| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not advocating an environment where we pretend to agree and don't give constructive criticism. I'm talking about the need to distinguish between intentions and implementation.
When somebody makes a thread here, they usually present two things: A means and an end.
The means, if any, is a suggestion, house rule or homebrew.
The end is their manifesto; their idea of what makes a fun game of Pathfinder and the real reason behind the thread. Sometimes it's stated plainly, sometimes you have to read between the lines, but it's always there.
This forum is not called Gaming Manifestos. It's called Suggestions / House Rules / Homebrew. A thread here is an invitation to discuss means, not ends.
A reply that judges somebody's methods always contributes, but a reply that only criticises the aim of the original post is off topic and no good to man nor beast.
Some people seem to miss the difference, so here's an example:
TL;DR: When you respond to a thread, please ask yourself two questions:
"What does the author want from their game?"
and
"How am I helping them get that?"
This isn't meant as an attack on any individual. I see it on all sides of all arguments. Hell, I've probably done it myself.
I hope I haven't come across as bossy or preachy here. I'm just frustrated by lost potential.
That out of the way, I want to talk about those gamer manifestos I described. I want to see them spelled out and celebrated, rather than argued over.
Get up on the soap box and tell us why you tinker with pathfinder!
What parts of the game are you passionate about? What do you think about balance, tone, complexity? What's sacred or abhorrent to you?
I hope talking about this will help us see where each other are coming from, but I bet it'll be an interesting read in itself.
I'll probably throw in my own thoughts if and when we see a couple of other replies. I don't want this to be the Mort's An Opinionated Guy Thread. I'll save that for all my OTHER threads :p
You are making one large assumption here that is just not true.
That people posting suggested changes to the game are intending for the change to only impact their own games.
A good percentage of the manifestos, as you call them, are intended to convince everyone else (or worse, the developers) that we have been playing with broken rules and that they alone bear the torch of enlightenment.
You are suggesting, that if someone posts a thread and says "wizards are too powerful, i purpose X to change them" That it is bad form to say no they aren't, your change is unnecessary, without an elaborate explanation as to why.
You're not going to get that, and neither should you. There is nothing wrong with someone in a debate simply shouting, Here! Here!,or Boo! Hiss! It may not provide the flowery response you wish to see, but it does allow those observing (especially the developers) to get a feel of the community.
And since the intentions of this forum is to offer suggestions, it is being watched.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually agree with most of what you're saying here, but you misunderstand me in places.
I'm not asking for flowery or elaborate. Not a bit of it. I never said people should explain more or explain better.
I never said people were only trying to impact their own games either. I know my threads aren't. Nothing wrong with sharing ideas with those who have similar tastes, or even trying to win converts. None of that harms those who don't agree with your views.
I'm talking about people shouting down solutions because they don't agree that the thing they're designed to change is a problem.
Everything out there has fans. We all know that. Telling people to stop when they're trying to make the game more fun for themselves and others because their goals aren't right for you personally accomplishes nothing.
Those people you talk about who think they have the one true opinion? They're actually doing just the same thing as the repliers I was talking about. I disagree with them just as much.
However, if somebody makes such a thread, it costs us nothing to move on. The trouble is when somebody brings that kind of attitude into an otherwise good thread we all have to wade through a mire of negativity to get anything done.
I don't think it should be a problem to let people have their crazy threads without demanding that they justify their topic to us.
If you want your own idea of what constitutes a problem be heard, don't screw up somebody else's thread. Start your own! Then your thoughts about what makes the game great will be right in the first post. Alternatively, post your opinion right here for the record.
I may agree in principle, but I think it is the responsibility of a poster to know what they want out of the thread. I'm guilty of manifesto logic, big-time, but I go to great lengths in my OPs to solicit constructive feedback.
I would agree that "One-True-Wayism" is not appealing.
I personally would like the magic item crafting rules to be slightly different, the way they work now is acceptable, however I do love to tinker.
Here is my current homebrew.
I look forward to any comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to remove the dependence on the big six magic items. I'm using Sepulchrave's suggestions (from EN World) to remove the Xmas tree of magic items.
That way, more of the heroic comes from the heros, which is what I want.
I would like to remove the dependence on the big six magic items. I'm using Sepulchrave's suggestions (from EN World) to remove the Xmas tree of magic items.
That way, more of the heroic comes from the heros, which is what I want.
Link?
I've got my own take on that. Good to compare it.
I second Evil Lincoln's request there.
As far as my own design goals are concerned, I'm interested in what keeps play interesting, whether that means streamlining paperwork and rolling, adding a cool new power or just shaking things up for the sake of variety. I don't consider balance all important, but if anybody's unable to contribute or stealing the show I think it becomes significant.
I think the game should be able to support campaigns in many different styles, so I like trying to make it better at things that it's not really intended to focus on.
I think that the ideal character creation/levelling system is one which lets you make exactly what you want as long as it doesn't spoil other people's fun or give you a nasty surprise later on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I play a lot of APs, and I try to make houserules that create as little paperwork as possible, I've found that the best course of action is what I call "the auto-bonus rule" :
The following bonuses are acquired automatically at the listed levels. Magic items that normally confer these bonuses no longer do so, but all other benefits remain. The Purchase DC for items with both an enhancement bonus and an effect (e.g. a flaming sword must also be a +1 sword) remains the same as if it had the enhancement bonus.
Attacks and Damage — if equipped, +1 enhancement bonus per 4 levels (max +5)
Saving Throws — +1 enhancement bonus per 4 levels (max +5)
Armor — if equipped, +1 enhancement bonus per 4 levels (max +5)
Shield — if equipped, +1 enhancement bonus per 4 levels (max +5)
Physical Ability Scores — +1 to any one per 2 levels (max +6)
Mental Ability Scores — +1 to any one per 2 levels (max +6)
Note that the automatic enhancement bonus to attacks does not qualify as magic for the purposes of damage reduction. A weapon needs to possess at least one magical quality (e.g. a returning dagger) to bypass damage reduction of the magic type.
The armor bonus from mage armor does not benefit from the auto-bonus as armor does.
Ability score bonuses are in addition to the normal +1 point per 4 levels.
The dragonscale amulet (natural armor bonus) and ring of protection (deflection bonus) exist in lesser (+2, minor item) and greater (+4, medium item) varieties. Both create visible effects and are activated by a command word as a standard action, whereupon they remain active for the Phase (≈6 hours).
</rule>
This has some major advantages. For one, I don't have to re-spec any statblocks at all, I just run what's there and assume that "the magic of auto-bonus" has me covered. When players find +1 longswords, they are just swords. There's an alarming amount of boilerplate gear lying around in APs, so it's been amusing to see my players change their behavior toward loot.
Now, this is just one in a suite of house rules that also abstracts time and wealth in order to reduce bookkeeping, but it has worked pretty well for me so far, and the players like it.
Sorry, here's the link
When we use it, it's flawless to operate.
1) stat blocks operate as listed.
2) when enemies are looted or treasure found, several categories of magic items become MW items, worth a little, but not much.
3) monetary rewards are cut, by half early on, then by 2/3 after level 5
And best of all, players feel freer to spend money on retainers or personal goals, and not spend it all on magic items.
Speaking of criticism:
Attacks and Damage — if equipped, +1 enhancement bonus per 4 levels (max +5)The if equipped here hurts natural attack and unarmed combat builds. While natural attack builds may be overpowered inability to get plusses may be overnerfing them and unarmed builds are already weak with the possible exception of some grapplers.
It also hurts clerics and oracles by making their hour/level buffs obsolete and boosts TWF, but the latter is probably a good thing and the former you may consider a good thing as well.
Yeah! See, that's a fair point. And, in service to Mort's OP, I file that under "constructive criticism" ... whereas saying it doesn't need to be done at all (*which I sometimes do*) is attacking the end, not the means.
In practice, I'd handle that on a case-by-case basis. For monks, I've been allowing magic handwraps for ages, I'd say that improved unarmed counts as being "equipped" if I'm behind the GM screen. I never thought to call that out in the above houserule though. THanks for putting the thought into it!
Thanks for the link guys. I regretted making this thread for a little while, but now good stuff is happening here. :)
Evil Lincoln, your approach to fewer magic items is probably still the simplest to implement that I've seen. I can see how it must be nearly effortless if you're running an AP.
But what if you're not? How much treasure do you recommend should be handed out then?
Also how much is a Flaming Sword supposed to cost? I assume it's the full price of a +2 weapon, which seems a little steep.
I wonder if arcane caster players wouldn't be disappointed by this set-up, since they won't get a lot of use out of the combat bonuses. What's your experience there? (thinking of that thread about removing metamagic rods and pearls of power here).
And yeah, I've probably attacked the OP's goal a lot of times. It's a very abstract thing to watch out for, which I'm sure is a big part of why it happens.
rkraus2, this systems looks similar, just set up a little differently. More in-depth, but a little less easy to take in and apply to a game. I note that it does give casters their metamagic rods. Interesting.
Like I said in my last post, I'm interested in expanding the range of Pathfinder, so any kind of low magic rule that doesn't screw up the game is interesting to me. I've seen a lot, as I'm sure we all have, but I have never adopted one.
There's a rule for encouraging non-combat expenditure that I saw somewhere ages ago and ruthlessly stole.
It's simply that for every GP you spend on stuff that's irrelevant to your adventuring prowess, you gain 1 experience. High upkeep lifestyle? Ale and whores? Temple donation? All good for experience, all worthwhile.
I expanded it so if you buy an object you could later sell you have to keep it. If you lose possession of it for any reason, you stop gaining exp until you've "paid back the debt".
I have this rule in my current game, but it's been on hiatus and nobody has tried it yet. The opportunity hasn't really come up, what with all the enslavement and haunted islands.
My system only took about half a session to implement, as existing characters were retooled.
We've since started a second game using these rules, and it's been seamless.
I did create a new wealth by level table, basically subtracting the cost of the free bonuses.
Thanks!
Must admit I raised an eyebrow when I saw 0 gp by level 2. I think there's be a mutiny at my table. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an approximation, not a commandment.
My players were all starting to collect their first potions, scrolls, and MW gear, just like usual. It's just that I didn't need to give a five person party a chest of 5000 gp to ' keep up'
BTW, there is still an in-game need for magic weapons, so that players can overcome DR. We solved this with the +0 enchanted weapon, which makes a weapon count as magic, but doesn't do much else.
Wow. I find myself having, for lack of a better term, homebrew design envy.
My own homebrew of Karnoss consists of the fluff on the land, some suggestsions of classes for the campaign and some traits that are basically ripoffs of regional and campaign traits already available through APs.
I have no economic system. I have not re-tooled or even given much thought to magic item distribution or creation. When my players said "we don't like magic marts and we're not looking to be power gamers" I spontaneously generated some minor rituals to impart boons like 24 hours of endure elements or a bonus on all saves for a month.
Seriously, everything I've created for my homebrew would fit in one of my daughters' pocket folders, and I'm talking the cheap ones made of glorified construction paper you get from Target for a quarter. And of that most of the material is stuff like histories, backstory or flavor text.
So...am I doing it wrong by using the system basically vanilla? Have you folks had such major complaints/issues that you've had to tinker with it? I'm seriously asking b/cause I'd like to improve my own gameplay and that of my players.
I did steal Evil Lincoln's strain/injury variant for healing. Good on you for that one EL - my players have openly said they enjoy it and with the exception of a few very specific gray areas it's been easy to use.
I for one compulsively add and tweak things. I like tinkering and dislike lots of small things in pathfinder.
Anybody who tells you it's wrong to run the game vanilla is an idiot. That just means you like it well enough how it is.
And yeah I still use strain/injury. It's a damn good rule.
|
I'm going to go ahead and discuss ends instead means here as requested by the OP.
This is my manifesto, not a step-by-step on how to get there - but where I want to go. I have posted too many times the "hows" in multiple threads, so I will use this thread to explain the "whys" I want to get there. In some cases the whys could indicate a how (as in see the problem and you might find a fix).
So I'll say it up front (since this includes a rant), I'm sorry Mort
What I want out of my D&D/PFRPG experience would be a darker and grittier game, with elements of heroic actions- sans the super heroic powers as a constant. I.e. - magic is always magical - be it low or high level, with no assumptions of automatic success and a fear element associated with magic use (even to the players who use it on a daily basis as part of their class).
Where I'm coming from: Old school Basic and AD&D DM where playing rpgs scared the crap out of me as a kid. Being a player was both exhilarating and terrifying (more often very terrifying). Magic was never ho-hum, and the DM had a few books you were never suppose to look through - not because he was a cult leader who demanded authority, presented false rules and held power due to his role in the group, no! It was managed that way because the unknown is scary.
I am trying to recreate that same creepy 1st edition vibe, with a better rule set.
I think at it's very barest of bones D20 is a better system than older versions of D&D – increasing saves vs. target number, the basic concept of DCs vs. rolling under a stat, increasing ACs and BABs – but it fails horribly upon implementation (and this is just speaking for myself before I get 3.5pfrpgfanboi troll pounced).
It pretty much fails on ALL ACCOUNTS.
- Skill or checks not auto-failing on a 1 - poor rule and doesn't reinforce what I am trying to get out of this game as a playing experience (and what my players liked about 1st/2nd ed).
- Spells without consequence (almost all spells).
- Spells as single resource solutions.
- Spells and how they fully transition as powers of magic items (what I call the Magic the Gathering mechanics training system) - all done for ease of explanation, space reduction and standardization. This standardization has broken, smashed to bits the functionality, balance and sense of mystery in the game (greatest casualty). I mean, no potion description section...no mixing potion hazard table (which was a great buff spam safeguard and control), because now potions are boring (and unbalanced) portable spells. Just like wands - crap. That IMO is another example of ease of play trade-off, where detail, risk, immersion and fun were sacrificed for system memorization, standardization and text space. Irony alert - I MIGHT actually be ok with spells = magic item function, if spells were PERFECTLY DEFINED - which they are not, so now your poor spell definition just infected you entire magic item system and functionality - bravo!
- Secondary abilities from class X that step on primary abilities of class Y
- Classes designed without consideration of their world environment, ex – some classes assume high magic, with a few other classes saddled with "build it so it can work" in that same world.
- Item Creation/Item Sales economy
- World breaking everyday magic without the discussion on how world breaking everyday magic does not break the world (spam: water creation, mending, etc).
- World breaking magic without the discussion on counters to deal with world breaking magic, i.e why do Castles have walls - or even exist, in a moderate (and higher) magic using world?
Too many other bad things to mention in great detail – poorly implemented DR system – one that does not support single foe encounters well or deal with action economy, x-mass tree effect, CR handcuffs and overly focused built in balance mechanics for encounters (too long to explain, I will if someone asks me ). No support for: gritty games, low magic games, heavy rp games, groups larger or smaller than 4, troupe style play, start to finish campaign play, horror based games (and rules that work), etc, etc
What I want is not really supported by this company or the set of people who play or post here. D20 is superior to the jumbled system which was 1st and 2nd ed, but only at its base mechanics.
Almost every other concept put out by wotc and paizo is a failure in achieving what I want out of this game. Paizo has some good ideas (which I in turn mangle), but using them as a source of material is becoming more and more infrequent – to contemplating giving up on d20 gaming altogether.
IMO THE MAJOR SYSTEM DESIGN FAILURE (Primarily to create a generic memorization scheme) FROM 3rd ED ON:
- Generic stat values every 2 points vs. a scaling chart (stat inflation) - which in turn leads to bonus inflation and subsequent magic item number games to keep up with the required math - when none of this was needed in the first place. They are numbers that represent a value; they could have managed the base numbers and ranges better - thus controlling the secondary consequences. A system is as easy or as complicated as they designed it to be, in the case of D20 it didn't seem like they thought out the consequences at all.
Imagine a system with a lower (tighter) range of bonuses - which in turn results in DC ranges that are better controlled at level, hp values are lower thus lowering the requirement for damage multiplers and enhancers, secondary magic numeric requirements disappear or are not required because a 9th level figther without a Cloak of Resistance +X is not doing it wrong.
Ah well.
Anyway, that is 1 page from my manifesto - it just gets worse further on out.
I'm sure I will get the "this isn't the game for you then" response - I'll save you the post. I already bought the books, so yeah - it's my game and I can "fix it" however I like.
I loved your post Auxmaulos. I wept Grognard tears for your point about potion descriptions. Nice one.
Mark,
Don't sweat it. I've been playing this game in some edition or another since I was nine.
I started where you did, and stole things I iked from others. You should do the same.
Yeah, seriously, don't apologise. The whole point in this thread is that people have different goals.
I actually really want to be able to do that kind of thing with Pathfinder, I just don't want it to be compulsory.
I particularly agree that generic magic items could use more character. I don't even know why they cut that potion stuff.
The one thing I can't get behind is your assertion that spells should be separated from the item system.
If spells can be written well enough, the solution is to improve them. That way we get the ease of use without the lack of balance or clarity. If spells cannot be written well enough, neither can unique item powers.
Well I've been playing the same way Rk2; started in AD&D/Basic at age 6, started GMing at 9, and here I am 30 years later. I've borrowed some of the fluff or gray from other editions of D&D, once in a while added some powers from Marvel Super Heroes or Villains & Vigilantes, but overall I've never messed with the mechanics of the game. Ever.
I felt like the system designers had my best interests at heart and they went through the playtesting; this thing must work. It wasn't until I got on these boards over the last couple years that I even realized there were frustrations like "the big 6", "the christmas tree effect" or "monks".
As for tinkering...who has the time? Well, you guys do apparently, but I unfortunately don't. I will admit I use nega-abe's strain/injury variant, I've toyed with other things on these boards, but I've never re-tooled my own stuff.
As far as a manifesto, I have only one thing in mine: connection. These games are collaborations between the players and the GM. I suppose I'd tinker more with the game if my players wanted me to; that's the only reason I've modified my own plotlines and homebrew adventures after all. But so long as they like the vanilla game mechanics that's how I'll roll.
Bottom line all the rules are secondary to the experience and I've seen many players at my table who forget that. Just as often GM's on these boards also ignore this point. But it's essential that no one fixates on one or the other, Roleplay OR mechanics.
I try things on the fly, see what sticks, and move on. For example if players came to me complaining of the generic nature of potions, I'd change the forms: open a vial of Vapours of Strength for a +4 to that stat - just make sure it's not windy! Or maybe I'd give them a potion and say it's just an odorless, tasteless sludge of constantly swirling color and only when they go to really identify it does it solidify; then I'd have them roll themselves and I'd tell them what it is from their roll, claiming it reacted to their will.
Bottom line I'm at the table to have fun. My fun comes from entertaining my players. Their job then is to BE entertained and if that's not happening then there's a disconnect somewhere. I want to make those connections, build a campaign, and in the process build a world. Since I'm s!*+e with math, I'll leave that up to the professionals.
I. Remember an ancie t video game where potions could not be ID'd, but you could examine them for color and taste.
I actually found myself making a chart with all the options, such that green and sweet meant one of three things, one of which was a fairly mean poison.
Love to find that somewhere.
Praise for Strain-Injury, huzzah! That really makes my day guys.
@Mark Hoover, don't be afraid to resurrect the Strain thread with your "gray area" issues. I run into issues with it myself periodically, but usually some discussion sorts it all out.
@Mark Hoover Again: There's nothing wrong with using the RAW. Experienced GMs tend to get more done within the framework of the rules. Heck, even when I house rule I try to change as little as possible. Sounds like you might be outperforming me there...
@Mortuum Re: Auto bonus with no AP: Honestly, if I'm running a homebrew campaign, magic level is not an issue. Game balance only concerns me when I'm running modules. Otherwise the solution is constant trial and error. We ran low-magic games for years and years without realizing how much below the "standard" we were. If the GM is attending to every facet of the world and the players take very little for granted, even the theorycrafter-type problems with full casters tend not to become a huge issue.
(IMO) CR is basically useless beyond a (very) ballpark comparison of monster power when you're reading a bestiary entry for the first time. The only time I need a rule to make sure the PCs are "on track" is when I don't control the direction of that track, like an AP.
@Aux: Amen! I'll add that I lament the loss of GM authority to simply filter what's in the rules. I think there was a lot more of that going on in previous editions, hence the eternal argument that things used to be lower magic, and the eternal rebuttal that "not they didn't, the game always had PCs needing +3 this and that". What happened was a shift in the tone of the rulebooks around 3e. The editorial tone made the players feel more entitled to lay claim to what was found in the rulebooks.
If you have a group that trusts you to filter the rules during gameplay, it's very easy to attain a darker, more atmospheric game. This relates directly to my point with Mort above. The trouble is, you can only achieve this if it is what your players actually want, and I think it is a common mistake among GMs to not even check with their players first.
For example, I have a player in my group who loves comic books, loves superheros, loves superpowers with heroes and villains flying about. If I didn't stop to consider my audience first, I'd houserule the game into a grimdark mostly historical fantasy, and that player would be miserable. Instead, thankfully, I realize that Pathfinder as it is works really well for his needs.
@ tall hat: how do you accomodate the superhero guy? I'd like to hear more since I'm obsessed with them too (watched every episode of Heroes yelling at the screen) and have a player that's into them as well. Did you give them superpowers or just create the mood of a comic book?
One thing I've done is drop little subtleties for mood. Examples include having an enemy wizard name off spell effects like the old X-men video game ("Scorching Ray!", "Darkensphere!"), use sound effects and soundbytes as I describe scenes ("he draws his dagger with a 'Snikt'", "She yells 'It's Clobberin Time!' as she drops into her barbarian rage"), or drop names such as Logan, Summers or Reed somewhere in the game.
Definitely nothing wrong with using RAW.
I've got a lot, lot of things planned. In playing in a Pathfinder rules (plus some 3.5 material) set in Eberron. I'm playing in a homebrew (mostly 3.5 core, with a bunch of specific added spells, feats, classes) in a historical setting. I'm playing in a pretty much RAW Kingmaker game that allows almost all PF material.
In addition, I'm building a semi-historical setting with magic. I intend to use Pathfinder rules mostly as-written, but with a level cap of 8 (currently debating between E8, with some "epic" feats, mythic rules, and just closing out campaigns around 8th level).
On top of that, my oldest setting is into what I think will be its final system (it's been a few custom systems, 3.5, PF, and even 4th edition), which is going to be built from scratch. I've got many of the ideas sketched out for this, but I haven't sat down and done the crunch of that system.
That setting is a grim, swords & sorcery setting; magic is rare (but can be quite powerful). But I also want the system I'm building for it to work in a higher magic setting (I expect to do this mostly by just having the swords & sorcery setting have a restricted list of powers which avoids all the overtly magical stuff). Since my goal is for character power to be mostly in the character, not in their equipment, I think I can pull this off. I have one friend I know will hate the system, and another who I know will love it (if I don't screw it up).
Evil Lincoln has a good point about GM authority. I've never had a problem with it; I always ask the GM if I'm looking to use anything even remotely controversial or not in the core book. But I can definitely agree with the change in tone from 2nd edition (earliest I've read) to 3rd; all sorts of material started to be player content rather than GM content, both in the more simulationist / physics model approach to the rules, and notions of expected WBL and the ability to mine out what numerical values the rules assume a character will have at a given level. I think it's probably only a real issue in the context of the general case, rather than specific groups. If I know who I'm playing with, I know who to ask what is and is not allowed. But if I'm sitting down to a pickup one-shot, say, I have no idea what is going to be allowed, and if I come with a pre-written character, I may be expecting something allowed in my normal groups that this GM doesn't allow.
@ tall hat: how do you accomodate the superhero guy
Easy, by playing Pathfinder! The game, as presented, is basically the game of tactical fantasy superheroism.
What really helps to set the mood for him, and in many ways helps to set people's expectations for Pathfinder RAW, is to set the advancement quartiles in superhero terms. Levels 1st-5th are "street level", levels 6th-12th are "x-men", levels 13+ are "justice league" etc.
But that's not so much about making superhero fans happy in Pathfinder, it's actually a really useful tool for setting the expectations of low-fantasy fans. If they know what they're signing on for, great... but there are some people who probably should be playing Burning Wheel or something instead. Sadly, these people can't always be convinced that Pathfinder just isn't good at capturing the low fantasy scenario.
I can definitely agree with the change in tone from 2nd edition (earliest I've read) to 3rd; all sorts of material started to be player content rather than GM content, both in the more simulationist / physics model approach to the rules, and notions of expected WBL and the ability to mine out what numerical values the rules assume a character will have at a given level. I think it's probably only a real issue in the context of the general case, rather than specific groups. If I know who I'm playing with, I know who to ask what is and is not allowed. But if I'm sitting down to a pickup one-shot, say, I have no idea what is going to be allowed, and if I come with a pre-written character, I may be expecting something allowed in my normal groups that this GM doesn't allow.
I will add that I don't think this editorial shift is an intrinsically bad thing, it is just counter to the expectations of some players and GMs. For some styles of play it is right on the mark.
But yes, this phenomenon is a major source of house rule madness.
|
|
If you have a group that trusts you to filter the rules during gameplay, it's very easy to attain a darker, more atmospheric game. This relates directly to my point with Mort above. The trouble is, you can only achieve this if it is what your players actually want, and I think it is a common mistake among GMs to not even check with their players first.
I totally agree with you EL, I guess my issue is that there is little to no modular aspects in 3rd edition as the rules were written. I think the d20 system is robust enough to handle variation - my big issue is that the base line (and following numbers) are too high.
To get a little more meta - wouldn't it have made more sense if the game started out (base stats, saves, damage, etc) with some very low numbers and if someone wanted to run a 3rd ed/PFRPG level of power in their games that they could just then add on more?That is part of my problem with the game - so many integrated design issues (starting with the range and frequency of stat modifiers) that any attempt to modify it will require:
Part I - severe baseline reengineering
-or-
Part II -compliant group willing to overlook mechanical restrictions, considerations and expectations (level of power at X PC level) of the current system
Maybe a mix of both. If you have a considerate group in part II, you just need to do less for part I to facilitate play (and hopefully some fun).
It just seems more trouble than it's worth to strip out the high powered stuff (for me at least) to get to the baseline - and then make the kind game that facilitates kind of play that you and your group are looking for, but it's uphill work and I will bring up the x-mass tree fix as a point:
Both systems (the xmass tree fix and my fix which is similar) are fixing and addressing the required numbers assumption.
We are making sure that PCs and NPCs are compliant with the math at expected level - which is more or less a band-aid to the system if yod do not want the level of gear which the math demands. I'm not knocking these "fixes" - my players like the fact that they don't need a new sword every few levels. They can try to find a replacement blade if the one they have been using doesn't fit the feel they want, but their swords, cloaks, wands, armor, rings, etc, all scale at different points in the hands of heroic users (the PCs or NPCs of level).
My issue (to restate) is why do we have to add in and modify stuff to accommodate the high numbers in the first place?
Shouldn't a good game system have a tweakable power line: at the 0 mark it would be a low magic/power game plus challenges, where it can be reduced to a no magic/gritty game at -1, or ramped up to +5 spider man/silver surfer (same game, just at higher levels) superhero game?
The current ruleset (going back to 2000) is default +5 game level of play, it just isn't as noticeable at lower levels - but that high end play is there in the spells. What I would have to do (or someone who wants my style of play) is to modify the existing system by ramping the built-in assumptions down a few pegs.
Adding something to a system - hard, taking something out where the entire system assumes a value - very damn hard.
To someone who knows how to do this, you have your work cut out for you and I hope you have a patient group (I do). For someone with a lower understanding of game design and system functionality or someone newer to the system it would be nigh impossible and problematic - they may yearn for a "feel" for a game they want to play, and then they will plod around with system mods, changes, variant rules and mistakes (removing all magic items for low magic game, etc) while trying to capture that elusive feel – possibly ruining the game for their group forever.
A good game system would say, "here is how you get this feel, and how to get that feel"(what to add or subtract, and have a clean baseline to work from) while using this bare bones system. We don't have that with 3rd ed and its derivatives.
On the issue of knowing your players
So I had to go back to the drawing board (so to speak) and remove a ton of material (I will use this stuff for variant campaigns, but not the base game). So I knew what I wanted - the most detailed bestest evah post apocalyptic game. My players told me otherwise and I realized that being able to play this legendary game (that isn't finished) is better than working on it for another 20 years. That playing and having fun is more important than perfection or my notion of perfection.
So you have to run and design to an audience – probably should be the number 1 rule. I just wish that when the made 3rd ed, that they had would have made a better baseline to operate from.
I appreciate this thread - and I like the fact that we have not attacked each other. I don't care if we agree or disagree on specifics - the fact that this discussion can occur - with all angles presented and without attacks is a good thing. Maybe my negative views on the current system can be alleviated with some sage advice and nuanced suggestions by some smart and system savvy posters here, and then I can put down the sledgehammer (it’s gotten so heavy over the years). It's good to see that other people at least understand the need or desire for something else, even if they not have not changed the system and run it RAW (and there is nothing wrong with that).
My issue (to restate) is why do we have to add in and modify stuff to accommodate the high numbers in the first place?
I agree with everything you said, but I think one point got lost in the mix: You only have to do this if you're running a module and you don't want to make adjustments.
If you never touch a module and you don't rely on CR to assign challenges (which may mean you level PCs by fiat) then it is absolutely trivial to just filter the game features that come down to the players. You can do low-magic or even no-magic Pathfinder with trial and error. It may turn out that a troll is closer to CR 7 or 8 instead, but if you're not blindly following CR that doesn't matter... you know how much damage your non-magic PCs put out, and how much they can soak up, and you eyeball it.
Very few of the issues around a low-magic game are unique. They all crop up in the prison scenario even in high magic games, where the players lose all their gear!
Personally, I think it's cool to do a game that way, but a lot of people seem to think of CR as the game, instead of a GM-aid.
And I'd like to answer that question again in an alternative way :)
My issue (to restate) is why do we have to add in and modify stuff to accommodate the high numbers in the first place?
Because 3e was never supposed to be flexible. It was meant to be innovative D&D, not an innovative Role-Playing Game. We had decades of innovation in RPGs that got clobbered when 3e came out. This is a nostalgia game we're working with, and it shows to the very core.
Hopefully we will find that Ultimate Campaign presents some of these excellent ideas in 'official' form.
I'd love to get back to 'old school' (not needing the XMas Tree/Big 6 items) where you got what you got - or painstakingly figured out that 'red kool-aid potions are good, green gatorade potions are poison, we still don't know what banana daquiri potions do' (or the specific formulae to enchant a Hammer of Thunderbolts [before it became a minor artifact]). I am hoping that UC addresses at least some of these concerns and homebrew ideas in an acceptable fashion!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue (to restate) is why do we have to add in and modify stuff to accommodate the high numbers in the first place?I agree with everything you said, but I think one point got lost in the mix: You only have to do this if you're running a module and you don't want to make adjustments.
If you never touch a module and you don't rely on CR to assign challenges (which may mean you level PCs by fiat) then it is absolutely trivial to just filter the game features that come down to the players. You can do low-magic or even no-magic Pathfinder with trial and error. It may turn out that a troll is closer to CR 7 or 8 instead, but if you're not blindly following CR that doesn't matter... you know how much damage your non-magic PCs put out, and how much they can soak up, and you eyeball it.
I agree that you can fix things on the back end vs. the front end (challenges, creature stats and DC vs. lowering mod values of PCs). Again though we are talking about modification and now we are assuming a good understanding of system mechanics and expectations (and a few other things). I can make a troll with DR 10/- or a scaling damage absorption system based on percentage (what I use for certain encounters Ex 50% less damage from +0 weapons, 25% less from +1, and 0% less from +2 or greater weapons), greater hp (to challenge the incoming vs. outgoing damage, and how many rounds I want the fight to last) while keeping its save values in a good range where a level appropriate (for the sake of this argument) challenge has an expected success/failure rate on saves. I can do all that and the troll may go up and down in CR value (when compared to the current system) - but like you said, who cares? The point is an eyeballed, level and risk appropriate challenge for the PCs.
The issue with this approach is that it also requires some major tweaking - it's just done on the back end. So you would still need a new range of DCs for skill checks (challenges) and new creature values (challenges). This would also go for any hazard/traps in the game - part of their values still need to be in accessible range for the PCs to deal with, while other values may vary wildly because you are adjusting things based on these new considerations.
Personally, with that kind of re-write I would rather just change the stat values across the board - see what comes out of that (lower ACs, lower hps, less stat manipulations since the ranges for bonus value are greater). That is the approach I am taking, if I am going to go with my re-write of the game: Auxmaulous' Dungeons & Dragons - (aka, AD&D, see how brilliant I am?) then I am going to really re-write the game and reduce the variables, damage stackers, etc. If I want to make it super powered I can tack on those values later - but I am going for a lower baseline in actual numeric values as a start.
I think your approach (preserve the core values, just adjust the interactions and challenges) is very viable, valid and as a fix would probably be easier and appeal to sane people. It would require dealing with everything on a case by case level (creature/hazard/trap/challenge), but it's probably the most practical approach to a workable fix.
Very few of the issues around a low-magic game are unique. They all crop up in the prison scenario even in high magic games, where the players lose all their gear!
My sympathy meter for non-functional 3rd ed/PFRPG characters without gear is on empty.
These scenarios show exactly how limited the system is in facilitating challenges beyond the assumed (and imo, hand held) function of the game. Someone who complains about this is akin to a guy who drives a very big car, talks about how great his big car is, doesn't have money for the gas it takes and then is stuck on the side of the road when his big car is out of fuel. Equipment dependency is a symptom and side-effect of bad math required to play the game. I shouldn't say bad, I should say high and swingy. The devs should have looked at this in 2000, 2003 and 2008 with their respective games. My point is, make the numbers mostly internal, make outside variables smaller and you have fixed a large number of problems in the game. Of course after a ton of re-stating everything. I guess that's what game companies are for? IDK anymore.Personally, I think it's cool to do a game that way, but a lot of people seem to think of CR as the game, instead of a GM-aid.
I wish the devs for the various incarnations of the game had your design philosophy.
My issue (to restate) is why do we have to add in and modify stuff to accommodate the high numbers in the first place?Because 3e was never supposed to be flexible. It was meant to be innovative D&D, not an innovative Role-Playing Game. We had decades of innovation in RPGs that got clobbered when 3e came out. This is a nostalgia game we're working with, and it shows to the very core.
I agree with your argument, but disagree with the actual course and outcome of events during the 1st ed AD&D/basic all the way up to 1999. Let me explain: You are right, this is a legacy game with it's own weird, inconstant and game specific bizarre rules. Here's the thing though - older editions were open enough that you could add things to facilitate play. Some of the class or race specific restrictions (ex: clerics and edged weapons) were semi-fluff if mechanical, in all cases they were not hard coded into THACO, Saves, etc. THACO was hard coded and saves were hard coded - but you could get by with low modifiers on all accounts. 3rd edition doesn't work that way unless you make changes on the back end (Save DCs, etc).
Second point: Pathfinder and 3rd ed were not the logical next step for for 2nd edition AD&D.
Hell, Daemonslye had a working conversion of the 1st ed Players handbook with D20 considerations put in as he re-wrote each section section of the book - as a forum board project. That fun little thought exercise looked more like it could be AD&D 3 than the offering we received in 2000. I don't think that removing charts and specific values for stats was the next logical step - it was the WotC step and path they took to streamline the game (where it didn't need it) but it wasn't consistent with the system design philosophy which existed prior.
And to the point of nostalgia - yeah, I'll admit it (we're all being honest here, I have checked my ego at the door) that's a HUGE part of what drives me. It can also be that some aspect that we (I) am nostalgic for what actually worked. Like the potion miscibility table, or non-spell specific descriptions of magic items in the DMG (not a wand of Fireballs but a wand of Fire). I do miss that stuff, but alot of what I miss, while not perfect and a bit archaic by game standards today (mechanically) still worked. They worked well. I said earlier that I think the bare bones of d20 is a good system for fantasy gaming, I think it's better than the mechanics that existed in earlier editions - but that's where I draw the line. The earlier editions had a better grasp on the magical, mysterious and more dangerous feel that this game should provide. To me 3rd ed and PFRPG are not really part of the D&D legacy (re: to me), it took me a few years to figure that out about 3rd edition, and then a few years about PFRPG.
I think that if a OGL d20 version of 2nd ed was written, that is a true d20 version of AD&D - using the streamlined system advances while keeping the detail of older editions - I think that version of the game would crush PFRPG, 3rd ed, 4th and D&DNEXT.
Because the last 4 I mentioned all deviate so much from the source material that something closer to the original, yet using a more innovative mechanic would win out. From a purist gaming standpoint of course - not talking money spent on marketing, etc, just talking about what would be the better, if not best game using the d20 system.
I wanted 3rd to be it, I really wanted PFRPG to be it – but they are not. I know there are a ton of old school games out there – what I would like to see is AD&D3. Take the good system stuff of 3rd ed and even some good ideas from PFRPG, and chuck the rest. Check the stat modifier system as it exists and subsequently reduce the baseline numbers game.
The math of the d20 system is also really, really dubious in some cases. If you want the style of the old games, but you don't want standardisation, why take the standardised system and accept the clunky full attack system and crazy spell scaling, for example?
Personally I always think the solution to the systemic problems of a game is an eventual new edition. I don't mean a new system, which is what Wizards gives us, but a real attempt at a new version of an existing game.
I think 4E is deeply flawed, but 4E second edition could be close to the perfect game. With a total re-release and compatibility as a secondary issue, they could produce a players handbook which didn't transport grognards into fits of rage, a skill system that worked and a monster manual that worked as intended on day 1. But they never will.
Pathfinder did a damn good job of emulating a new edition of 3E, but without access to materials outside of core and such a big focus on compatibility, it was hamstrung.
2E looks pretty crazy to me, but there's no reason why you couldn't apply modern standards of design without reworking the game from the ground up. Maybe it's just personal taste, but system conversions have never appealed to me. The result is always a truly different beast, and the more it tries to be like the original, the less true it is to itself.
|
|
The math of the d20 system is also really, really dubious in some cases. If you want the style of the old games, but you don't want standardisation, why take the standardised system and accept the clunky full attack system and crazy spell scaling, for example?
I wouldn't. What I would keep would be:
-Increasing AC numeric value (vs 10 to -10)(easier to track, not a closed system, helps for mid to higher level play by allowing numbers to scale)-Increasing save values which are used against a difficulty value (I would and tremendous fail, low fail, succeed, and great success to all DC checks. No binary win/lose or win, so you only take 1/2 damage instead of full. On a great success you would take no damage.
-Feat System (like the concept, but values and functionality over level would be redesigned). Core concept can work. Some semi-feats (rogue tricks) and traits would also be used to help define and customized characters without going overboard on power/breaking the game.
-Skill system (with success ranges similar to saves up above) to facilitate tasks.
A few other small things (CMB stuff) and that's about it. I would strip out pretty much everything else.
Full attack would be changed to something more flexible - a reinterpretation of what worked in 1st or 2nd and not just stand still and getting extra attacks at -5 per beyond 1st attack. There would also be more robust use of manuvers available as part of a core attack routine.
Crazy spell scaling would be checked. In my low mod preferred system you get less spells (since IN 20 in my version would not grant as many spells as IN 20 in 3rd/PF) and DC would be fall in a fixed range based on spell level. So no wacky spell DC spikes because of 3 feats + Item, + buff + trait. If a spell is at a certain level it will have a range of success or failure that is level appropriate with some deviation.
Also spells would be nerfed hard - something that even 1st and 2nd failed to do: spells will not step on other classes abilities - period.
Crazy spell scaling is assuming quadratic wizard - I would allow casters a good degree of daily customization at a price: Spell risk, spell cost and casting risks (i.e. being a caster and not being as good at fighting) in combat.
Without getting into my specifics, I think the core d20 system can be salvaged for me as a working mechanic for AD&D. Don't get that confused with me thinking that d20 gaming is the best, it isn't IMO. I prefer percentile systems - Chill, Gamma World (1985), Cthulhu, Star Frontiers. D20 is clunky, and the 5% per pip on the die is too constricting. But, from a nostalgic and classic perspective I think using the d20 system to run a good D&D game is a reasonable goal. D20 can work for fantasy gaming.
Personally I always think the solution to the systemic problems of a game is an eventual new edition. I don't mean a new system, which is what Wizards gives us, but a real attempt at a new version of an existing game.
I agree - but I don't think you need to scrap a core mechanic because you are trying to make something "new". Example: I really think the d20 system was an improvement over older D&D systems - and by that I mean the 4 bullet points at the opening of my posts (Feats, Saves, open AC, Skills), what they did with those changes when they transitioned to 3rd was not new edition - but a new system. To clarify: The 4 big changes I like with d20 were not ground shaking radical changes. For the most part two of them where numerical inversions (AC and Saves) while the DC system just makes more sense than rolling under a stat to succeed.
Where they made it a new system is all the radical changes - increased stat values (12 and every 2 points thereafter) generic stat values - 16 to 20 to 24 is only separated by a few bonus points. The amount of required gear/feats to keep up with target value inflation (ex: saves), so if you are not exercising system mastery (the right gear, the right feat) you will be pushed off the numbers cliff. That wasn't the case in other editions of D&D. The fact that numbers are subject to so much manipulation - way out of acceptable challenge range - is a MAJOR SYSTEM FAILURE.I think 4E is deeply flawed, but 4E second edition could be close to the perfect game. With a total re-release and compatibility as a secondary issue, they could produce a players handbook which didn't transport grognards into fits of rage, a skill system that worked and a monster manual that worked as intended on day 1. But they never will.
I disliked 4e for alot of personal reasons and acrimony towards Wotc - the apparent money making scheme, the attempt at capturing the MMO audience while alienating their base, etc, etc. But there were some very good aspects to 4e - their attempt at fixing healing was at least innovative and lent itself to heroic playing, sans needed gear. I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn't like all of their power systems - because they were a rip-off of way Gamma World mutations were handled. You have X and Y powers you can use at different rates - that is pretty much Gamma World mutations from editions 1-4 of GW. I didn't like the gimmicky boardgame aspects of the powers (I can see pushing a guy away with an arrow strike, but pulling him closer) - that was a failure in execution.
2E looks pretty crazy to me, but there's no reason why you couldn't apply modern standards of design without reworking the game from the ground up.
I will probably port 2nd over to 3rd.
I don't know if it will be crap, a mess or what.
All fair enough, though I never saw the movement-based powers in 4E as a gimmick, it's just they were far more concerned with what needed to be done mechanically than they were with making sense. There's that infamous rogue power in the core rulebook that represents throwing dirt at the enemy, for example. Obviously that was stupid, but people always seemed to read it an indication of the game's philosophy, when really they just invented a mechanic and thought of a poor excuse to justify it.
If you find the d20 clunky, why not do away with it? Changing D&D to a percentile system is as easy as multiplying by 5 and you'll be changing all the bonuses etc anyway.
Most of your changes sound fine, though I wonder what will be left of the spells after you're done. No invisibility? No flight? No combat self-buffs? No damaging touch attacks? All these things tread on the roles of other classes by making their scores and skills irrelevant or doing their job in combat.
Magic isn't a role, it's a style that can potentially perform any role. Every role is covered by a non-magical ability of some kind, so practically any spell steps on somebody's toes and always will. The problem is the rules treat magic as a role in itself, which means one character can use it for anything.
I strongly recommend making casters chose a defined role, rather than stripping out all that iconic stuff.
|
|
If you find the d20 clunky, why not do away with it? Changing D&D to a percentile system is as easy as multiplying by 5 and you'll be changing all the bonuses etc anyway.
One of my players is re-writing his own version of D&D - really, his own game - as a percentile based system. He enjoyed a few of the alt games I ran using different system years ago -and he thinks the D20 system is crap and too restrictive. I think its restrictive, but there really isn't a need for me to dump the d20 for the d100. My goal is to improve the game to a true 3rd ed, not reinvent it.
Most of your changes sound fine, though I wonder what will be left of the spells after you're done. No invisibility? No flight? No combat self-buffs? No damaging touch attacks? All these things tread on the roles of other classes by making their scores and skills irrelevant or doing their job in combat.
You haven't read my posts on how I would change magic. I wouldn't dump all the class ability intruding spell flat out I would change them. I'll give invisibility as an example:
If cast on someone with Stealth as a class skill the spell would make the the target: Invisible, and give them a bonus to stealth but stealth would still not be considered a class skill (so what you could do with it, even with a score of 30 at level 1, is limited to a guy with the actual class skill+ranks and him having a score of say 5). You attack or cast a spell - invisibility wears off.If cast on someone with Stealth as a class spell - the stealth bonus will bump his Stealth level to another tier of proficiency (skills will have numbers and tier categories -novice, proficient, expert, teacher, master, etc), bump his numbers and that stealth guy can make a check (a hard one) to KEEP the invisibility on if he were to attack while enchanted with it.
So now the wizard can cast invisibility on himself with no guarantee of non-detection (it would help, but not be reliable) or he can cast it on the rogue who will murder with the spell while the spell is on him. Same with knock, silence, and a few dozen other spells.
I will have what I call prime stats for each class, and the notion of class skills will be more than how much raw numbers tsack (raw numbers wont really mean s@~$ in my system - access to a skill, training and prime stat will be more critical.
|
|
Edit to my first paragraph on my last post regarding class skills and spells - it s should read "someone WITHOUT a class skill" for the less effective version of the spell. So cast on a wizard without stealth as a class skill - makes him invisible but stealth bonus and interaction is limited. The second paragraph would be if was cast on a Rogue.
Skill hierarchy
Class skill
Non class skill with ranks
Untrained (aka wizard with silence or invisibility)
Skill tiers:
Novice
Proficient
Expert
Teacher
Master
Auxmaulous, that actually makes a lot of sense.
Set, that has the opposite effect, sadly. It makes the game less random, which means each point of bonus becomes worth more.
I'm actually a fan of the swinginess of the 1d20. It creates a world in which phenomenal success and catastrophic failure are both inevitable in a career of any length.
I like more bell curved systems too, but this is one of the charms of Pathfinder, I think.
Yeah, bell curves have their place. They even have their place in D&D/Pathfinder at times (like I said up in my design philosophy post, I think the game should be adaptable and adapted).
Generally though, I think they'd only serve to make the math troubles of Pathfinder more impacting and the memorable moments fewer and further between.
Usually I prefer them, but I'd only use them in pathfinder if I was trying to keep the game very low power and down to earth without leaving player survival to chance.
You know, if anyone is looking for 1e, 2e feel in a game, just go join the OSR revolution. The game you're dreaming about already exists and is being played.
I really think Luke Crane has a point, there are so many games out there, that the time spent rewriting huge sections of rules would be better spent searching for a game that already does what you want.
My current favorite is from Dungeon Crawl Classics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, if anyone is looking for 1e, 2e feel in a game, just go join the OSR revolution. The game you're dreaming about already exists and is being played.
I really think Luke Crane has a point, there are so many games out there, that the time spent rewriting huge sections of rules would be better spent searching for a game that already does what you want.
My current favorite is from Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Pass
I'd rather go the route of making the 3rd edition of AD&D that should have been created - not what Wotc offered in 2000 and not some retro clone.
As I have stated before - the core mechanics (and only the core mechanics) that 3rd ed was designed around were superior to older mechanics - the removal of hidden stats from creatures + advent of creature templates and improvable stats are superior to what existed prior - why would I want to go back to inferior mechanics? For me what makes the game was the challenge and feel - the mechanics are just an aspect of nostalgia that the OSR is trying to cash in on - my players and I want a smarter and more challenging game than 3rd or PFRPG (which is the easiest incarnation of the game since it came out) with mechanics that are superior to OSR - we already played with most of those mechanics for years.
For me it would be easier to rewrite the base game to a true 3rd edition, convert my existing material and get it right instead of a half-measure by picking up a system that may offer only 75% of a fix of what I am looking for.
I'm at the point that it's a re-write of just quit D&D based gaming and focus on other game systems.
Set, that has the opposite effect, sadly. It makes the game less random, which means each point of bonus becomes worth more.
That's exactly what some people like about that mod. Some of us loathe and detest the flat statistics of 1d20. Unearthed Arcana went into a bit more detail, but the crux of the matter is this:
Randomness is inversely proportional to the players' involvement with the game. That is, when the game is more random, the choices and abilities of the players and their characters matter less. Some people are amused by the wacky coincedences produced by absurd crits (You stick your head in your Bag of Holding when you crit-fail your Perception... srsly?), or the thrill of the game being unpredictable. But some of us are intensely annoyed when a single bad roll means doom for a beloved character, or outraged frustration when a trivial task is suddenly botched.
So which do you value more -- the experience of the players and the ability to tell a story about heroes? Or the power trip of the DM who wants to throw hell at your level 1 PCs just to watch the splatter?
I tend to hold with the first view. What are you playing the game for if not to play the game?
Why is that not a tautology? Because it is entirely possible to build suspense, to surprise your players and to make their world difficult and dangerous without arbitrary, random chance making sudden decrees. Player success and failure should be based on the choices the player makes -- not on dice.
The wise path, I say, is to carefully monitor and control which elements of the game are random, and the distribution curve of that randomness. If more GMs had some statistics courses under their belt, the community would be happier.
I am definitely a fan of the 3d6 modification shown in Unearthed Arcana. I'm also a huge fan of removing the Big Six, slower campaigns and Psionics. I enjoy Pathfinder more than 3.5 because I see it as an iterative improvement in the game's balance, but I am also adamant that Paizo didn't do as good a job as they could/should have in making this iteration.
I'd love to see another iteration on Pathfinder, but I think it's unlikely in the extreme to ever hit shelves.
I understand where you're coming from. I should, being an Amber Diceless game master and a Nobilis fan (though I'm yet to actually play Nobilis).
In this case though, there are balance-based arguments against bell-curve rolls. Some would argue that every point of bonus is too important already. If we make them even more powerful, better characters pull further ahead, boring magic items pull further ahead of quirky ones, the average encounter gets easier and easy encounters become pointless.
Randomness does not always reduce the impact of skill and decision making either. It introduces uncertainty and dealing with uncertainty is a testable skill. Look at world series poker for example.
Random but player influenced results are also entertaining. That's why the rest of the gambling industry thrives; it's not only held up by morons, people are willing to pay the price of admission for their game.
Finally, putting some important decisions in the hands of the dice can make bad things happen in fair ways. A die is a cold hearted little bastard and can provide danger without the GM having to judge you unworthy and kill your character. I have played in campaigns with no danger and I don't want to waste my time doing it again, but I don't want to just DECIDE to kill my players either.
That power trip GM you describe? Without sufficient randomness, he'll just kill you in an arbitrary manner and tell you it's your fault. Next thing you know, you've beaten him unconscious with the CRB, gone to prison for it, got yourself addicted to heroine and joined a gang just to keep safe. Or just had a bad evening, whichever.
Now, where I can see bell-curve rolls really working is in a heavily house ruled, gritty, low fantasy campaign. The kind where getting wounded by goblins has serious consequences, high CR encounters are supposed to be disasters and vanilla bonus magic items don't exist.
That or if they mostly stayed out of combat and were just used for skills and ability checks.
In this case though, there are balance-based arguments against bell-curve rolls. Some would argue that every point of bonus is too important already. If we make them even more powerful, better characters pull further ahead, boring magic items pull further ahead of quirky ones, the average encounter gets easier and easy encounters become pointless.
This is a matter of mere math. The magnitude of bonuses from items is trivial to re-balance, and even more trivial to control as the DM (who has ultimate power over what items become available and when). It does make magical items more powerful -- which is a bonus. If you're tired of a shopping list of magical gear that you "must have", then those same items become much more of a "feel good" reward if your character manages to earn one, which is above and beyond the mechanical benefits of having that extra +1. Again, it's trivial to simply re-scale the drop rate of Rings of Protection and so on in order to reign in characters' power growth. Don't just assume that one change is ever to be made in a vacuum.
It would be asinine to go through the trouble of using 3d6 instead of 1d20 but then balk at the simple decision of whether or not put a Ring of Protection +5 in that treasure pile.
Randomness does not always reduce the impact of skill and decision making either. It introduces uncertainty and dealing with uncertainty is a testable skill. Look at world series poker for example.
You misrepresent me, sir. =P
I did not say that randomness shouldn't have any effect whatsoever, I said that player success and failure should not be based on random chance. The degree of success or failure can certainly be affected by a certain amount of randomness (and I think the Bell Curve is by far the best, most satisfying and easiest model to use at the table), after all, people expect to roll dice and the suspense of watching them tumble is one of the primary "carrots" of playing the game.
Random but player influenced results are also entertaining. That's why the rest of the gambling industry thrives; it's not only held up by morons, people are willing to pay the price of admission for their game.
Yeah -- player influenced results are entertaining. But when you have just as much a chance of spectacular failure as success (for example, if you're forced to play with one of the many many groups who use a nat 1 as an auto-crit-fail for every damn thing...), it very easily becomes sigh-inducing. You see, there's a famous "lie" in statistics. Many people see a nat 1 as being "only a 5% chance to fail", little realizing that the die has just as much a chance of landing on 1 as any other number. Yes, over the course of an arbitrary number of rolls, you should see 2-20 showing up a larger total number of times -- but this does not mean that you can rely on your character's skills just because they provide you a bonus to your total result. In other words, any given roll, evaluated on its own, has no predictability, and it would take an infinite number of rolls before you can say that the result is certain. The best you can ever do is tally up the results of past rolls and then make a bet about the future, but that's still only just a bet and there's nothing about chance that says you won't ever roll fifty ones in a row.
In real life, we don't expect to have to deal with our feet spontaneously sinking into the concrete as we walk along, even though such an event is perfectly possible given the understanding of physics we currently have. We don't expect this to happen because real life doesn't follow a flat probability distribution. We expect a far greater degree of reliability in the outcomes of our actions than just a single d20 can simulate.
Finally, putting some important decisions in the hands of the dice can make bad things happen in fair ways. A die is a cold hearted little bastard and can provide danger without the GM having to judge you unworthy and kill your character. I have played in campaigns with no danger and I don't want to waste my time doing it again, but I don't want to just DECIDE to kill my players either.
That power trip GM you describe? Without sufficient randomness, he'll just kill you in an arbitrary manner and tell you it's your fault. Next thing you know, you've beaten him unconscious with the CRB, gone to prison for it, got yourself addicted to heroine and joined a gang just to keep safe. Or just had a bad evening, whichever.
Wow, can I see your tats? =P
But really, as I said, the degree of success or failure is fine to modulate with a bit of randomness, but the actual success or failure should still be determined by the player -- not the GM or the dice. The GM is there to arbitrate and enforce the rules, not to play as adversary to the players.
It's probably a difference in style of gameplay at the table. If a player makes an unwise decision, is just bad at tactics, or even just gambles wrong -- it should still be the player's decision to make and they should endure the consequences of it. Yes, I believe that a cautious (paranoid) player who takes advantage of available time should be able to mitigate the danger to his character to whatever extent his character's resources allow. That's just rewarding the player for enjoying the game in his own way -- and that's the essence of good game design. In practice, players will make foolish or rash moves, they'll evaluate circumstances poorly, they'll just do all sorts of things whether intentionally or not. So a cruel GM will always have plenty of opportunity to make Bad Things happen to the PCs.
But aren't the PCs supposed to be able to overcome their trials? I mean, they won't always, but shouldn't they be able to without a silly die popping up to negate whatever decisions their players make? This is a fundamental assumption that the table should agree on before play begins. And I could soapbox ad infinitum about it.
Now, where I can see bell-curve rolls really working is in a heavily house ruled, gritty, low fantasy campaign. The kind where getting wounded by goblins has serious consequences, high CR encounters are supposed to be disasters and vanilla bonus magic items don't exist.
Probably a bit of an extreme, but I doubt it would play worse than the RAW. The idea is that you adjust for the greater reliability of the dice with the increased danger of the campaign -- which is basically exactly as outlined in Unearthed Arcana.
That or if they mostly stayed out of combat and were just used for skills and ability checks.
That's also trivial to implement. It's actually just not implementing the modification during combat.
You misrepresent me, sir. =P
No sir, you misrepresent me! I wasn't talking about a total lack of randomness either. I just meant that reducing randomness inherently means taking away some of that kind of skill, so "randomness reduces player involvement" is not necessarily true. I know you're not advocating the removal of all randomness.
One approach to randomness I like is allowing players to take risks. Take Dogs in the Vineyard as an example. It's difficult to killed in that game without deciding "Yes, I want to put my life on the line to win this encounter."
The system is that each side of a conflict has a stated goal which they achieve if they win. That goal is very rarely to kill somebody; If the players want someone dead, they'll probably hope to capture them and have them executed later, while most of their enemies just want to successfully commit their crime, or for the party to get lost or switch sides.
Where it gets interesting is either side can surrender at any point and let the others have their way. The longer you fight, the more problems and injuries build up as a result of the conflict, the worst possibility being death.
The randomness does dictate whether or not you die, but only if you risk it. However, it can dictate whether you will need to risk death in order to win.