The OP is just having a little bit of fun. E6 advocates often come off a little arrogant, declaring that they've found a better way to play and that they've fixed what's "wrong" with Pathfinder. A little gentle needling is a time-honoured tradition; have a little fun with it, rather than becoming indignant.
Yeah, somehow they are better at game design than Jacobs, Reynolds and those other newbie amateurs. ;-)
But E1 is too much. Really the DM has even more control with E0. Yes, let's go back to zero level characters, ones without even a class. That ways there's not even a tiny chance that some clever player will find a way to use a cantrip, thus derailing the"superfuntrain".
I
And DM Blake shows how not only can it be done, but that it *even more* creates the kind of game that the E6 folk seem to enjoy...
...
By E6 folk you mean DMs who enjoy running low magic / high DM control games. Rarely do we see players enthusing over playing in one. Just DMs who enjoy running them.
If so then why is 6 not trollybad... and if it's not then hey... E2.... think about it...
It could actually be fun. And for the exact same reasons people think e6 is fun, pretty much.
You do realise Basic D&D went up to level 3 and was quite popular, right? [/QUOTIt was, but only because it led to other versions with higher levels. It was never intended for long term game play, just for kids and newbies. Mind you, it was a great way to get into D&D .
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.
Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.
By E6 folk you mean DMs who enjoy running low magic / high DM control games. Rarely do we see players enthusing over playing in one. Just DMs who enjoy running them.I
And DM Blake shows how not only can it be done, but that it *even more* creates the kind of game that the E6 folk seem to enjoy...
...
Your generalizations are incorrect.
As a player, about a year ago, I asked my DM to run the game as E8. Traditionally, he's one of the more permissive DM's in our group. He let us have nearly anything we wanted (could afford, make the rolls for) in Shadowrun. There were consequences to having that stuff, but we got it.
I've never found the appeal of it, and I do usually see a DM who insists on playing E6 instead of players asking for it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
I'm running a version of E6 right now. Its called a "Month-Ly" campaign. You see, over the last year and a half the party's only gained 5 levels.
I'm being totally serious when I say if you want low levels, just use slower xp or no xp and had out levels where appropriate. Or play the Beginner Box.
I know its sacrilege, but I never enjoyed the red box. I started in AD&D, then backtracked to the boxes. I suppose this skewed my development.
Now in PF, while I enjoy monkeying with a lot of stuff, changing the whole advancement track of the game seems daunting and counter intuitive. But that's just me; I know there are A LOT of gamers out there who enjoy this style.
I'm not going to lie: I like starting new campaigns at 1st level. But I like it for the same reason a lot of other people do: because its easy. But then I also enjoy seeing PCs amass armies, build castles, and hurl spells that make the gods take notice. Its not for everyone, but it works for me.
I want either E-pi or E-e :p
Shouldn't it be called P1 or P6 or whatever instead?
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
I have noticed this, getting my KM group up to around level 12 just recently, and my last three games petering out (more due to OOC/OOG issues than high level frustrations) at 11th, 15th, and 10th. Once I'm done with the campaign, my players and I will be sitting down to figure out how we best want to smooth high-level play out before moving on to our next game. We might do an E? variant. We might just alter some of the combat rules (because God knows we have plenty of houserules already, more won't hurt). It's really up to what we as a group figure is best.
I really like the "spells beyond the E? limit must be done as rituals" idea. I still like mages and such being able to teleport around, but restricting it to Dimension Door and having anything more powerful require either a bunch of cooperating mages or a big magical focus like a portal sounds really interesting to me.
And heck, you can still toss Mythic onto it (at least theoretically) and have E6/7/8 characters taking on mid-teens CR challenges.
I do have to say, to everyone who's accusing the OP of being a troll, this is the first thread that ever got me to actually consider the idea of E? games. Prior to some of the more recent posts I really never gave it much thought other than "okay, low level/low magic game, well have fun with that".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
You have a good point there, but I can't get myself to agree. Just like with EXP, there is some kind of strange appeal to increasing numbers, this applying to levels as well as abilities granted. My players wanted to keep EXP instead of me occasionally granting a level, despite the latter working better for me when it comes to planning how encounters should go so that they aren't too easy nor too hard. The whole E6 style might appeal to some, but so far none of the players or DMs in my circles have given it their approval.
You have a good point there, but I can't get myself to agree. Just like with EXP, there is some kind of strange appeal to increasing numbers, this applying to levels as well as abilities granted. My players wanted to keep EXP instead of me occasionally granting a level, despite the latter working better for me when it comes to planning how encounters should go so that they aren't too easy nor too hard. The whole E6 style might appeal to some, but so far none of the players or DMs in my circles have given it their approval.Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
I've never seen reason to present E? to the group before myself, but my group is 100% with you on XP. I've seen it mentioned twice and the reply was always a resounding "NO!".
The nice thing about E? seems to be that the XP can still keep accumulating and you still get rewards (feats, etc.) even if the class levels stop advancing, so it's not completely full stop.
If my group ever does adopt it, it'll probably be E9/10/11, as the mid-levels tend to be my group's favorites, and care a little less for things above say 15. (The whole "Odd E-levels gimp spont casters" issue is a nonissue for us, we've long houseruled them down to advancing on par with their prepared counterparts.)
|
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
And this is why I am seriously looking into and will be running my next game as E6 or E7. My group is currently in the mid-teen area and in a 4 hour session we can get through 2 maybe 3 encounters if we are lucky...the story that previously had us roaming around the world on cool adventures for the last year or 2 of real time is now bogged down so that we can barely get through a dungeon in a couple months. I like the stories and, for me, E? will help to keep it flowing.
I mean come on. who really needs more than a feat or two, some cantrips and 2 digits worth of hit points anyway...
Everyone is a first level commoner built on -5 points.
|
|
You have a good point there, but I can't get myself to agree. Just like with EXP, there is some kind of strange appeal to increasing numbers, this applying to levels as well as abilities granted. My players wanted to keep EXP instead of me occasionally granting a level, despite the latter working better for me when it comes to planning how encounters should go so that they aren't too easy nor too hard. The whole E6 style might appeal to some, but so far none of the players or DMs in my circles have given it their approval.Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
My players were second level when they resurrected a dead race in a powerful ritual. They were 4th level when they started a barony. 6th level when they raised an army to fight a troll king at their borders.
If players couldn't make more than 2 attacks a turn, and problematic spells were all turned to rituals, and buff slots restricted endless stat increases and monsters were quicker to prep eX would probably go the way of the dodo.
I have two games in the level 11+ range and progress is so SLLLOOOOW, even experienced gamers who know what we're doing still take 5 minute turns because there is just so many attacks to calculate. The numbers don't make the descriptions of gruesome death any cooler.
I've already talked my players out of XP in Kingmaker. Next campaign is going to be a Curse of the Crimson Throne/Council of Thieves Urban Sandbox set to the tune of e6.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.
Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.
Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.
PF is a beautifully designed square peg. I hate to see bad DM trying to hammer it into a round hole...and doing so badly.
Want a skill based game? There are dozens. A low magic? Likewise. Respect those Devs by buying and using their products. Respect the Paizo people by playing the game at least somewhat how it was designed.
Yes, PF is *THE* hot games system now and if course your players are clamoring to play it. Just be honest with them. Tell them you can't or won't and suggest a real low magic systems rather than trying to bastardize Pathfinder.
Respect. Honesty.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
Sure, if you're thinking the game is like Monopoly and meant to be played as such.
I happen to think of the game like Legos, and Jason and co. aren't going to be offended when you throw the instructions to the side with half the pieces and make something completely different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, according to that reasoning, nobody should ever house rule? Even when the dev's come out and tell us to make the game our own? If you feel that way that's awesome, play the way you want to play and stick to the RAW. But maybe don't come into every EX thread in the house rules forum and tell people with different opinions than you that they are doing it wrong. Play the way you want to play and respect that not everyone has the same opinion as you.
Yeah that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
If you're a dev and you're thin-skinned enough that you consider someone using a houserule or game limitation of their own design to be "disrespect", you're in the wrong industry.
And as far as honesty goes, I'll happily be honest with you and give you the long list of houserules my group plays with, and that I prefer to play with when I'm not GMside.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.
...
Respect. Honesty.
I'm not sure how it is a sign of disrespect or dishonesty to take what is already a good system and modify it to play more inline with what I want from a game.
I'm not telling the dev's I know how to do their jobs better than they do. Heck, i've shelled out a ton of money supporting their hard work and creativity. I just want to play in or run a game that has a modified power baseline or ceiling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.
Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.
Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.
PF is a beautifully designed square peg. I hate to see bad DM trying to hammer it into a round hole...and doing so badly.
Want a skill based game? There are dozens. A low magic? Likewise. Respect those Devs by buying and using their products. Respect the Paizo people by playing the game at least somewhat how it was designed.
Yes, PF is *THE* hot games system now and if course your players are clamoring to play it. Just be honest with them. Tell them you can't or won't and suggest a real low magic systems rather than trying to bastardize Pathfinder.
Respect. Honesty.
Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.
Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.
Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.
PF is a beautifully designed square peg. I hate to see bad DM trying to hammer it into a round hole...and doing so badly.
Want a skill based game? There are dozens. A low magic? Likewise. Respect those Devs by buying and using their products. Respect the Paizo people by playing the game at least somewhat how it was designed.
Yes, PF is *THE* hot games system now and if course your players are clamoring to play it. Just be honest with them. Tell them you can't or won't and suggest a real low magic systems rather than trying to bastardize Pathfinder.
Respect. Honesty.
I game (weekly) with a dev who won an ENnie for best rules. He couldn't care less if you houserule his game. Actually, that's not true. He'd think it's cool and would probably even be curious to know what you did and why.
At this week's session, we were even talking about old school gaming. Back in the 80's and 90's, almost every D&D group probably had a binder full of house rules. There were probably dozens, if not hundreds, of groups that played a strange amalgam of D&D, AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed. Each one different from the other.
I know back in the 90's I played in two different D&D groups, and while there was some crossover, each group had their own massive set of house rules. One group probably had 100+ pages, typed, of rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, dotting for the interesting conversation that's developed.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
I'm gonna disagree with you here. The GM has a much better idea of how to balance their game than the developers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.I'm gonna disagree with you here. The GM has a much better idea of how to balance their game than the developers.
Which the devs have said, repeatedly, in many places across this forum. JJ's thread just the first and most well-known of them. Hardly sounds to me like the response of someone who's offended by the disrespect of a lesser mind.
Really, that entire ranting post is the worst of every "You play the game wrong" trite cliche forum response all rolled into one big ball. It's probably possible to be more elitist and condescending toward other people's play styles, but I imagine it's not easy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.I'm gonna disagree with you here. The GM has a much better idea of how to balance their game than the developers.
This. Every group is different. When I write something, I aim to keep it flexible enough that GMs can tweak it to fit their group's playstyle. Nothing puts me off an adventure module or indeed an entire system more than "This is how *our* game works works. Play it or go play something else" (and I tend to include linear modules in that too - there's a reason I prefer to just give GMs a sandbox full of toys and let them do their own thing with them)
There is no such thing as the perfect RPG. It's impossible to come up with a system that checks every box for every player. All you can do is make sure it's flexible enough that most people can easily tweak it, chop bits off, and glue bits on to make it work for them.
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
In my nearly forty years of playing and DMing all variants, I have never noticed a discrepancy that high. No doubt, higher levels do mean each round takes longer, sure.
But more encounters do not mean more fun, by any means.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.
Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.
Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.
I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.
PF is a beautifully designed square peg. I hate to see bad DM trying to hammer it into a round hole...and doing so badly.
Want a skill based game? There are dozens. A low magic? Likewise. Respect those Devs by buying and using their products. Respect the Paizo people by playing the game at least somewhat how it was designed.
Yes, PF is *THE* hot games system now and if course your players are clamoring to play it. Just be honest with them. Tell them you can't or won't and suggest a real low magic systems rather than trying to bastardize Pathfinder.
Respect. Honesty.
I'm also going to have to disagree with you. 3.0 was hardly a perfect game and got chopped and changed to make 3.5, which in turn got chopped and changed to create Pathfinder (and the original e6). You know Pathfinder was built partially on Jason Bulmahn's big binder of house rules he had come up with over the years right?
He wasn't disrespecting designers like Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet or Gary Gygax.
In fact as long as there's been role playing games there's been house rules, additions and subtractions.
Here's a few from my table:
Combat Maneuvers: Only provoke attacks of opportunity on a FAILED check.
Hit Points: Characters gain MAX hit points between level 1-5. (Low hp hurts more than high hp helps)
Ability Scores: Each player (including GM) rolls 4d6 and subtracts the lowest ONCE. If there are only 5 people present then the last score is adjusted to create an array roughly equal to 20 point buy.
XP: Levels are given out for completing important quests. There is no XP.
Level 5-10 is the "sweet spot" of Pathfinder and 3.5 and 3.0. It's the point in the game where there is complexity and choice, but player turns still stay short. The pacing and rhythm of the game are at their best during these levels and people everywhere are acknowledging that. eX variants are really people acknowledging where the best work of three "generations" of developers lies.
|
|
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
In my nearly forty years of playing and DMing all variants, I have never noticed a discrepancy that high. No doubt, higher levels do mean each round takes longer, sure.
But more encounters do not mean more fun, by any means.
Consider this, when turns take longer that means its longer between each player's turn. When you're sitting at the table and it's been FORTY minutes(each players turn taking roughly 10 mins) since you last did anything besides marking hit points off because you were hit by a monster. It's a four hour game (because you meet weekly on a Wednesday night because it's the only night that 4-7 adults have free on a regular basis), and for FORTY MINUTES during ONE ROUND of combat you were sitting there twiddling your thumbs. Combats usually last 3-6 rounds. That means during a single combat you spend 180 minutes not actually interacting with the game in any meaningful way.
Yes, that means less encounters means less fun, because by extension that means each turn takes more time. This is with a group of experienced players who know their stuff. The fact is in game design the amount of time a turn takes impacts those whose turn it isn't. 1-9 the problem is less significant, turns are significantly shorter. But at higher level complexity grows to the point where the game feels bloated, unbalanced and is distinctly less fun.
I'm also going to have to disagree with you. 3.0 was hardly a perfect game and got chopped and changed to make 3.5, which in turn got chopped and changed to create Pathfinder (and the original e6). You know Pathfinder was built partially on Jason Bulmahn's big binder of house rules he had come up with over the years right?
He wasn't disrespecting designers like Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet or Gary Gygax.
In fact as long as there's been role playing games there's been house rules, additions and subtractions.
Here's a few from my table:
** spoiler omitted **...
Yes, but indeed, Bulmahn stopped saying he was playing 3.5 at a point and called it Pathfinder, and with far less rules changes than E6. E6 changes over 70%' PF changed maybe 20 or 30%.
But actually we agree. The sweet spot is levels 5-10', or maybe 5-12 at most. So we agree, then, levels 6,7,8,9,10 are the best levels to play. Why then support E6 which dumps fully 80% of the best levels?
Heck, we both know that in actual real gaming, most games end before lvl 20. Even my DM for the higher level game sez we will stop around 16 or 17, and that's fine by me.
Sure players rarely clamour for e6. But players rarely complain about more power.
What a GM knows is that in a four hour game, characters of level 1-6 can complete around 5-12 encounters. Characters of level 8+ can complete maybe 2-4 encounters. Furthermore there isn't an increase of fun in comparison. Nor do stories get deeper or inherently more interesting at higher level.
You know what players clamour for e6 (and its variants)? Players who realise how little payoff there is for running higher level games.
In my nearly forty years of playing and DMing all variants, I have never noticed a discrepancy that high. No doubt, higher levels do mean each round takes longer, sure.
But more encounters do not mean more fun, by any means.
Consider this, when turns take longer that means its longer between each player's turn. When you're sitting at the table and it's been FORTY minutes(each players turn taking roughly 10 mins) since you last did anything besides marking hit points off because you were hit by a monster. It's a four hour game (because you meet weekly on a Wednesday night because it's the only night that 4-7 adults have free on a regular basis), and for FORTY MINUTES during ONE ROUND of combat you were sitting there twiddling your thumbs. Combats usually last 3-6 rounds. That means during a single combat you spend 180 minutes not actually interacting with the game in any meaningful way.
Yes, that means less encounters means less fun, because by extension that means each turn takes more time. This is with a group of experienced players who know their stuff. The fact is in game design the amount of time a turn takes impacts those whose turn it isn't. 1-9 the problem is less significant, turns are significantly shorter. But at higher level complexity grows to the point where the game feels bloated, unbalanced and is distinctly less fun.
Umm, no. Well, to a point, OK. But although yes, the time between my turns is longer, my turn takes longer, and so I get exactly the same amount of playing time as before. Do the math. And we don't take even half of 10 minutes each to do a round even at 11th level.
So, less encounters means exactly the same playing time for everyone. The same spotlight, everything.
|
|
I'm also going to have to disagree with you. 3.0 was hardly a perfect game and got chopped and changed to make 3.5, which in turn got chopped and changed to create Pathfinder (and the original e6). You know Pathfinder was built partially on Jason Bulmahn's big binder of house rules he had come up with over the years right?
He wasn't disrespecting designers like Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet or Gary Gygax.
In fact as long as there's been role playing games there's been house rules, additions and subtractions.
Here's a few from my table:
** spoiler omitted **...Yes, but indeed, Bulmahn stopped preventing he was playing 3.5 at a point and called it Pathfinder, and with far less rules changes than E6. E6 changes over 70%' PF changed maybe 20 or 30%.
But actually we agree. The sweet spot is levels 5-10', or maybe 5-12 at most. So we agree, then, levels 6,7,8,9,10 are the best levels to play. Why then support E6 which dumps fully 80% of the best levels?
Heck, we both know that in actual real gaming, most games end before lvl 20. Even my DM for the higher level game sez we will stop around 16 or 17, and that's fine by me.
There's a reason why the eX variants debate on 6, 7 or 8 as the best stopping place. Actually when you use e6, you still get the fun of level 7-10 because 5 "epic" feats equals roughly 1 level.
You aren't really cutting out 80% of the game, in fact character levels are only one part of the game. Combat is like 50% of the game and e6 still has that, the game still has roleplaying, skills, magic, magic items etc. Heck I'm interested to see if e8/mythic 10 could roughly replicate 13-15th level play but simpler.
Sure, but this is a strawman. No one doubts that every DM should season the soup a little himself. The rules call for it. But lopping off 70% of the game then crudely stitching back on some mess is not some houserules added for individuality and flavor.There is no such thing as the perfect RPG. It's impossible to come up with a system that checks every box for every player. All you can do is make sure it's flexible enough that most people can easily tweak it, chop bits off, and glue bits on to make it work for them.
In that case, some of the best SRD-based RPGs have been created by lopping off 70% of the game and building on the remainder ;)
Seems to me all E6 and co are really doing is removing 70% of the experience table (and any associated spells, etc), not 70% of the game. The majority of the game is in how things like skill checks and combat work. It's really not that different to removing every core class and creating new ones for d20 Modern, B5, or Spycraft.
When someone modifies the game at that kind of level, it's gone past house rules and into creating a new game based on the original source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you guys seen BFRPG? It's sort of like Pathfinder/E6/also-with-level-advancement-up-to-20. I love it, but have house-ruled the whole saving throw thing.
Have you guys seen BFRPG? It's sort of like Pathfinder/E6/also-with-level-advancement-up-to-20. I love it, but have house-ruled the whole saving throw thing.
Hmm, interesting, looks like a hybrid of D20 rules and BECMI :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that doesn't address those of us who like the idea as a player, and I'm guessing a fear of the unknown isn't the only reason DMs like it.
First Basic Pathfinder box now E6. Can we Dum down role playing any game more. Let make this hobby that any one can do. So it not just smart folks any more.
Please, it's already accessible to the lowest common denominator.
that my point
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think that E(X) is for DMs who aren't as good as you to be able to straightjacket their players onto the plot train then you obviously don't get it. E(X) can be run in whatever style, and it's not a crutch for lesser DMs. It's about extending the fun times, whatever range that may be for a particular group, for players and DMs alike.
For my example I'm in one E7 game out of my 4 games. It's the only one of the 4 that I am running as a complete sandbox, players go wherever they want to go and there is no metaplot running throughout the entire game. I'm running two other games and playing in a 3rd game which are not going to be E(X). Running Ways of the Wicked as a 1-20 with Mythic added game, players have some choices but as an AP there is a plot train running throughout which the PCs will have to follow. Also running an homage to Baldur's Gate 2 as a play by post that will probably top off at level 18 or so with a Mythic Tier or 2 (currently Players are level 8-9 range) which has room for player freedom but is on a plot rail as well.
I decided, and my players agreed, that E7 would work best for our sandbox because the E7 paradigm really does give them complete freedom and leaves me free to be the impartial DM. The PCs don't have the Oblivion effect, where magically the sandbox around them adjusts itself to their CR in order to keep them challenged or prevent inadvertent TPKs, and I don't need to put them on rails or use kid gloves. If they hear an orc horde is threatening a city then at level 2 or 3 they can go disperse the horde (made of bog standard orcs with a few warrior 2-3s and maybe an elite fighter 3 leader) while knowing that the orc horde really was a threat to the major city which is lucky to have a couple of elite level 2 guards leading a lot of warrior 1's or commoner/expert militia.
Basically, the PCs get to start off heroic (1st level in a PC class when most of the world is an NPC, and stay heroic because we decided that the sandbox we are playing in doesn't need to have more than 7 level classes. The lesser complexity also works awesomely for us, as we meet online to game over chat and the less time we have to spend calculating the more time we get to spend playing. We all like Pathfinder, and some of these same people I play E7 with are in my higher level games or were in my Kingmaker game which went to the mid teens, so modifying Pathfinder works for us while buying into and learning a brand new system which might not do what we want in the end anyways does not. It's not the only way we could do it but it's the way we thought would work best and are having fun with.