Recently, I played a game of 3.5 with a group whose only experience was with 4E. We had all met during Encounters and they wanted to try something different. We rolled up characters and decided to play without a battle map or minis. It ended up being very short but very heavy roleplaying session, with there being a very clear disconnect for the new players but they adjusted. Overall, everyone had a good time.
4E definitely lends itself to a particular style of play. Maybe "modular" isn't the word, but I found that most turns involve very sequential action; you move, you attack, you roll dice. It can tremendously satisfying when a well-orchestrated set of maneuvers is executed well. Similarly, this was difficult for me to pick up on coming from 3.5 and Pathfinder. Needless to say, I made a lot of happy accidents in the beginning.
I found that it is my preferred playstyle for a casual two hour game. Most often times though, I prefer something with a little more narrative. I run a regular bi-weekly Pathfinder game that has been going on for over a year. It is very hack-n-slash and the players do a great job at describing their actions in combat. Some times though, especially for longer combats, it has a tendency to degenerate into sequential actions and begins to feel a lot like something else.
I guess after all of that I would like to know is do you have a preferred style of play? Do you like it when the players tell where exactly they're going to swing their axe? Do you prefer minis and a battle map? Have you found that you go between the two?
i love roleplaying heavy games. They are so much more fun than just rolling dice all the time. And they have so much more potential for comedy.
That being said i can't really deliver on that as a GM because i'm not a very good actor nor very good at characterization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite kind of gaming is one where you're not rushed... You have plenty of time to drink in the environment and explore at your leisure. Nowadays the fact that people are more impatient than they used to be coupled with the fact that you can typically only game once a week instead of every day like you did when you were a kid means most game sessions feel like an episode of american gladiators or ninja warrior or at worst, that other japanese gameshow wipeout.
Run! Surprise! Bonk! Dead!
Har har har. Thats gotta hurt. Now our next contestant to the exact same gauntlet of misery and humiliation blah blah blah...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the battle mat. Gives me a reference point for where I am as a player.
I hate the battle mat. It's more work for me to draw things as a GM.
I like it when the players talk to me, the Dungeon Master, and to each other, in character. That doesn't happen as often as you'd think.
^Also that.
|
Role play heavy! We try and breeze through combat as quick as we can. We use battle mat for combats too because we love painting minis. Combat as war is essential to our play style.
While the group likes 1-20 play I'm kind of odd man out. I would prefer a E6 up to maybe E9. Since I get to play those levels anyways, I can deal with the wonky levels.
As a PC
Love rp and doing the unexpected in game. Out-think, outwit, out-play and go in hard when the timing is right. Solo parts if need be or people are lazy. If you fail, at least you died gloriously. I look down upon crafters and optimisers that rely on bookwork, slot-filling and number crunching to win instead of tactics and risk-taking.
Great, you sit back and win wizard, what a hero.
We NEED the battle mat. Just trying to describe where everything is at is sometimes impossible and also impossible to describe where our characters are at. We have characters with Flight and boots of spider climb, so it helps to have some means to visualize where the characters are at.
One of our GMs LOVES to Narrate. He gets into the description, though I think he is not as good as he wants to be, in part because of the strange names he runs into. We the players don't much get into the roleplaying much. The GM likes to do this thing where he introduces strange food at different cities. For example, in the city of Freeport (3.5) He set out a bunch of specific snacks. I didn't know what was going on, so when I sat down I took the chocolate bar. I lost a bunch of gold because in Freeport Chocolate was almost never found. I turned it around and made it such that my character loved this stuff and couldn't get enough of it. It became a roleplaying thing and the group loved it every time I brought it out.
The GM continues with the Strange food to this day.
I prefer roleplay-heavy games. Honestly, my favorite sessions, both as a player and as a GM, are ones with no combat at all. I like to role-play first-person, both as a player ans as a GM.
That said, it's not D&D/PF without a good fight now and again, and I like to make those tactically challenging, so when we do have a combat, we use a map and minis. Or, more accurately, a VTT. (We use MapTool currently, but I'm investigating moving over to Roll20.)
Personally I prefer a little of both RP and combat. I tend to think of PFRPG (or most other TTRPG really) as 2 different games in one.
One is a straight up role playing game with lots of narritive and a bit of acting on the players parts.
And every now and then screen blurs and the FF battle music starts to play and its time to get out the minis and battle mat and play the minitures/board game aspect.
Occasionally they overlap IE: incombat dialog or rolling checks out of combat etc. This is also why I make it a point to make characters that are both fun to RP and combat effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always liked a casual game with a bit of roleplay and a bit of combat. Games that go completely towards pacifism bore me, and games that go totally to combat feel like they missed the point. I usually enjoy when sessions are around 3-4 hours, once played with someone who thought 10 hours to 2 days in a row was doable by everyone. Wasn't for me! I hate plots about intrigue or the end of the world, and enjoy a plot about having fun and the thrill of adventure. I enjoy the battle map because I like seeing the field set out and some things to interact with, rather than ask where the nearest chandalier is. It also really helps me keep track of whats going on as a visual aid.
I dont like lots of roleplaying, but story is very important to me. I prefer battlemats when it's combat time but not outside of combat (part of the reason I dont understand the requests for townspeople minis).
I havent found any significant difference in playstyle when we play PF/4E/S&W or DCC (as we are currently). However, there are certainly systems I prefer, so presumably that's the same thing (ie some systems suit our playstyle better and we just dont change our style, regardless of the system).
i personally like a game that is less restrictive and allows for more leeway in creativity and rules options.
i do a lot of odd concepts you just can't do by the rules
such examples do things like using dervish dance with non-scimitar weapons like the dagger, wakazashi, rapier, or longsword or things like paladins of chaotic good or lawful neutral alignment.
other examples include creating custom animal companion style stats for wyvern mounts for a cavalier reskinned as a fire emblem style Dracoknight
i like rules that are less restrictive and allow for more freedom and hate such arbritrary things as weapon restrictions for feats or class restrictions on spells.
i like rules that are less restrictive and allow for more freedom
I like this too. Should've added it to my own thing. I always get the DMs who think the world and everyone and every class has to be a certain way, so every paladin has the same face and every monk comes from the same place. I like having one thats willing to work with you on a compromise or discuss how to get just what you want.
i like rules that are less restrictive and allow for more freedomI like this too. Should've added it to my own thing. I always get the DMs who think the world and everyone and every class has to be a certain way, so every paladin has the same face and every monk comes from the same place. I like having one thats willing to work with you on a compromise or discuss how to get just what you want.
me too, but i am rather unlucky that weekly william is the only DM i could join.
me too, but i am rather unlucky that weekly william is the only DM i could join.
I don't know weekly william. Its been PFS and a few failed groups for me lately. I should make a thread about finding the perfect group some day. Could be cathartic.
I remember my last group every problem was blamed on "playstyle difference". Was a few more things than that, but playing for more than 10 hours straight can be a real killer if you aren't prepared for it. Was that and strict PFS rules/Golarion setting.
me too, but i am rather unlucky that weekly william is the only DM i could join.I don't know weekly william. Its been PFS and a few failed groups for me lately. I should make a thread about finding the perfect group some day. Could be cathartic.
I remember my last group every problem was blamed on "playstyle difference". Was a few more things than that, but playing for more than 10 hours straight can be a real killer if you aren't prepared for it. Was that and strict PFS rules/Golarion setting.
i refuse to play PFS because it is too restrictive.
Weekly William is a little more Open than PFS, but still far too restrictive for my tastes.
the 25 point buy and max starting gold allows for some flexibility. but other than that, he dissallows so many things that are designed to open concepts.
essentially
every monk is from an oriental style monastery
every ninja or samurai is from japan, or trained by japanese mentors, no hassanssin or whatever
every paladin or cavalier is the white knight
every cleric or inquisitor must worship an official god, no minor localized regional gods or country specific gods.
for example, no clerics of a specific dragon or specific creature such as the terrasque. but a cleric devoted to a specific dragon (like seiryu from chinese mythology) or to the terrasque would be quite interesting.
also interesting would be a cleric who draws their power not from a god, but from a series of ideals such as the pursuit of enlightenment, the ideals of the bushido code, the way of the warrior, animism or to the spirits of the elements.
Clerics of the ideals are fun. You can get creative with what your ideal is. Free to choose your own domains allows some real flexibility. I like tuning with things to see if I can make a mechanic that fits what I want or a new flavor. I've been having fun thinking of an oracle who gets their divine powers from a budhist style enlightenment while keeping it open to other regions. GMs who dig that kind of thing can go a long way, ones who don't well... at least I know my options.
I could see how all those rules could really be restricting.
|
I prefer one that involves players acting out their characters, implicitly if not explicitly. I prefer to see the clear break between player and character, rather than always being in or out. I want as much representation of the world as possible without slowing the gameplay. And I want flexibility enough to move the game over slow spots without ruining the pacing.
Maybe we could play together some time (Sin and Lumiere). I've been trying to get a friend into roleplaying for a while now but both of the games I'm in (one running, one playing) are a bit full up.
I'm not a brilliant GM by any means, but hey.
Maybe we could play together some time (Sin and Lumiere). I've been trying to get a friend into roleplaying for a while now but both of the games I'm in (one running, one playing) are a bit full up.
I'm not a brilliant GM by any means, but hey.
i have dozens of character concepts i would love to play. some of which use 3.5 material. and none of which are ridiculously optimized.
ideas i have in mind at the moment
Sergei; the unfortunately named maid who became a wyvern riding knight to impress her father who truly wanted a son. the wyvern part would require homebrewing.
Tsukiko Tsumura; ghost and apprentice Ferryman of the Styx. would require a customized ghost race (mostly want the incorporeal part) would probably be an undead bloodline sorcerer.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider; Sylph Street Magician. would most likely use the Unseen Seer Prestige Class with a Sage Bloodline Sorcerer (the int one) for more of a focus on casting and skills and would probably take the practiced spellcaster feat from complete divine. not so much a sneak attack build as much as a skilled spellcaster
"Sister" Tsui of the Azure Dragon; Undine Cleric of Seiryu, Dervish Dances with a Jian, has the restoration and water domains. has spontaneous domain casting instead of spontaneous cures
"Errant" "Princess" Cherie Del Sol of the Desert; Ifrit Fire Elemental Sorcerer w/ the human favored class bonus and a few exotic healing spells to resemble the healing powers of the white flame. not the first in line for her mother's matirarchal throne, more like the 23rd daughter in line.
The only one I'd really have a trouble with is the Incorporeal PC. Wyvern riding is an easy reskinning of any flying mount, perhaps with a breath weapon and something to compensate for that gain. But an incorporeal PC seems like it'd be untouchable for the first few levels, which seems like it'd be kinda boring to run for.
Oh and maybe the Ifrit having the Human FCB, unless I just said "Screw it, every race has the Human FCB for Sorcerer".
Not really familiar with 3.5 but anything I can look up/easily access in some way I'd probably be good with.
I generally like high power games so everyone can be content they can do what they want to be able to do, but I jack the difficulty a smidge to compensate.
I like talking in character, but don't dislike OOC speak.
the Unseen Seer is a 3.5 prestige class. it was similar to the arcane trickster, but focused less on sneak attacking and more on espionage and infiltration through both magical and nonmagical means.
for the sake of conversion, 3.5 had max skill ranks equal to level +3 for class skills. for example, a 5th level rogue could have 8 ranks in stealth.
i was thinking, to pathfinderize the requirements a little.
Stealth 5 Ranks, Perception 5 Ranks, Sense Motive 1 Rank Spellcraft 1 Rank Disguise 1 Rank Bluff 1 Rank
Must be able to cast 1st level spells, including at least 2 divination spells
the practiced spellcaster feat is what the magical knack trait is half of.
with the ifrit sorcerer, well, the human favored class bonus pretty much invalidates every other race choice except human, so i would just say "Screw it, Every Race has the human favored Class Bonus for Sorcerer/Oracle" and fire is a crappy element. so easy to resist and i suck at building blasters
or at least open it up to the human blooded races such as the half elf, half orc, all 8 species of planetouched, and maybe to Samsaran whom have been reincarnated so many times, they would have practiced quite a lot of spells.
the fact it is human exclusive negates the joy of being a nonhuman race when humans already have the bonus feat (or 3) and the bonus skill point per level.
when the human is that much a better sorcerer than you by virtue of having more skill points, and a better favored class bonus that doubles his or her spells known. it can be an issue.
the wyvern could be a reskinned roc, it doesn't need a breath weapon, i was thinking of reducing its dexterity by 4 to boost it's constitution by 4.
the incorporeal PC couldn't be hit by mundane melee weapons, but spells would still be deadly, and so would things like oils of magic weapon that your typical city guardsman would carry at least one of anyway. plus lack of armor, means you are easier to hit, because ghosts can't benefit from armor. plus being healed by negative energy is a downside that balances itself out when you find fewer inflict wands than cure wands.
for the jian wielding undine cleric, spontaneous domain casting is an option in 3.5 Players Handbook 2. instead of spontaneously casting cures or inflicts, you spontaneously cast spells from you domain lists instead. (restoration and water domains)
I have several characters I've got ready to go. Easiest to talk in the private messages rather than threadjack though.
On alignment, another thought is different players are big on whether the game is good or evil. I like a pro good game where you can cross lines rather than have every action have a foregone conclusion to be good. I feel like it really takes away from a character to lose the chance to choose and moral event horizons are some of my favorite plot devices. Many of the players I've been with are very uncomfortable with characters being evil and even attack the players in and out of character when they feel like theres a hint of evil. I don't feel like thats a comfortable enviroment. Playstyle clash.
I guess after all of that I would like to know is do you have a preferred style of play? Do you like it when the players tell where exactly they're going to swing their axe? Do you prefer minis and a battle map? Have you found that you go between the two?
I prefer lots of roleplay. I also prefer using a battle map. I find that playing with one does not preclude the other.
We using battle maps during battles, or sometimes to represent something like party marching order. My personal experience is this tends to speed things up. When we started using battle maps it made combat go much faster, not because people stopped describing their actions creatively, but because people stopped arguing with the GM about where they were standing in relation with the ogre, whether they should or shouldn't have been standing within the AOE of that fireball, and stopped asking, wait, where's the third enemy standing again? Where am I? What's happening? The battle map eliminates a lot of confusion and the players tend to use much better tactics (much to my chagrin as a GM but I still prefer it). I'm also a very visual person so the visuals help me keep track of what's going on, as my auditory processing is shoddy (and it's much better than it used to be, with training); when we play games without battle maps, I lose track easily and am usually the one repeatedly asking "what's going on now?" We describe our actions although we are not necessarily ridiculously verbose about it; keep it within reason so that we get a great visual of what the character is doing, but not so that a player is monopolizing the table. Plus I find the more descriptively and passionately I describe my character's actions, the more likely I will roll a one.
When combat ends, we RP and (continue to) have a great time. Some groups I am in are more RP heavy than others, depends on the characters.
Most of our campaigns you'll see combat once, maybe twice a session, and the rest is RP, exploration, and otherwise all the other parts of playing the game.
|
Personally, I'm less concerned with the balance of combat to role play, and more with the actual tone of the adventure.
It's a bit of a quirk of mine, but I just can't enjoy a serious campaign (well, not entirely serious).
I can have a perfectly decent time spending two hours just rolling dice, hacking and slashing at monsters. I can have an equally nice time just spending those two hours on in-character discussions.
All of that's perfect, just so long as there's humor.
Ah well, that's just my preference. Carry on.
I love it when my players come up with solutions that arent represented by numbers, strictly.
Best example I can think of is when they had to take out this cult leader who was hiding in an abandoned winery. They all chose to go n different ways (Magis and cleric in the front, summoner in a side window, and rogue through a back door). The summoner ended up in a small storage room in a corner where, on the adjacent wall, was the door leading into the main area.
While guard standing by the front door tried to escape by using vanish (all had mor magic abilities) and heading back to that corner door, while his buddies heard the comotion and were running to that door from the other side.
They collided, and themsummor had prepared his action to slam the door open when he heard enemies in front of it, and they were all completely bowled over.
Normal combats and tactics are fun enough, but the creative solutions make the best memories.
I only use a grid battlemat when I absolutely need to, otherwise I just use small layout drawngs to give a general idea.
|
|
Personally, I'm less concerned with the balance of combat to role play, and more with the actual tone of the adventure.
It's a bit of a quirk of mine, but I just can't enjoy a serious campaign (well, not entirely serious).
I can have a perfectly decent time spending two hours just rolling dice, hacking and slashing at monsters. I can have an equally nice time just spending those two hours on in-character discussions.
All of that's perfect, just so long as there's humor.
Ah well, that's just my preference. Carry on.
Sorry, i can't play well if nobody but me takes the game seriously. I like humor here and there (when it's appropriate), but not when (this actually happened), we were with the BBEG in the main chamber and my bard got him to monologue through bluff, we were drawing towards combat, when suddenly, the barbarian takes out a pink tutu and puts it on. Yes. A pink tutu. His answer was that he wanted to feel pretty when fighting our nemesis. That is not what a mentally sound int 14 character would ever even consider. And his character was always the voice of reason with his wise words and sayings of his people (he actually spent a while researching wise sayings). It completely killed the game for me. I spent the rest of the session rolling dice like a robot and then excused myself from the game.
I've played roleplay-heavy games with players that were really into it, and more tactical combat-oriented games with players that were just as much into the game, but with different interests. I honestly can't tell which one I preferred. With years, I learned that it isn't a particular style that I preferred, but the interaction with other players that I yearned.
I learned that I'm uncomfortable with evil characters (or supposedly good characters acting out as murderers), that I love immersion (which can come in many ways) and relation with friends both in real-life and in-character.
I like realistic consequences and coherence, which has nothing to do with "realism" in RPG. I like characters with depth, but they don't have to be complex characters in order to be complete characters.
I like rich and well-developped worlds, but it doesn't matter if the world is small or big, if plays an important role in the campaign or just as a pretty background tapestry.
I like a nice combat cake, frosted with flourishes of role play, with a side of problem-solving.
Planescape is my favorite D&D setting of all time.
We NEED the battle mat. Just trying to describe where everything is at is sometimes impossible and also impossible to describe where our characters are at. We have characters with Flight and boots of spider climb, so it helps to have some means to visualize where the characters are at.
Ditto. I don't do well with purely verbal description, so games with me get mighty confusing without a battle mat.
I havent found any significant difference in playstyle when we play PF/4E/S&W or DCC (as we are currently). However, there are certainly systems I prefer, so presumably that's the same thing (ie some systems suit our playstyle better and we just dont change our style, regardless of the system).
Ditto. Some of the details are different in 4e (few-to-no 'trash' combats meant to drain PC resources), but overall D&D (and D&D clones) is D&D.
i like rules that are less restrictive and allow for more freedom and hate such arbritrary things as weapon restrictions for feats or class restrictions on spells.
Same here. 'Because tradition' doesn't justify arbitrary restrictions IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like each game to serve the interests of the specific combination of players.
I play in (or run) six parallel campaigns, and each of them are completely different because they all have different players with different preferred styles.
We have quite a few who love tactical play and battlemats, and a few who love involved plots, and a few who love ingenious antics, and a few whole love intrigue and deep strategy. A random combination of all of those, and a few GMs who are experienced enough to strike a balance... It's great.
So it doesn't really matter what my preferred style is.
I want games that do not take themselves so seriously. I want something more like Discworld, The Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, or Monty Python & The Holy Grail.
I like games where there is plenty of backstory and details to discover in the world and specific adventure locations. When I write adventures I always try (and hopefully succeed a decent amount of the time) at giving each place a history that the players can notice if they are observant.
Also a good game needs communication between the players and the DM and for the DM to have a willingness to bend the rules at least a little bit to accommodate the both role of cool and to facilitate the concepts and character arcs that the players want to tell.