| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm playing a 1st level cleric in a 2nd ed game the other night, and the thought "can we play Pathfinder now" kept rattling around in my head. The only reason I'm playing is because a friend is running it. I started with 1st/2nd ed hybrid way back when, and I remember having loads of fun playing, but now it feels like a dinosaur. I know old timers (I'm one of them) like to view things through foggy lenses of nostalgia, but who honestly has fun playing those screwy rules and weak characters? Yeah, I know any rule set can be fun, but some games should be appreciated through the mists of time. Has anyone else had to make a system shock test when they set down to play older D&D systems, or is it just me?
While I'm new to TTRPGs, I've heard similar stories from others. I've also heard of people who started playing those games again exclusively. Obviously, YMMV.
I have loads of fun playing and running AD&D. I also have loads of fun running (and occasionally playing) Pathfinder. They aren't an either/or thing for me, each scratch different itches and have different strengths and weaknesses. I also dabble in FATE and occasionally other RPG systems (given up on GURPS though, it just isn't for me). It's ok to like more than one type of game, and it's also ok if your tastes change and you don't like a game anymore that you once loved. Take a break from it and go back later, or move on entirely if it's lost all allure. In the end gaming is about having fun and personal taste. Play what's fun, avoid what's not, and understand other people have different tastes than you (and that it's ok when they do) and you're doing it right.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I can't even play 3.5 anymore. Yea, I played 1E back in the day as well. I looked at OSR clones not long ago, thinking maybe I can convert some of my monsters into those systems and I was like, "yea, I left that a long time ago, I can't go back." 30-ish year old game design ... just not for me.
I had that feeling playing a 1e AD&D game compared to 3e. I really missed spontaneously casting healing spells and being able to pick skills as I leveled up. That said, I think 2e adds enough with non-weapon proficiencies and combat styles that I don't feel quite the same way as I did with 1e. It's still a good go-to game if you're looking to play something with a simpler character structure.
|
I'm playing in an on-and-off AD&D 2e campaign (the first edition, not the revised one with the black covers), and the most recurring evaluation of the rules from both the DM and the players is "it's as flexible as a wooden board nailed to the floor".
While it (obviously) doesn't have the rules luggage of later editions, quite often the rules don't match the needs or are just in the way.
The good things lost in the transition are overshadowed by the shortcomings.
I plan to run a 1e classic door bashing orc stabbing dungeon crawl next year at my group's "minicon", but aside from the one shot, I don't think I will ever go back from Pathfinder. I will run 3.5 if requested, but so far no one has.
I find that the real issue for me is one of adjustment. As I have learned Pathfinders small idiosyncrasies and grown to understrand them and learned to work with them, I enjoy the game better. ODD, ADD, 2Ed all had things I liked and things I didn't. If I were to return to one of them I woudl have to re-adjust to their various idiosyncrasies as well. Bu tat this point, why do it? I don't need to. :-)
I have the opposite experience. I've got bored with complicated systems and long combats, so playing more modern games is a drag for me. My preference is a cobbled together 0E/AD&D.
I only have limited experience with AD&D and Basic D&D, but the appeal for me to those systems is the relative simplicity and not having much to worry about getting something "wrong." But I was pretty bored by the lack of variety in the mechanics -- most monsters were reduced to AC, hit points, an attack "bonus" of sorts, and damage. I missed the variety in Pathfinder of rules for swallowing whole, grappling, flanking, etc.
If I want to play something different, I got to a different system without D&D roots. That could be Traveller, Rifts(yes, I said Rifts, don't ostracize me), or Mutants and Masterminds (yes, it is sorta d20, but only sorta).
While PF is rather on the complicated side, I'm so used to it that other options would not feel right. A couple years ago I tried to do a 3.5 pbp game, and I could really could not get back into those rules. I suspect it might be that since I play a lot of Pathfinder, and I tend to be a touch compulsive about knowing the rules well, playing another system which is similar just screws me up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to be a Rifts GM once. Once.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now now. Don't blame the Rifts GM for a world where every new World Book is required to have power creep. Or a rule set where consistency was optional--and an option not always taken. The world itself is a wonderful design and could use some serious fictional love on the market. It's the game mechanics that drive a person to want to meet Cthulul :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think Palladium screwed the pooch when they failed to jump on the d20 bandwagon in the early 2ks. It would have been a great excuse to clean up the rules into something coherent, and pump more interest into what is really a very cool setting.
well Rifts is another archaic system...
I think a lot of the "rule bloat" complaints about 3e/PF would go away if people just realized that they don't need to follow most of the rules. Make rulings on the fly, improvise, don't feel constrained by the mechanics. It's what a GM does.
The problem showed up when 3.0 had a LOT of mechanics. Obviously, they are all optional and subject to house rulings, as every other rule is. But younger players use to videogames may have different expectations: they expect rules to be immutable laws that no one can change unless they are the game designer.
The thing is, if you don't worry about rules-lawyering, you can play PF as a rules-lite system. If I were "forced" to use every rule in whatever system I played, then I'd probably like AD&D/OD&D more, due to haveing fewer restrictions. But as soon as you stop thinking of rules as restrictions, and remember that they are merely suggestions, then you can have your cake and eat it too: you can have the advantages of the modern PF core system, the advantage of lots of resources in lots of books, and the freedom of a rules-light system, all in one.
This is how I play pathfinder really, however 'lots of resources in lots of books' is actually a negative, not an advantage to me.
Given I'm going to take this approach, it seems unnecessary to use a complicated system and then ignore a large part of it. I'd rather use a simple system and add bits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd you should mention it - I just recently uncrated my old copy of Baldur's Gate II (a game which runs on AD&D 2nd Edition mechanics, aside from a few creative liberties). Mind you, I'm playing it again for its story, not its mechanics.
I picked up the Enhanced Edition of BG when it came out last year. My first thought upon character creation was "I don't remember how to create a 2e character anymore" :D .
So I'm playing a 1st level cleric in a 2nd ed game the other night, and the thought "can we play Pathfinder now" kept rattling around in my head. The only reason I'm playing is because a friend is running it. I started with 1st/2nd ed hybrid way back when, and I remember having loads of fun playing, but now it feels like a dinosaur. I know old timers (I'm one of them) like to view things through foggy lenses of nostalgia, but who honestly has fun playing those screwy rules and weak characters? Yeah, I know any rule set can be fun, but some games should be appreciated through the mists of time. Has anyone else had to make a system shock test when they set down to play older D&D systems, or is it just me?
I'm currently playing in a Basic Fantasy RPG (think Red Book D&D but races & classes are separate entities as well as things like AC=target # needed to hit, no THAC0 or annoying tables to look up!!) and so far am loving every second of it. We just started though so maybe the nostalgia factor will wear off and I pine for 3E or 4E again (unlikely to be PF, its OK but I'd rather just play 3E).
So I'm playing a 1st level cleric in a 2nd ed game the other night, and the thought "can we play Pathfinder now" kept rattling around in my head. The only reason I'm playing is because a friend is running it. I started with 1st/2nd ed hybrid way back when, and I remember having loads of fun playing, but now it feels like a dinosaur. I know old timers (I'm one of them) like to view things through foggy lenses of nostalgia, but who honestly has fun playing those screwy rules and weak characters? Yeah, I know any rule set can be fun, but some games should be appreciated through the mists of time. Has anyone else had to make a system shock test when they set down to play older D&D systems, or is it just me?
At the risk of throwing a lighter into the powder keg, this is how I feel about all 3.x games including PF, and pre-WotC editions.
I have tons o' fun with Freehold DM and the NYC paizo group, but 4e has really spoiled me.
I have the opposite experience. I've got bored with complicated systems and long combats, so playing more modern games is a drag for me. My preference is a cobbled together 0E/AD&D.
I'm actually writing a super-simple retroclone for those times when I want a quick pick-up game. All the chargen simplicity of the earlier editions combined with the unified d20 simplicity of WotC editions, along with a couple things that no edition of D&D has managed.
Not that I'm not already getting plenty of use out of the 4e books you sent me, thanks again!
It's been a couple of years since I played 3.5 and more than that since I played 2nd Ed.
However, I have played games like Champions recently and my friends got back into BESM and I wish I was there! (I miss that game!) I also miss GURPS (or SPRUG as a friend used to call it).
The one game I would really like to play again that I never really got to play enough of was RoleMaster. The guy who ran it used an amalgemation (sp) of different rules to make one set that worked for him. I tried to run it myself and it just didn't work. I am guessing it was because I didn't have the old rules like he had. It's a great system, none the less.
The one game I would really like to play again that I never really got to play enough of was RoleMaster. The guy who ran it used an amalgemation (sp) of different rules to make one set that worked for him. I tried to run it myself and it just didn't work. I am guessing it was because I didn't have the old rules like he had. It's a great system, none the less.
Yeah rolemaster is my favourite complicated system. I liked the fact the crunch was all "front loaded", so although it took ages to create a character and advance a level, that could all be done away from the table.
At the table, the DM typically had just one page open to resolve all manoeuvres (switching to the relevant attack table during combat). Each player had their weapon table and it ran very fast.
Not that I'm not already getting plenty of use out of the 4e books you sent me, thanks again!
No worries. Glad they got there okay (even if slowly). :)
|
The one game I would really like to play again that I never really got to play enough of was RoleMaster. The guy who ran it used an amalgemation (sp) of different rules to make one set that worked for him. I tried to run it myself and it just didn't work. I am guessing it was because I didn't have the old rules like he had. It's a great system, none the less.Yeah rolemaster is my favourite complicated system. I liked the fact the crunch was all "front loaded", so although it took ages to create a character and advance a level, that could all be done away from the table.
At the table, the DM typically had just one page open to resolve all manoeuvres (switching to the relevant attack table during combat). Each player had their weapon table and it ran very fast.
Ah, I loved the old Rolemaster campaign that I played in, and a big part of that was probably the GM and his story that merged so many modules together without us really realizing it. (I found out after he moved away and bought a bunch of RM stuff and started finding bits and pieces everywhere.)
I loved the first session of character gen, and the chore of levelling.
I was probably the first player in the group to discover all the skill synergies in Companion II. Enjoying the skills from RM is probably what really turned me on to 3.x and Pathfinder.
Now I want to relive the days of rolling open-ended (even though sometimes low), and rolling a 66 on the crit...
Angus
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Personally I think Palladium screwed the pooch when they failed to jump on the d20 bandwagon in the early 2ks. It would have been a great excuse to clean up the rules into something coherent, and pump more interest into what is really a very cool setting.
Heh I have a friend who loves Rifts and tried to make a d20 conversion back then - he made the mistake of mentioning online that he was working on it and was sent a Cease and Desist by Palladium's legal department over his private homebrew. Apparently to them their system is The One True System(TM) and shall be converted to no other, even in private...
I love me some TORG as well..such a great setting. We've had some local success with a Savage Worlds conversion. SW works pretty well for handling characters from multiple genres at once - about the only thing it's lacking so far are good cybernetics rules. The only thing I miss is the drama deck - the adventure deck cards for SW just aren't quite the same feel. (For the uninitiated, the TORG system used a logarithmic number system - every five steps is a multiple of 10...great if you're math oriented, not so much otherwise). I've heard a German game company has the rights to TORG but I don't think they've done anything with it yet.
Occasionally when I'm bitten by the nostaligia bug I'll drag my friends into a BECMI one-shot. We do marvel at the fact that fights only take about 10-15 minutes tops. If you get use dto the fact that PCs are substantially weaker than d20 PCs, I don't think the system is that inflexible if you have a flexible GM - there aren't rules for a lot of things, so you have to make them up as you go. If your GM is of the opinion that "no rules=no can do" you're in for a rough time.
So what are the good rules-light(er) d20 or PF based systems? I'm curious.
Pathinder RPG is my favorite system, and I think also that MicroLite20 (in one of its many variations) is worth trying. There's an advantage to trying it first, in that it represents the simple end of the d20 spectrum, and so it's fairly easy to add elements to it (as opposed to subtract, which is more difficult). MicroLite20 "Purest Essence" is a well-presented and popular variation of MicroLite20.
If I want to play something different, I got to a different system without D&D roots. That could be Traveller, Rifts(yes, I said Rifts, don't ostracize me),
<snicker>
You do know that the Palladium system is basically a heavily house-ruled version of 1st Ed AD&D, don't you?
<serious>
Heh I have a friend who loves Rifts and tried to make a d20 conversion back then - he made the mistake of mentioning online that he was working on it and was sent a Cease and Desist by Palladium's legal department over his private homebrew. Apparently to them their system is The One True System(TM) and shall be converted to no other, even in private...
Heh... Not to mention the whole Primal Order thing.
Personally, I think Kevin Siembieda was a lot better at setting development (although he did tend to suffer a bit from Platonic thinking) than system design. Which, coupled with his "my baby" attitude, is a bit of a shame IMO; the Palladium system was an improvement over AD&D in several ways, but it was seriously outdated by the time 3.0 was released. Absolutely loved the Techno-Wizard concept in Rifts, though: wanted to convert a set of Flying Titan or Samson power armor to TW-principles (power systems, weapons, added features).
On Topic:
If you want a decent mix of "old school" D&D mechanics with "modern" flexibility in character design (actually more, in some ways), then the 2nd Ed AD&D Player's Option books (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, and Spells & Magic) are a great resource, if you can find a set. As a DM/GM especially, they're an amazing toolkit for setting design, allowing a tremendous amount of customization to races and classes.
I like playing Pathfinder, but there's no way I would actually run a game. Speaking as a former Champions GM, life is just too short for dealing with the complications inherent in the system- I'm not going to spend an hour making a villain that's going to die in three rounds. The flexibility congress st the cost of massive complexity.
Not to mention I still can't do some character designs I like: for instance, I used to like playing Mage/Thieves in AD&D, but frankly that's a really bad choice in 3E.And Pathfinder still can't make rogues worth a damn.
If I want simplicity, I play Dungeon World; if I want flexibility, these days I'm more inclined to play Fate Core, which is both simple and flexible. Pathfinder I play because I like messing with spreadsheets.
One of the things that I see a lot of people post is "how complicated Pathfinder is". To me it's one of the more stream lined and easy systems out there. All you're doing is applying positives or negatives to beat a DC. Sure, there are a lot of options, but does that make it "complicated"? I've see people never even touch special combat moves and just roll straight attacks without any problems. I guess the most complicated thing about it is grappling, but that's most systems out there. Games like Rolemaster and Palladium are way more complicated because of their convoluted and mesh-mashed rules (I too am a huge Rifts setting fan but hate the rules). Even 2nd ed D&D is counter intuitive in many ways. For some reason Thac0 escapes people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no desire to go back to AD&D. I think the vast majority of changes with 3E/Pathfinder were for the better.
One of the things that I see a lot of people post is "how complicated Pathfinder is". To me it's one of the more stream lined and easy systems out there. All you're doing is applying positives or negatives to beat a DC. Sure, there are a lot of options, but does that make it "complicated"?
The complication is in knowing what numbers to add/subtract and where to look them up. There are a bunch of modifiers for different situations, feats, spells, class abilities and they all interact in different, not-entirely-clear ways (witness the rules forum and how definite two people can be as they hold contradictory positions).
I also find the action system bizarre. We never played 3.5 and maybe it seems more natural to those that have. I find remembering what things require which action type and how many different kinds of actions I can perform in one round to be totally non intuitive. I dont find that complexity adds anything over the games where you just move and do one "thing".
What I liked about rolemaster's complication, in contrast, was that the difficulty mods were the same for any activity. There was one double page to keep open and you could run an entire session (barring combat where every weapon had its own, identically laid out, page). You didn't have to remember exceptions all he time.
The only thing that could tempt me back to the earlier versions of D&D would be running classic settings and adventures I'd like my friends to experience without going to all the trouble of updating them into the new ruleset. Planescape, Dark Sun, old school Gygax adventures -- I run campaigns for a group about 20 years younger than I, and I'd love them to see what those were like. But there are often updated versions of these materials floating around if you look for them, and they're usually pretty good. (Though I have to admit that adventures like Tomb of Horrors, or really anything that relied heavily on traps, can just never be as terrifying as they were in OD&D. Traps and poison just aren't as scary anymore, so long as you keep to EL guidelines.) Aside from a few little things here and there that I houserule for PF, I think it's a great ruleset with a lot of flexibility based around an easily grasped core, and I can imagine using it for a long time to come.
One of the things that I see a lot of people post is "how complicated Pathfinder is". To me it's one of the more stream lined and easy systems out there. All you're doing is applying positives or negatives to beat a DC. Sure, there are a lot of options, but does that make it "complicated"? I've see people never even touch special combat moves and just roll straight attacks without any problems. I guess the most complicated thing about it is grappling, but that's most systems out there. Games like Rolemaster and Palladium are way more complicated because of their convoluted and mesh-mashed rules (I too am a huge Rifts setting fan but hate the rules). Even 2nd ed D&D is counter intuitive in many ways. For some reason Thac0 escapes people.
The complication comes from the wealth of feats, items, spells, archetypes and other minutiae which modify the core system. Yes, the basic mechanics are quite intuitive and simple, but to try to have a comprehensive knowledge of everything that is possible and legal so you know if someone is pulling a fast one is not by any means trivial. This isn't as bad in a home game since if you don't like how something works you just say 'no. However in PFS you have to take RAW and go with it, not matter how bad some edge cases are or how obscure the rule that the player is deciding to use.
One of the things that I see a lot of people post is "how complicated Pathfinder is". To me it's one of the more stream lined and easy systems out there. All you're doing is applying positives or negatives to beat a DC. Sure, there are a lot of options, but does that make it "complicated"?The complication is in knowing what numbers to add/subtract and where to look them up. There are a bunch of modifiers for different situations, feats, spells, class abilities and they all interact in different, not-entirely-clear ways (witness the rules forum and how definite two people can be as they hold contradictory positions).
I also find the action system bizarre. We never played 3.5 and maybe it seems more natural to those that have. I find remembering what things require which action type and how many different kinds of actions I can perform in one round to be totally non intuitive. I dont find that complexity adds anything over the games where you just move and do one "thing".
What I liked about rolemaster's complication, in contrast, was that the difficulty mods were the same for any activity. There was one double page to keep open and you could run an entire session (barring combat where every weapon had its own, identically laid out, page). You didn't have to remember exceptions all he time.
Also stuff like attacks of opportunity, unless PF has vastly reduced the number of actions which provoke. AoOs are simple enough as a mechanism -- turn your back on an enemy, or wiggle your fingers within swinging distance, and he gets a free attack! But remembering all those other actions that provoke is a headache.
Really, PF benefits from the unified d20 system, which I believe is loads better than all the little subsystems that came before. But the devil's in the details.
Dude, I can't even play 3.5 anymore. Yea, I played 1E back in the day as well. I looked at OSR clones not long ago, thinking maybe I can convert some of my monsters into those systems and I was like, "yea, I left that a long time ago, I can't go back." 30-ish year old game design ... just not for me.
I feel like if I could get in on a 3.5 game, I could let loose. PF's bazillion under-the-radar changes and situational stuff feels like my sword arm got lopped off at the wrist. I'm not talking about "power-gaming," because I know that's what it sounds like, I just mean in terms of sheer options and control.
Thankfully, my DM gave in and is allowing us to use 3.5 material converted to PF on a case-by case basis. I know to avoid all of the big loophole exploiters from 3.5e rules, so stuff I bring to the table isn't much of a threat. I just get use the options I prefer, in the game my group prefers. Win-win.
If I want to play something different, I got to a different system without D&D roots. That could be Traveller, Rifts(yes, I said Rifts, don't ostracize me),<snicker>
You do know that the Palladium system is basically a heavily house-ruled version of 1st Ed AD&D, don't you?
<serious>
Heh I have a friend who loves Rifts and tried to make a d20 conversion back then - he made the mistake of mentioning online that he was working on it and was sent a Cease and Desist by Palladium's legal department over his private homebrew. Apparently to them their system is The One True System(TM) and shall be converted to no other, even in private...Heh... Not to mention the whole Primal Order thing.
Personally, I think Kevin Siembieda was a lot better at setting development (although he did tend to suffer a bit from Platonic thinking) than system design. Which, coupled with his "my baby" attitude, is a bit of a shame IMO; the Palladium system was an improvement over AD&D in several ways, but it was seriously outdated by the time 3.0 was released. Absolutely loved the Techno-Wizard concept in Rifts, though: wanted to convert a set of Flying Titan or Samson power armor to TW-principles (power systems, weapons, added features).
On Topic:
If you want a decent mix of "old school" D&D mechanics with "modern" flexibility in character design (actually more, in some ways), then the 2nd Ed AD&D Player's Option books (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, and Spells & Magic) are a great resource, if you can find a set. As a DM/GM especially, they're an amazing toolkit for setting design, allowing a tremendous amount of customization to races and classes.
On Topic: Most of my favorite characters are 2nd Ed characters. Campaigns that will always be remembered fondly. And memories are where they will stay. Like trying to watch He-man or Thundercats again as an adult, trying to play them again will just ruin those memories. Just my take. I agree with Dragoncess on the players option books. Fantastic. Except that first module I ever played(and I stole it from my old DM to convert and torture my group later). The Gate of Firestorm Peak. I HATE Duergar.
Side note: Most of my Rifts books were bathroom material until recently. They are fun reads for fluff, but I spent way to much time trying to bend the frustratingly broken(and poorly edited)rules system to my will over the years with little success and raised blood pressure. Not long ago I read a rather inspiring article about Rifts and had a moment of clarity. Accept that the rules are horrible and broken. Accept that nothing is balanced. Accept that, despite all this, South America 1&2 will be banned forever. I whipped up a game with a starting point, and overall goal, and a ton of space in between for them to get into trouble. I compiled a wildly varied list of classes (O.C.C's) to choose from and told them to pick three each with the understanding that this game was lethal. I limited equipment to a couple of books and have introduced more lethal instruments of landscaping(the environment generally suffer more than your opponents) as rewards over the course of the game. As for rules? The players can try anything they want and I just alter the "rules" on the fly to suit the needs of the situation. This is a highly story driven game, rules secondary and my players love it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of ways to talk about it, but I think i've just been orbiting around an undetermined central theme, and as time goes on i'm getting closer and closer to hitting that gravitational source.... What is it about the systems that makes 2e stand out as better to me...
Balance or lack of balance doesn't really do it for me... That conversation, right or wrong... Just doesnt feel like hitting the nail on the head... I've had balanced systems and I've had not balanced systems... Truth is I don't seem to care much about balance since I haven't hated systems with it, and I haven't hated systems without it.
Wierd Races? Alignments? Versatility? Customization? Uniquness? Theme? I seem to have opinions on all these things, but even the things I like best aren't enough to make me even consider the system itself better, and the things I hate the worst aren't bad enough to make me stop playing... And I think I've always thought this way about every system that came before... What is it about pathfinder that eludes me in that I can't nail down a concise answer on what one thing really puts it firmly where I think it goes... If the system is mostly like mostly every game Ive ever played, then what is that one single thing that makes it so polarizingly absolutely positioned below 2e in my head.
And I think rocket tag is it... My party last night spent about 6 hours planning an attack on the fortress of a single ancient white dragon in RotRL.... I mean I think ancient white dragon and I think man... This thing is going to clean our clocks. We better bring everything we have to bear on this. It won't be a welcome wagon jolly splatfest... This won't be a win unless it's both a power and strategy win. We set ourselves up so that this epic battle was going to end up a victory for us no matter how bad this thing thinks it is...
We arrived on scene, and without a single spell cast and ostensibly meathead tactics, dropped that venerable superdragon in about 18 seconds...
If the dragon had twice the hit points it would have lasted longer... but in doing so would have lasted long enough to kill someone in the party outright.... so I think "Well I'd never want that, so just chalk it up to a smashing success of our well thought out tactics and call it a day!"
But then for the most part our tactics and planning didn't really play into the fight much at all. Not really a substantive effect in any way... 12 seconds of standing toe to toe with a dwarven fighter is just about all a venerable superdragon can take... And suddenly the fight felt... Lame.
The dread pirate robert and vizzini not only got off more attacks, but had a more interesting fight, and the fight lasted longer than that ancient dragon did against a hairy squat fellow playing chop a chop on his foot for 12 seconds. Sure we took damage... And sure I didn't want to die or want the fight to last long enough to kill us... But the way quadratic damage works in this game... Nothing survives that long. And you could jack up the cr, but doing so only means that the 12 seconds are suddenly not going to be in your favor as much as they were before... But it's still a 12 second knife fight in a phone booth.
I've got no criticism for how our gm ran the dragon. I'd have ran it just as he did. In the end I've taken dumps that fought harder than that dragon.... and held out longer under pressure... Heck. I've had toilet flushes that took longer than that fight.
And why? Too much damage.... WAAAAY too much damage. That dragon had 3 digits worth of hit points but who cares... the dwarf can do 80 damage a swing on a critical... He's half dead by round 2. If my character chose to stand in the background and hold his breath until the fight was over, I wouldn't even have to make any con checks or fort saves... And you have to do it that way because 12 seconds later, if that thing hasn't killed you, you're probably dead instead...
In 2e that dragon would have a mere average of 76 paltry hit points, but the axe that's attacking him would have been 20 damage per swing... so the ratios of damage to hit points has the illusion of being about right... but the dragon would have lasted longer, done less damage to us overall so that we could continue adventuring, and our group would have hit far less often and never done spike critical damage... the fight would have lasted longer and could have lasted longer without anyone fearing death at taking the extra time to really 'work hard' to get that dragon down.... And man a dragon of a more robust variety? That was serious business... Dragons didn't need 'dragon fear'... They made you afraid just because they were dragons.
I can only compare the experience to the difference between a guy who spends 10 years learning how to play the most simple song the most beautifully and artfully, and the guy who spent 10 years learning how to play flight of the bumblebee on an electric guitar at 200 beats per minute... One seems wonderful and worth the effort. The other can hardly be considered music anymore....
And if the 'fighting part' of the game takes about as long as it takes to fight a sneeze, then you start thinking about all the other things I never used to be willing to go to war over, like wierd race choices and alignments, balance, customization, theme... Things that we always enjoyed analyzing, but never with such ire and vitriol.... Maybe because I was younger, or maybe because the fights seemed more fun. I'd say it was rose colored glasses but I've played 2e recently and a battle against 6 crabmen on a pirateship had more swash, more buckle, and more gravitas than that ancient white dragon fight.
I guess I like my fights more cinematic... Sure things like Ivhan Bibiatov vs Mateusz Piechocki and Neil Grove vs James Thompson happen. (Then again thompson vs Emelianenko sort of proves Thompson makes a career out of going to sleep quickly in the ring...) But they're awesome specifically because they dont happen often... To make them common would be to make them less interesting... Imagine if every fight scene in every movie, or every boxing match you ever went to lasted 12 seconds... I don't want my ancient dragon to go down like a chump... I don't want a 500 year old lizard to go down as easy as a non american in a chuck norris movie.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having upgraded my tabletop game from a hybrid 2nd/3rd ed. AD&D game to Pathfinder? I must say Pathfinder reignited my interest in running games... and their APs reignited my sense of fun in running games. :)