return to the homebase town. Then send them on some quests that take them farther out. Eventually, cross over into new lands, and perhaps even take them out to sea. You can find PAIZO's updated Isle Of Dread module in the old Dungeon Magazines, along with some great fold-out maps and information. The Pandius website will give you awesome details and maps. About every 15 minutes of game time - look around at what the players are actually doing and ask yourself, "how can I make THIS interesting" and opt to springboard off their ideas, and be prepared to throw out any preparation you may have done in favor of pursuing their goals and interests.
Nothing says D&D more than "The Known Lands" which later became Karameikos (Mystara). Have fun!
You'll do great!
=Pax
|
|
Also add in "If a caster is distracted (e.g. damaged) before casting their spell then it is lost - no concentration rolls". Also casters get no DEX bonus while casting. This should put caster back in their proper place :)
This does mean to might have to roll for initiative each round.
Oh, for heaven's sake. If you're going to add in rules like this, just don't play Pathfinder. Go play a rules set that's designed to work with this. (Or, cobbled together to work with this, which is a better description than "design" for the first edition of AD&D.)