| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Multiple XP charts and XP for gold - I used to just level as we played and hand out said levels when it was appropriate. As such these didn't bother me or help me either. Of course the REASON I started doing that was 'cause they bothered me, so I guess there's that.
Multiclassing - this is part of what I was getting at by snap-on powers in 3x. I like the multiclassing in later editions specifically because you can build your PC how you want now instead of everything being a bit of fluff. I had a fighter in 2e that wanted to be sort of a peasant mystic. He took 9 levels of fighter in the "peasant hero" kit, followed by another 10 levels in the "peasant wizard" kit just to get at the theme I had envisioned when in PF I could've just had a fighter 1/Wizard 1 and by level 2 I'm into my element.
GM control - here's my thing; I like to create for my games. No, I LOVE to create for my games. I enjoy making stuff up. However in the older editions there were no variants, no templates, no nothing. I added "red" skeletons to an adventure once in 1e - they were red from heated metal fused to their bones that made their AC better and allowed them to add 1d4 damage. One guy thought it was cool, 2 guys were pissed off that I was "specifically trying to kill their characters" and 1 guy argued for me for five minutes with the monster manual in hand saying that such a creature didn't exist.
Now in PF there is an expectation that the GM will change stuff, modify monsters, etc. There are templates, haunts, variants, NPC classes, etc built INTO the system. If I want a bugbear slaver with some cool supernatural stealth and sensory abilities I can grab a couple levels in a class, tack on a template and away I go. I don't have to sit and shoehorn a bugbear into the Thief class and then re-invent the wheel to give him powers.
Can I still make stuff up in PF as in 1e? Sure, but now with the expectation built in as well as half the work done to generate options for me my work as a GM is easier and more widely accepted. Are there still dissenters and rules-lawyers at the table? Sure, but now I can add a bit of consistency to my games for my players AND me.
In 1e, if I ruled jumping to work a certain way, I had to remember that for future use. Then if I was a player in another guy's campaign I had to deal with whatever wonky system he used. Everyone's game was their own - a blessing AND a curse.
Now in PF jumping may be ridiculous (I agree w/folks here - jump as Dex?) but at least there's consistency. Now when I have a barbarian rage-leaping over hazards to land behind enemies I can ALSO have a fair ruling on why one of said enemies just jumped and then climbed up into a tree to avoid him.
And one last rant about PF and the templates and such. Back in 2e I remember taking like an entire week between work and home life to come up with all the stuff for a custom adventure. I was leafing through books, figuring out how to turn a monster into an NPC so that then I could add a class to it, re-creating the monsters/class combo on paper and then trying to add in consistent traps, re-read all the dungeon survival rules, add mold, etc.
Now the same kind of adventure takes a few hours. Bugbear slaver-lord? Bugbear rogue (thug)2. Goblin slavers? Goblin Warrior 1/Expert (sneaky type skills)1. Use an excel form to calculate the numbers, print out on paper and off to the environment. There's hazards, fog effects for the misty moors and I've got molds or mold-based monsters to choose from. The longest part of this build will be figuring a way to get the party there.
Now you guys may all have different experience in the matter and that's great. I'm glad that the older editions will continue to live on - heck, I'm sitting here with the 1e DMG staring me in the face for the random wilderness section I'll be making up in a minute. But for me personally I like, both as a GM and a player, the codified framework that PF gives me. I change it whenever I have to and with the mathz of PF being simplistic I can usually make changes that don't adversely break the balance of the game.
It's not perfect, but its the system that works for me. Thanks for not kicking me out of the club.
Mark, I like your style. I also like your (relative) laziness; who wants to reinvent all the things when you can just apply a template or two, give a class level or two, and some favorable terrain to have a memorable, customized adventure. (It occurs to me that I may sound sarcastic about all that. I'm not)
The "snap-on" qualities of 3.x don't stop with GMs, either, which you have mentioned. How many times have you been inspired by a single archetype ability or prestige class feature that you wouldn't have thought of on your own? I'm creative, but I find cool rules that I wouldn't have written all the time!
I've only been playing since...1984(?)...I think...so long... Anyway, I've had my time with all of the Dungeons and Dragons editions since AD&D, some West End Games, some White Wolf, some FASA, some Steve Jackson, various CCGs, board games, MMOs, and everything else. PFRPG is where I sit, now. Not because it's all I can find, because it's what I want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hated the multiple XP charts. Also the XP bonuses for having the correct Prime Requisites. I much prefer the idea that the party is going to be the same level, unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise (such as some members being responsible for escorting others.)
I'm already debating how to run my next BECMI D&D campaign, as I'd rather not bring XP back into the game if I can help it. At least, not directly - probably I'll just make a call that "everyone now has 100,000XP" or something, in the same way I currently make the call that "everyone is now level 3" in Pathfinder.
Yes, I do like the fiat leveling idea. I like this as it doesn;t punish players for missing a game. Now that we're all adult professionals, if someone misses a game, it's for pretty serious adult reasons.
BUT if you're not going to have fiat leveling, where the party will be a level or two spread out (like if new PC's are punished by coming in a level lower than the lowest) then the AD&D system where the Thief can often be two levels higher than the wizard is nice.
Were the experience tables really intended as balance? They seemed a little random to me (granted I'm speaking pre-2E). Mages went up faster than fighters early on, Druids shot up, then stayed stagnant for ages. I never really understood the logic (in game flavour wise nor out of game balance wise).
Yes, it made sense- mostly. Wizard went up fast early then slowed way down, once they could cast spells like fireball, allowing classes like the thief often to be two levels higher.
Look at all the debates now about caster/martial power and think then of a party with Wiz 6, Fighter 7 and Rogue 8. More balanced, no?
...until wizards suddenly didn't need all that much for next level, but fighters slowed down to a crawl...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually that went "Wizard started slow, then sped up, then slowed back down."
I had a car like that, once.
In 2nd ed, you just started to find librams of gainful conjuration around 6 or 7th lvel, but the killer was holding onto them until 11th lvl or otherwise you were wasting them..
If anyone think I am exaggerating..Desert of desolation series I3-5
possible pick ups
1. libram of Gainful conjuration =2 (I4, I5)
2. Libram of silver magic =1 (I5)
3. Libram of evil mu =1 (I3)
not to mention tome of cleart thought and tome of bodily health (I5).
Were the experience tables really intended as balance? They seemed a little random to me (granted I'm speaking pre-2E). Mages went up faster than fighters early on, Druids shot up, then stayed stagnant for ages. I never really understood the logic (in game flavour wise nor out of game balance wise).Yes, it made sense- mostly. Wizard went up fast early then slowed way down, once they could cast spells like fireball, allowing classes like the thief often to be two levels higher.
Look at all the debates now about caster/martial power and think then of a party with Wiz 6, Fighter 7 and Rogue 8. More balanced, no?
We must be talking different iterations then. I mean thieves shoot up yeah, but who cares? they dont get significantly better when they gain a level.
The magicusers from the table we used (a photocopied 0E book) continued to go up more rapidly than the fighter even at the high, never actually achieved levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still enjoying this post
I agree with Mark about being able to make unique characters and monsters easily in PF
But that system is a double edged sword because its open to player abuse as it allows for players to add skills and powers pretty much as they want to make super characters because they can and not because they are cool and fun to play.
Which is a problem in the game which has become very rules heavy players worry to much about rules and not enough about fun .
When players spend five minutes working out how there character is going to move twenty feet to avoid any aoo's is just wrong where's the fun the spontaneity the style your ment to be adventures risk takers .
Not insurance salesmen
The way I play is: the player has two minutes to decide what to do. At the end of two minutes, I declare, "OK, you're holding action. Next character..." Normal holding action rules then apply. This encourages decisive play, and making sure you know your character's abilities pretty well. It also throws in a little of the chaos of battle.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I will admit: PF might equal super characters. AD&D however had no player decisions on character. None.
You rolled your stats (luck), then picked your class but based on those rolls. As you leveled if you were lucky you got to pick a couple spells. Your gear was given to you; your powers (if you got any through roleplaying) were given to you; even the mount you could have beyond a horse was entirely up to the DM.
2e had kits. You know what I saw? Suddenly at my table players were willing to talk in character and got REALLY into what their character was - pictures, fluffy backgrounds, etc. Now I'm not saying that wasn't there at my tables in AD&D but it was limited to those players who really enjoyed the social aspects of roleplaying. Now as players got to trick out their fave guy everyone at the table wanted their guy to live, to breathe; to Jazzercise (remember the movie I stole that line from? Then you ARE an old timer...)
Now yes; once 3x hit people went mad with power. Super Heroes ran rampant in my games and still do. Once games get to high level it becomes "rocket tag" and all. I am not disagreeing. I'm only offering 2 things that have helped me cope:
1. whatever my players use, I use - if they have 4 super heroes on the table I'm going to tweak my villains and make some of them super villains, since it's only fitting. 20 pt buy, cherry picked powers and the best items money can buy? Ok, but that vanilla troll you were about to fight just got a few more points in its stats, better feats and a couple traits too, and it's now surrounded by radiant cold that Fatigues (modest save to the level) and reduces fire damage.
2. just because there's more power in the game doesn't mean I have to use it - the game's a social contract; always has been. If I REALLY fear super heroes then I can modify the contract. Play only core, 15 pt buy or really tamp down the kind of magic that can be bought. In 1e you had to bargain w/your DM to GET power as a player; now in PF you have to bargain w/your players to restrict it. It's not ideal but that's the reality.
Now I have to be honest - I rarely if ever use option #2. Why? My bookshelves explain it - half is gaming material and general reading, but the other HALF is comics, graphic novels and other super heroes related material. That's right - I LOVE super heroes. I'm saying old fashioned, tights-and-underwear-on-the-outside types what fly and crawl on walls and throw tanks and such. I've ALWAYS loved them since I was a kid, and Marvel was always my fave.
I'll freely admit I've always been drawn to the more breakable heroes. Spider-Man and Batman in particular. For all their powers, skills and gadgets both of these guys over the years have been not just killed but broken. Batman with his paralysis and back injury as well as countless bad beats leaving him laid up in bed for days while Gotham burns. Spider-Man has been wailed on so much: blindness, broken ribs, dislocated shoulders and broken arms. I love the image of either of them, teeth gritted, costumes shredded, bleeding and broken, but they still... keep... fighting.
So if my players want super I'll give them super, until they don't want it anymore. And yet their villains will be super too. They will fight, they will hurt, they will die. Sometimes they will lose or even succumb to the forces of evil for a time. I have only one request of my players that hasn't changed since I was 7; be heroes too.
When the chips are down, you've exhausted all your cool powers, you're down to a couple acid flasks and your cleric only has a single channel left, but the BBEG is poised to finish the ritual that turns an entire city into zombies, fight. Don't turn tail and run with the rest of the city; don't start debating over how you can defeat the zombie army once you've taken a night to rest.
Get in there. Teeth gritted, armor shredded, broken and bleeding, and FIGHT. Don't JUST be super; be HEROES.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark you have described exactly how i think character should be Hero's first and foremost
Getting stuck in no matter what.
Also i don't mind powerful characters What i for object to is when players take a level in another class just for the powers that they get even if there is no way that can explain it away in character story
Players should make choices about there character in character with reasons that make sense in character
Get in there. Teeth gritted, armor shredded, broken and bleeding, and FIGHT. Don't JUST be super; be HEROES.
+1 to that.
I like your whole post Mark, but this particularly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The true measure of a hero isn't what you're capable of, it's what you choose to do no matter what you're capable of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players should make choices about there character in character with reasons that make sense in character
I agree so much with this, and it is how I make my characters. I don't go for "MOAR POWER!" when choosing things for my characters. I go for what makes sense to the character concept.
Get in there. Teeth gritted, armor shredded, broken and bleeding, and FIGHT. Don't JUST be super; be HEROES.
Unfortunately, I don't come across many players who want to play heroes, whether they are super or not. The excessive abundance of CN "evil in everything but name" characters, or even non-CN characters that are played "evil in everything but name", is my experience. No one wants to play the hero, they just want to go around slaughtering anything and everything that gets in their way.
----------------------As for the topic at hand, being my first post in this thread... I haven't been playing long enough to be "old timer", starting in 1998 with the black hardcovers for 2nd edition after playing a single session during a lunch break in 1997 at the age of 16 of the old 1st edition rules. But I kinda consider myself "old timer" in attitude when it comes to playing.
Back when I started, we had no problems roleplaying out the shopping, and even continued to do so as we got into 3rd edition. I would have the players (sister, her now-hubby, and a few high school friends) start out with just clothes and some money and we would roleplay the purchase of their equipment. We actually had fun doing so.
Since my group broke up not long after they revised 3rd edition, I stopped playing but kept buying books. Gave up with 4th edition, but recently (18 months ago) made the switch to Pathfinder. Been playing over roll20, and all I ever come across are those who go for the numbers. They play the numbers on the sheet, and not an actual character. If I am lucky enough to see the character sheets of my fellow players, almost always there is a lack of backstory, or physical features other than "sex race class Name".
As for a funny story, it was one of the last games I got to play with my group before they moved away. We ended up calling ourselves the "Knights of Futility", as our rolls for anything were abysmal. Starts out in a town, and none of the characters knew each other. All of a sudden the ground shakes, a huge hole opens and fire starts in some of the buildings. I forgot what we ended up fighting, but it came down to my sister's character tossing poo from the sewer she fell into at the enemy, and she rolled a 1, so the DM (her hubby) had it hit one of the other characters in the face.
Reading the replies to this thread, it makes me wish we lived in the same area and could game together. I get tired of the people I end up with focusing so much on numbers and how to make their "characters" even more powerful. The worst I have come across is the Wrath of the Righteous game I am a player in, and wish I would have left it long ago.
I went into it expecting a bit of optimization, but the excess they went to has killed any enjoyment. Of course, I thought there might be some roleplay involved, but there has been none. I think the GM is getting annoyed with it as well. I stick around because the GM is a cool dude, and if I left that would drop the number down to 3. Though with the other 3 characters, I doubt dropping out would really impact things. My view on mythic soured greatly from this experience.
What's changed? In my experience, the playerbase has changed. As I said, everyone I come across anymore is all about the numbers. And when I voice my opinion about the focus on numbers, I get angry replies thrown my way.
And I think that's all for my (probably incoherent) rant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I've met my share of non-heroes too. Way back in 1e I had a homebrew and in said world there were 2 schools of wizardry in 2 countries. One tended to arm its students with spells of more battlefield control (Web, Stinking Cloud, Hold Person) while the other one was all blasting (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile). I stood up in front of the player running the M-U and asked him which of the schools he would accept in the voice of 2 different NPCs. He chose the blasty school "'cause that's how you beat fights."
There have always been "moar power" types. Ironically in older editions it was easier to control them since the DM really had all of the power to dole out. But still if a magic item came into the party and could be exploited in some way, these guys would find a way.
In 2e it was the kits; in 3x it was feats. There was always SOMETHING for powergamers to get their hands on so they could "win." For me it was never about winning, as a DM or a player. It was about hanging with my friends.
One of my favorite campaigns only lasted to level 2. It was a 1e campaign, heavily Tolkien-influenced where a Halfling village had been attacked by an ogre but really the ogre was being controlled by an evil cleric. The party fought very well, explored the dungeon and broke the cult in the region. However there wasn't much wealth in the whole adventure so to repay the party these Halflings crafted unique pipes for each PC which would light on it's own. They also gave them each a pouch of very special tobacco that had special effect smoke and finally the one treasure of the village: the golden turnip. Literally a turnip that had been turned to pure gold. The party vowed never to sell it.
My current gaming group consists of a guy that always plays dwarves and could care less about roleplaying ever; a hyper-strategic old-skooler; and 2 younger gentlemen who seem cut from the more modern, forum-based players. There's nothing wrong with any of them and I enjoy playing with them. However for all four of them my TRUE way of gaming - heavily descriptive, old-skool traps you have to think through and convoluted plots - would be considered a form of torture.
So I improvise.
I have a lot of random fights for the all-dwarf guy. My strategist is a thinker and though he says the opposite out loud loves puzzles, so I generally throw in a few Gygaxian traps for him. He also loves fights though, and dynamic ones, so the set pieces are designed with him in mind. My other 2 guys really enjoy APs and the mechanics of PF; they also thrive on skill-use-based roleplaying. That is, they enjoy using their skills in intended or sometimes creative ways to accomplish things so I try to have ample opportunities for roleplay, exploration and environmental challenges.
Sure, these aren't the hippy-dippy, Lord-of-the-Rings clone type games I ran as a kid, with the Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin playing in the background. But I'd like to think the heart of those old games is still there, buried in the improv and mechanics. The idea that, as I said above, heroes should be heroes; villains get trounced; days get saved.
Its funny; the old-skool guy in my current game is probably the most heroic. It starts out in his build, then comes out in cliché ways he roleplays, but when the chips are down his characters are consistently the guys holding doorways, directing traffic, and holding the line until the ENTIRE party is safe. He says its because he is playing fights strategically and there is some of that, but how is it strategic to say that as a pool of boiling hot water is filling a room and an undead hag is rising up out of it to murder a PC who is poised to steal an amulet that saves a forest his character CHARGES IN while everyone else is backing out with ranged weapons?
I'm rambling though. The point is I try to be the GM that works WITH his players and encourages them to be heroes. It doesn't always work, but I'm glad to say that there are still some of us left at the tables. When I think of old-skool gaming THAT'S what I envision. I think of the Paladin in Hell pic from the Player's Handbook; I think of the hobbits returning to the Shire one last time having survived their ordeals; I remember the time my buddy took a pair of magic swords and was flying, hasted, and dogfighting solo with an ancient red dragon to save his father and inadvertently the world.
You folks all have your own games, your own ideals. I'm not telling you to play my way; I wouldn't presume to. I would challenge though to think of what really made those old-skool games awesome. Was it the mechanics? Was it the edition you were playing or the other company's game system? Or was it the fact that you and your friends were together, striving toward a greater goal and pulling out all the stops in a no-holds-barred, white-knuckle attempt to survive the most villainous evil the fictional world your characters inhabited had ever known.
We are the champions, my friends, and we'll keep on fighting, to the end. Better words for my games have maybe never been sung in human history...
The way I play is: the player has two minutes to decide what to do. At the end of two minutes, I declare, "OK, you're holding action. Next character..." Normal holding action rules then apply. This encourages decisive play, and making sure you know your character's abilities pretty well. It also throws in a little of the chaos of battle.
Actually, I think you are being too generous. I usually only give a player about 10 seconds to decide.*
Now if the action is complex, he may end up needing a couple of minutes to explain it or roll the dice and do all the math.But very little time to decide what he is doing.
* If a guy is first in initiative and didn't have any time to think about it, I might give him 30 seconds.
If a player has significantly less experience than the other players I will give him several minutes to make a decision.
Mark I would love to play in one of your games they sound so cool just like the games of old
Analysis Paralysis is a real thing. I used to have a player who held up the game on a regular basis. In a Conan-themed boardgame it once took an extra hour for this guy to win. He had me and a buddy clearly beat, but he had to decide exactly HOW he wanted to crush us.
It wasn't til I came on these forums that I thought of using some kind of timing between actions. Sometimes I'd count out loud for dramatic effect to speed a player along but usually I'd just wait.
A little while ago though I saw a GM who threw out one of those Parker Bros hourglass things when he'd run combats. You had to decide what you were going to do and at least declare before the 30 seconds ran out. I thought it was a nice touch that the guy had glued flat-top skulls to the device.
Personally I liked one of the mechanics from the original Marvel Super Heroes game for this. Everything in an action scene is supposed to flow like a comic book so action should be quick. Thus before initiative is even rolled everyone declares what they're going to do:
GM: Doc Ock has his tentacles out and is trying to grapple and punch Spidey with 2 of 'em while holding the radioactive isotope in the other 2.
Spider-Man player: I'm going to dodge through the tentacles, trying to get up to Ock's face to paste him one!
Daredevil player: I'll jump out of the shadows and throw my billy club to knock the canister away, ricocheting the weapon back to me.
GM: Ok; everyone roll initiative. Ock's got...7
Spidey: ... 11!
Daredevil: 6
Spidey: well, since I'm going BEFORE Octo-pest, can I change my action to just punch him?
GM: sure, but it'll modify your fighting -2 Column Shifts...
The point being: everyone decides what they WANT to see happen, then they roll initiative and see HOW it happens.
One key to encouraging heroics is to let them work. Or at least fail heroically. If everytime a player tries something heroic, his character dies and doesn't even save anyone, such heroic tendencies will be quickly beaten out of him.
I agree. Sometimes you just let it happen. Princess is falling; paladin dives from rooftop after her; rogue is hanging off a rope grappled to a ledge below; there's a dragon in the air. Sure, the paladin in his full plate is a massive boat anchor in the air and the rogue is on completely the wrong side of the tower to do anything in time but you just give it to them. The paladin grabs the girl mid-air; the rogue runs sideways along the tower's face and then swings out, snagging them both; the dragon, wheeling hard with it's terrible flight chomps JUST past them and smashes it's snout into the wall!
You've saved the girl. Of course, the old tower shuddered and now it's starting to crumble...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The players have to even want to do any heroics. When their idea of "being heroic" is not killing the guard that told them they can't go in there...
I would have no problem allowing any kind of heroics, if I could ever find players that felt like making heroic characters. That's the hard part. It also gets a bit demoralizing being the person who is the one convincing the others not to kill the guard telling us no.
Almost tempting to go back to my "exile" from tabletop gaming. I don't know if no gaming is better than what I have to put up with. And that makes me sad.
Sometimes that's because the players actually want to play anti-hero or even villain types. Sometimes it's because they've been taught by successive examples that anything the least bit heroic or even merciful just gets turned against them. "Grimdark" is driven at least as much by GMs as players. Often in the name of challenge and realism.
All true. But also, some players just want to watch the campaign world burn.
Hey Adjule, tell us about your group. Where did you find them? How did your group come together? What are the players' (not PCs') backgrounds?
The true measure of a hero isn't what you're capable of, it's what you choose to do no matter what you're capable of.
This is my stance as well. Being a hero is an accomplishment, not a set of statistics on a character sheet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you die and fail, then you weren't much of hero either. It's a combination.The true measure of a hero isn't what you're capable of, it's what you choose to do no matter what you're capable of.This is my stance as well. Being a hero is an accomplishment, not a set of statistics on a character sheet.
Nope, if you die and fail, but die trying to do good, you're a hero. It's far less satisfying than success, but you're still a hero.
But that's why there's a saying, "Discretion is the better part of valor."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something interesting from my experience: Oftentimes, I've found my group works best at being heroes because they're obviously not heroic.
When they want truly heroic play, they ask for Mythic. Which is actually a system that works well for the old-age fantasy heroes. But most of the time, they're trying to play average people who do dangerous things. That means their characters lie, cheat, steal, sometimes seduce the bar wench instead of rushing to help the orphanage, and things like that. Half the time, the mess they're cleaning up is one they inadvertently caused in the first place. The other half of the time, the people they save from a monster are often left looking at the resulting destruction and wondering if, maybe, the monster wasn't the better option.
But on the other hand, they try the most surprising things, and I encourage it. Sometimes even win impossible victories.
For example, I had an outsider raising an army of metal constructs in a city of metal. The outsider was intending to invade the rest of the nation. The PCs discover this, as I planned, but were not supposed to be able to do anything about it; the city was already constructed and had guards obviously more powerful than them. Plus, they really couldn't take on an army by themselves. But they still had months, which is more than enough time to warn the nations about to be invaded.
Rather than just run off to deliver warnings, they remembered a nearby dungeon in which I had tossed a rust monster at them (it was intended as a plot hook for selling rust monster babies), which they managed to avoid. So, they went to the dungeon, subdued and captured the rust monster, bought a catapult, and then flung the rust monster into the metal city. Then they went off to warn the other nations.
Twelve levels later, they come back with the armies they built to defend against the construct army, wondering why these people haven't attacked yet. They discover a large section of the once-solid metal wall has been rusted away and that the city inside has taken some severe damage, but can see surviving constructs working on rebuilding. Realizing the magnitude of their earlier decision, they decided to take the opportunity and attacked the construct army before it was ready to fight. As such, because of one simple decision, a planned desperate defensive battle to save the world from a construct army turned into a surprise attack on a heavily damaged foe that wasn't prepared for combat.
They only used the rust monster as catapult ammunition to sew a tiny bit of chaos, and partially because they thought it fun to use a rust monster to cause me problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its funny; the old-skool guy in my current game is probably the most heroic. It starts out in his build, then comes out in cliché ways he roleplays, but when the chips are down his characters are consistently the guys holding doorways, directing traffic, and holding the line until the ENTIRE party is safe. He says its because he is playing fights strategically and there is some of that, but how is it strategic to say that as a pool of boiling hot water is filling a room and an undead hag is rising up out of it to murder a PC who is poised to steal an amulet that saves a forest his character CHARGES IN while everyone else is backing out with ranged weapons?
Yes, we often are, and that's how I try to play. We're HEROES dammit, not murderhoboes. I hate that style of play, and find it is usually attached to less mature players. Not all the time, however...
Hey Adjule, tell us about your group. Where did you find them? How did your group come together? What are the players' (not PCs') backgrounds?
Honestly, I can't really tell you much about the backgrounds of the players in my groups. The groups I have played with have all been formed online (a couple from this forum, but most from roll20.net). I haven't played in an in-person group since mine broke apart nearly 10 years ago when they all moved away.
We just recently (3 years) got a used book store (only book store in town, actually) that just recently (in the last 6 months) branched into tabletop rpg book sales (biggest seller is Magic cards). I walked in one day and heard a group of people talking about their game. I was intrigued, but then found out that they only do evil campaigns. And to be honest, that is definitely not in my interests. I tried it before, and didn't care much for it.
Most of the people I come across in the online games seem to be young. I think 25 is the oldest? Maybe I am just too old. Turned 33 in the beginning of May. I know, 33 ain't squat compared to a lot of people in this thread (a lot of you have been playing for longer than I have been alive), but when I am with my online groups, I feel so old and "Get off my lawn!" types of feelings.
I really wish I could find a face-to-face in person gaming group, one that would fit me and I would fit it. I just don't see that happening any time soon. I don't begrudge the players their fun, and I am usually the odd one out, which is why I have been throwing around the idea of stopping my play all together. I just don't know if my desire or yearning to play is stronger than my lack of real true fun. I am glad they are having their fun. I just wish I could have some for myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you die and fail, then you weren't much of hero either. It's a combination.
Being powerful is not a requisite of a hero. It involves risk and sacrifice. If a character is so powerful that he risks nothing and sacrifices nothing, then he's not a hero.
I just don't know if my desire or yearning to play is stronger than my lack of real true fun. I am glad they are having their fun. I just wish I could have some for myself.
My experience with online gaming has been similar to yours. Good players, by which I mean those interested in role-playing, teamwork, and creating a collaborative story, are few and far between.
If I was stuck with online as my only option, I'd probably look for a 30+ game, which I feel would stand the best chance of getting good players. Younger players with proven track records would work too.
...
My experience with online gaming has been similar to yours. Good players, by which I mean those interested in role-playing, teamwork, and creating a collaborative story, are few and far between.If I was stuck with online as my only option, I'd probably look for a 30+ game, which I feel would stand the best chance of getting good players. Younger players with proven track records would work too.
I can really get into the role play more in PbP games as opposed to in-person. Often I will feel a bit self conscious about something or simply can't do it. I can may my Nagaji speak with a lisp, give my 1/2-Orc a guttural growl, slur-mumble words for my pirate, speak in third person, sprinkle weird slogan's, work in my hatred of the color blue, etc... I can't manage any of those face to face.
On the other hand it only works out well if the PbP game moves at pretty decent clip. When there is only a couple of posts a week, I can barely remember what was said at the start of a conversation. I don't have a prayer of keeping the emotional content on an even keel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm sitting at work today, killing time in the back of a meeting, and I'm thinking about this thread and old-skool gaming in general. Suddenly I have a couple hexes doodled on my notepad. Before I knew it I've got 12 hexes, poorly drawn and merely marked with letters for terrain types, and I can't WAIT for the meeting to end so I can grab lunch and start making.
What IS it with us and hex maps?
I blame Greywawk. Before I even had Karameikos I had the Greyhawk folders with the folding hex maps and I still have them now. I remember thinking how freaking BOSS that thing was, and how awesome all the detail in the setting was. I was so young.
Anyway now I'm jonesing to make a "West Marches" style game. Anyone got any good resources for keying hexes and keeping it brief but interesting? I've never played the Kingmaker AP but I know there's probably a few blogs out there with either random hex keys, advice or whatever. Don't worry about the map, I'll handle that - hitting the 1e DMG for some random, "what's in the next hex" goodness!
I have never used a hex map, I must say. But I am playing in a kingdom making campaign (though not kingmaker) that has one. I like the hex maps, but most I see have the borders/coastlines as perfect hexes, which just rankles me for some reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, I've gone freehand and gridless. Just a ruler and a scale. However, I'd love to port that over into combat, as well, kind of like Warhammer.
Incidentally, Blood Bowl is what made AoO so instantly clear to me. Would you make a Dodge roll? AoO.
And Adjule, yes, you'll probably have more luck with older, more mellowed players. The problem, of course, is that most of them are busy raising families and have precious little free time.
And Adjule, yes, you'll probably have more luck with older, more mellowed players. The problem, of course, is that most of them are busy raising families and have precious little free time.
I can attest to this. My group has been together over 25 years but we get together less than once a month now.
Yeah, I have accepted that fact. That's why I haven't done anything with my previous group over Virtual Tabletop because of the family and free time thing.
I do wish I could find older, more mellowed people to play with. But that proves to be rather difficult, especially for those aforementioned reasons.
Good, responsible, thoughtful players tend to have less free time anyway, and so are less likely to be standing around looking for groups, too. That's because they tend to be good, responsible, thoughtful people away from the gaming table, too, and thus have a lot on their plate.
My advice is to find an established group of players, and join them. If they've been gaming together for a decade or more, chances are they're doing something right and will make for a more stable, story-oriented group.
Anyway now I'm jonesing to make a "West Marches" style game. Anyone got any good resources for keying hexes and keeping it brief but interesting?
What exactly do you mean? For my last campaign, I used a Java program I found online that lets you create hex maps and has tons of terrain options. You can make maps that look just like the old AD&D hex maps.
If that would be helpful for you, here's the link: http://www.hexographer.com/
Anyway now I'm jonesing to make a "West Marches" style game. Anyone got any good resources for keying hexes and keeping it brief but interesting?What exactly do you mean? For my last campaign, I used a Java program I found online that lets you create hex maps and has tons of terrain options. You can make maps that look just like the old AD&D hex maps.
If that would be helpful for you, here's the link: http://www.hexographer.com/
I'm using Hexographer too for the map. I'm wondering about resources for keying said hexes. Ex:
006: Old Mossbeard
This area, on the fringe of the Forest of Winterhaven, is slightly higher than the surrounding woods with numerous rocky outcrops and overhangs. It is the home of Old Mossbeard; an ancient Bloodoak towering over the canopy. This tree is said to be one of the oldest in the forest and residents of the town claim that the tree's wispy whiskers that give it its name also hide entrances to underground passages hidden in its taproots.
I read one blog a long time ago that suggested no more than 80-100 words to describe your hex. In that description you want a general overview of what the PCs would see if they just passed through and a potential hint of what they'd find if they stayed to explore.
Where is everyone based?
I'm in El Cajon, CA. US.
Plymouth, MN, just west of the TC's.
I'm here in ye old merry England just outside London