| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I was looking for ideas how to run a game that consists to a major part of the PCs traveling through the wilds like in a hex-crawl sandbox game, I cam upon this interesting article.
A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming
This is intended as an introduction to BECMI, ACKS, and other retroclones, but I noticed that pretty much everything it speaks about isn't really specific to those rules, and in fact isn't really opposed to the rules of a game like Pathfinder, from which it wants to separate those Old-School games.
In the end, it's really just about the way you run the game, not about how open or detailed the rules are. It probably works better at lower levels or in an E6 game, but even in Pathfinder, PCs can still attempt anything the players can think of (excluding spells). All the feats and class features merely provide bonuses that increase the chances of success.
I think a Pathfinder game can be greatly enhanced by making use of these methods of planning adventures and running games, which have been given not much attention in the last one or two decades, when the style of successive highly tactical combat with optimized characters became more of a default assumption in community discussions.
At least since the very first days of D&D 3rd Ed., adventure modules have been designed and presented as a number of combat encounters pre-scheduled in a more or less linear fashion. Notable exception here being obviously Kingmaker. But I think those kinds of adventures have even been around in AD&D 2nd Ed. and people had to look waaay back before you find a stage where class-level based games and purely narrative games where not treated as entirely different things.
Here someone explains why random encounters are boring and there is alway only one per journey. But the real reason is that random encounters are only a single element in a bigger complex of interrelated mechanics, which simply can't work without the others.
I'm not even a fan of sandbox games and think they sound extremely boring. What I always wanted was to run and play games in which the GM prepares an antagonist and a general goal for the PCs, but the players decide how to deal with it and in what way progress through the campaign. It's still plot-driven, but for all the overland travel and exploration of dungeons, I think the game needs to use those mechanics of old-school hex-crawl games.
Do other people have experience with this, and can share insights on where certain things work really well and what other things need additional considerations and preparations to be fun in a game using Pathfinder rules?
|
What I always wanted was to run and play games in which the GM prepares an antagonist and a general goal for the PCs, but the players decide how to deal with it and in what way progress through the campaign. It's still plot-driven, but for all the overland travel and exploration of dungeons, I think the game needs to use those mechanics of old-school hex-crawl games.
You know, for a *really* good read on what Old school gaming was like, 30 years ago when I was doing it: http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Navero_Main
There's nothing really mutually exclusive between sandbox games, narrative games, and pre plotted games. They are orthagonal axises as far as measurement purposes go.
For example, when I want a long campaign, I ask the players what their goals for their characters are. This can be anything from (in pathfinder terms) "I just want to reach tenth level because then I get to beat up anyone I want" to "My character is searching for her long lost sibling." to in one very memorable campaign "Hi, I'm a lawn chair who communicates by spraying whip cream." (No, it was not toon, and no it was not the wierdest character in the game. And surprisingly, none of the players were on drugs. We just needed a break to be silly.)
Then I sit down, and decide what clues there are that lead in the direction of different people's goals, tweak the world so most of the clues point in roughly the same direction, pick out some NPCs and give *them* goals that hopefully will lead them to take actions that get in the way of the players, dump some random obstacles in the players way to see what they do when confronted with adversity (and so the combat guys have something to hit other than the town guard. I learned early on that if you do not have random encounters, the combat obtimized guy gets bored and goes looking to make a random encounter. And then you have the town burned down again.)
Then I just sit back and let the players argue about what to do and where to go next, and next thing you know, 5-6 years have passed, most of the characters have accomplished most of their goals, even if not the way they thought they would, and it is time to bring the story to a grand finale and start the next one.
As far as I can tell from the discussions I have with other gamers outside D&D / Pathfinder, this is more or less how most of the world plays. Pregened adventure paths are good to get you started, and pfs is nice for a low pressure, fast prep, drop in / drop out game, but the idea that these methods haven't been given much attention in the last 20 years is silly.
Of course it has always been there, but somehow it seems that there appeared a perception that having a class and level based system or a game in which people come up with things as they go are mutually exclusive. You either play a tactical wargame or you play RISUS, with a huge gap between them. That's how it seems game companies like to position their game and how vocal fans argue for the superiority of their game system of choice.
But that obviously isn't the case. It's a choice to play at the very ends of the spectrum, not a necessity. Though I think lots of people tend to make it sound like it is.
The main thing I hear in post that your GM/DM dose not think one their
own. There fore dose not take the initiative to change tactic or plans of action on the fly.
It read as written no change. It A then B then C extra.
Easy way to get old school game feel is for the GM/DM to roll skill checks then describe the results to the player. This get skipped by most GM and player because it take longer. Also that many plays do not want to sit there and do nothing while they wait for GM to make up the story. You need players that are patient and will to let the story unfold.
Because in the "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" there is no difference mechanically in the old School way vs new school way. It just a matter of narrative.
The GM/DM need to how to tell a good story.
As far random encounters go...I never run then... I run set of random preset prethought out encounter. That I use to tell story about the area or what going on that time frame. But most GM do not have the luxuary of preset up time that I have. So there random encouter seem forced or out of place.
I mean what it the point of random encounter?
To give players Expirence with Characters abiltys, skills, feats, spells, gear, and extra.
To drain away resourse or add resourse that they will need latter in the story arc.
To open new hooks for the party or to give new or more info further the plot, or to muddle it, or to give false or fake info.
