I do find it weird sometimes how it seems like every single poster on the forum has been playing since the 1970's. Seriously, any long discussion thread is going to be full of people trying to claim authority on the basis of how they've been playing tabletop RPGs for nearly forty years. I don't doubt there are some old grognards on the forum, but from how often people brag about how they've been playing since the seventies, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only twenty-something who started tabletop RPGs in college, while everyone else on the board has been playing since a decade before I was even born.
It's kinda funny how people think that playing a 30+ years old game with completely different rules somehow gives them better insight into a game that is not even 10 years old.
It's mostly an extension of the sad "I was here first. I'm better than you" mentality that we see in so many situations, even those where age makes little or no difference at all.
That said, gygaxian traps are not an assumption of PF. If you add them to the game, Trapfinding becomes more valuable, of course. But it's a modification you made. A house-rule. And therefore, has not real weight in a discussion about RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've only been playing since 2005.
2009 and didn't even know Pathfinder existed until 2011. I wonder if I'll be complaining about the good old days of tabletop RPGs in 40 or so years.
"Back in my day it was actually 'pen and paper,' none of this 'astral thought projection into un-constructed dream space' nonsense you kids do nowadays."
"We had to walk up hill both ways in the snow to make the Monk work and that's how we liked it!"
I do find it weird sometimes how it seems like every single poster on the forum has been playing since the 1970's. Seriously, any long discussion thread is going to be full of people trying to claim authority on the basis of how they've been playing tabletop RPGs for nearly forty years. I don't doubt there are some old grognards on the forum, but from how often people brag about how they've been playing since the seventies, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only twenty-something who started tabletop RPGs in college, while everyone else on the board has been playing since a decade before I was even born.
I'll have you know I'm still young and beautiful too! I even confessed that in the reasons you should be shunned thread.
Anyways... Yes, it tends to happen, but the game has evolved and there are still many playstyles. Would you believe me if I said I know someone that still wants to use Grimtooth's traps in 3.5 games? Personally, I've always seen a disconnect in what was best then and now, but to each their own(opinion).
"We had to walk up hill both ways in the snow to make the Monk work and that's how we liked it!"It'll take more than 40 years to get the Monk to work.
I'm tempted to link a video to a dragon ball Z or Fist of the North Star fight and call that a working monk. I'm sure I could find several other anime that work...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"HOW DARE YOU RUIN MAH FANTASY SETTING WITH THAT ANIMU BULLCRAP" would be the response I would expect from some people if you did that, Sin.
"HOW DARE YOU RUIN MAH FANTASY SETTING WITH THAT ANIMU BULLCRAP" would be the response I would expect from some people if you did that, Sin.
Nah, I'd link something really crazy like Guilty Crown if I really wanted to do that. Guy pulling a sword out of a girl's chest and using it to rip apart mechas in high speed action scenes to metal music? Sure... yeah, why not. I'm not even sure if it made sense in context(it did, in later exposition). Pretty sure he wasn't using a temple sword though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tempted to link a video to a dragon ball Z or Fist of the North Star fight and call that a working monk. I'm sure I could find several other anime that work..."We had to walk up hill both ways in the snow to make the Monk work and that's how we liked it!"It'll take more than 40 years to get the Monk to work.
Well, KAMEHAMEHA is a 10 seconds animation. A 1 round action (not full round, 1 round) that do a big level of damage wouldn't be so problematic.
For the later abilities, remember to include the years spent in the underworld learning from the king of hell a move that, if done badly, will destroy the world.
Or the one that require all the people in the world to willingly donate some of their energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the one that require all the people in the world to willingly donate some of their energy.
And that has like an hour prep time in a game where fights are over in 18-30 seconds.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kinda funny how people think that playing a 30+ years old game with completely different rules somehow gives them better insight into a game that is not even 10 years old.
It's mostly an extension of the sad "I was here first. I'm better than you" mentality that we see in so many situations, even those where age makes little or no difference at all.
I don't think that was the intent; the mention of long service was in a response to the claim that a Rogue, or any character with Trapfinding, has always been a necessity, because of all the dangerous traps that exist in scenarios, waiting to destroy PCs.
In order to comment on why that may have once been the case, but no more, you can't help but make the comparison between the game as played back in the day (when the Rogue was the 'Thief', and had sole access to skills), and the game as it exists today, when traps are fewer, much less dangerous, and the ability to bypass them is shared by many classes.
Sure, there are some posters with an attitude of "Don't you KNOW who I AM?", but most of them took their bat home during the playtest.
That said, gygaxian traps are not an assumption of PF. If you add them to the game, Trapfinding becomes more valuable, of course. But it's a modification you made. A house-rule. And therefore, has not real weight in a discussion about RAW.
Indeed.
Traps in D&D3/PF are feeble, and far, far, far over priced in CR, for what they actually do. Most apply minimal hp damage, or a paltry condition, that is easily removed by PCs of the level expected to encounter them. Or can be waited out, for the condition to wear off, making their placement irrelevant, except as part of the terrain in a dynamic encounter location.|
|
For the later abilities, remember to include the years spent in the underworld learning from the king of hell a move that, if done badly, will destroy the world.
Or the one that requires all the people in the world to willingly donate some of their energy.
I saw a move like that, in 'Horton Hears a Who.'.
i have played since about 2002-2004ish, can't remember when
started with 3.0
quickly moved on to 3.5
had a lot of groups i was in, mostly of lousy composition
It's kinda funny how people think that playing a 30+ years old game with completely different rules somehow gives them better insight into a game that is not even 10 years old.
It's mostly an extension of the sad "I was here first. I'm better than you" mentality that we see in so many situations, even those where age makes little or no difference at all.
I don't think that was the intent; the mention of long service was in a response to the claim that a Rogue, or any character with Trapfinding, has always been a necessity, because of all the dangerous traps that exist in scenarios, waiting to destroy PCs.
In order to comment on why that may have once been the case, but no more, you can't help but make the comparison between the game as played back in the day (when the Rogue was the 'Thief', and had sole access to skills), and the game as it exists today, when traps are fewer, much less dangerous, and the ability to bypass them is shared by many classes.
Sure, there are some posters with an attitude of "Don't you KNOW who I AM?", but most of them took their bat home during the playtest.
I wasn't specifically referring to that particular post. I was just commenting on the way-too-common attitude that people show here (and in many other areas, actually) sometimes. Where they use age as supposed argument in discussion where it doesn't make any differece.
One guy once told me that "I don't really play PF" because I disagreed with him when he said every Cleric needs 5~6 specific feats.... I lol'ed and said how dumb that idea was and how underpowered that specific build is... Then he proceeded to say "I play PFS every weekend and have been playing D&D for 30 years! I know stuff"... To which my answer was "Well, good luck using your knowledge of 1st Ed. D&D on PF. BTW, playing PFS doesn't magically give you any better understanding of the game. Hell, even if you were a PFS Venture Captain you'd still be no more qualified than any other player here."
I play D&D since I was 10 years old. That's 16 years of RPG. But I don't have any illusion that what I remember of D&D 2.0 or even 3.0 has much impact on my understanding of PF. Well... 3.0 and 3.5 do have many similarities, but they're still very different. And previous editions are a completely different beast. Does playing those games give me some perspective? Yes. Is that perspective that give any significant advantage in understanding PF? No. Playing and GMing PF for 3+ years does.
That said, gygaxian traps are not an assumption of PF. If you add them to the game, Trapfinding becomes more valuable, of course. But it's a modification you made. A house-rule. And therefore, has not real weight in a discussion about RAW.
Indeed.
Traps in D&D3/PF are feeble, and far, far, far over priced in CR, for what they actually do. Most apply minimal hp damage, or a paltry condition, that is easily removed by PCs of the level expected to encounter them. Or can be waited out, for the condition to wear off, making their placement irrelevant, except as part of the terrain in a dynamic encounter location.And most importantly... Those traps are boring. Roll 2 skill checks. Maybe spend a few charges from a wand. Move on.
There the Rogue (and no one but the Rogue) got to roll 2 dice without having to make any significant decision or creative thinking. For about 5 seconds. Then the game moved on to the part where players get to actually interact with the world.
Traps that put you in a difficult situation and you have to think how to escape (e.g.: The room with the receding floor. The room being filled with water, etc) or have a chance to make a bunch of tactical choices (e.g.: the trap that summons a guardian or any other "encounter trap") can be fun!
Unfortunately, Trapfinding is completely useless against them. It doesn't make the Rogue any better in escaping the room or killing the summoned guardian. So the trap-based class feature is useless in the very situation it was supposed to shine.
I play D&D since I was 10 years old. That's 16 years of RPG. But I don't have any illusion that what I remember of D&D 2.0 or even 3.0 has any impact on my Knowledge of PF... Well... 3.0 and 3.5 have many similarities, but they're still very different. And previous editions are a completely different beast.
Personally I go with "I've been playing RPGs long enough and through enough editions to know that the least important thing at this table is the rulebook."
Personally I go with "I've been playing RPGs long enough and through enough editions to know that the least important thing at this table is the rulebook."
I play D&D since I was 10 years old. That's 16 years of RPG. But I don't have any illusion that what I remember of D&D 2.0 or even 3.0 has any impact on my Knowledge of PF... Well... 3.0 and 3.5 have many similarities, but they're still very different. And previous editions are a completely different beast.
I get what you mean. I really do. But I wouldn't say it the least important thing. It's just not anywhere near the top priorities. :)
I get what you mean. I really do. But I wouldn't say it the least important thing. It's just not anywhere near the top priorities. :)Personally I go with "I've been playing RPGs long enough and through enough editions to know that the least important thing at this table is the rulebook."
I play D&D since I was 10 years old. That's 16 years of RPG. But I don't have any illusion that what I remember of D&D 2.0 or even 3.0 has any impact on my Knowledge of PF... Well... 3.0 and 3.5 have many similarities, but they're still very different. And previous editions are a completely different beast.
Okay, I admit it, it does rank above whether the pizza has pepperoni or chilli beef... :D
(Especially for me, as I'm not allowed to eat pizza any more <cry>)
But yeah, I did mean "out of the the set of objects consisting of all the players and the rulebook" :)
But PF doesn’t have dungeons full of deadly Gygaxian traps. That specialized role is no longer necessary. Yes, a PC with maxed out Perception is needed, but that can be done by many classes. Trap Spotter talent is nice, and Disable Device is handy, but not as critical as it used to be.For someone who's been in the hobby so long, you seem to be immune to realizing that how YOU (or even Paizo) play the game is NOT the only way to play the game. Pathfinder can be played with Gygaxian traps.
Oh yes, and it’d be nice to see them back. BUT, like it or not, the published PF APs are simply not full of deadly Gygaxian traps. If you are playing in a non PF AP, then sure.
I do find it weird sometimes how it seems like every single poster on the forum has been playing since the 1970's. Seriously, any long discussion thread is going to be full of people trying to claim authority on the basis of how they've been playing tabletop RPGs for nearly forty years. I don't doubt there are some old grognards on the forum, but from how often people brag about how they've been playing since the seventies, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only twenty-something who started tabletop RPGs in college, while everyone else on the board has been playing since a decade before I was even born.
True, and some are doubtful. But I have made no secret of my identity, I was the writer for some OD&D supplements back in the mid- ‘70’s. It’s even there on my profile. You can Google me, even. I'm no JJ or SKR mind you.
It's kinda funny how people think that playing a 30+ years old game with completely different rules somehow gives them better insight into a game that is not even 10 years old.....
That said, gygaxian traps are not an assumption of PF. If you add them to the game, Trapfinding becomes more valuable, of course. But it's a modification you made. A house-rule. And therefore, has not real weight in a discussion about RAW.
Well, it does mean you know what the traditions are, which is what was questioned. My “system mastery” is likely surpassed by many younger players here, but not my knowledge of the game’s history and traditions.
And you’re right about Gygaxian traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it weird sometimes how it seems like every single poster on the forum has been playing since the 1970's. Seriously, any long discussion thread is going to be full of people trying to claim authority on the basis of how they've been playing tabletop RPGs for nearly forty years. I don't doubt there are some old grognards on the forum, but from how often people brag about how they've been playing since the seventies, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only twenty-something who started tabletop RPGs in college, while everyone else on the board has been playing since a decade before I was even born.True, and some are doubtful. But I have made no secret of my identity, I was the writer for some OD&D supplements back in the mid- ‘70’s. It’s even there on my profile. You can Google me, even. I'm no JJ or SKR mind you.
Yeah, I wasn't doubting you specifically so much as commenting on something that I've noticed on the forum, which your post brought to mind. Especially since when you bring up your experience, it's usually relevant to the topic at hand and makes contribution to the discussion (like talking about how traps and trapfinding have changed since the Gygaxian days) rather than "I've been playing for X years long than everyone else, ergo I win."
It's kinda funny how people think that playing a 30+ years old game with completely different rules somehow gives them better insight into a game that is not even 10 years old.....
That said, gygaxian traps are not an assumption of PF. If you add them to the game, Trapfinding becomes more valuable, of course. But it's a modification you made. A house-rule. And therefore, has not real weight in a discussion about RAW.
Well, it does mean you know what the traditions are, which is what was questioned. My “system mastery” is likely surpassed by many younger players here, but not my knowledge of the game’s history and traditions.
And you’re right about Gygaxian traps.
And I'm not belittling your knowledge of D&D history and traditions. I think that's an awesome knowledge (I'm even a backer of the D&D Documentary's Kickstarter!).
My point is just that knowing the mechanics for a completely different game doesn't really give any significant insight for the mechanics for the current game you're playing, even if they do share a name (which they don't.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I wasn't doubting you specifically so much as commenting on something that I've noticed on the forum, which your post brought to mind. Especially since when you bring up your experience, it's usually relevant to the topic at hand and makes contribution to the discussion (like talking about how traps and trapfinding have changed since the Gygaxian days) rather than "I've been playing for X years long than everyone else, ergo I win."I do find it weird sometimes how it seems like every single poster on the forum has been playing since the 1970's. Seriously, any long discussion thread is going to be full of people trying to claim authority on the basis of how they've been playing tabletop RPGs for nearly forty years. I don't doubt there are some old grognards on the forum, but from how often people brag about how they've been playing since the seventies, ....True, and some are doubtful. But I have made no secret of my identity, I was the writer for some OD&D supplements back in the mid- ‘70’s. It’s even there on my profile. You can Google me, even. I'm no JJ or SKR mind you.
Right, so with a grognard like me:
When I am talking about how it was in the OD&D days I am almost always right.
When I am giving advice about difficult players and table issues, then my advice is valuable but not always right.
BUT!
When I am discussing current system rules, my opinion is no better than that of any other regular player.
That last is what many other “old timers” forget. Just because I have been gaming longer than many here have been alive, doesn’t mean my system mastery or opinion of a fairly new system is any better than anyone else’s.
It’s even there on my profile. You can Google me, even. I'm no JJ or SKR mind you.
Nice. Love the good tendencies subscript in your alignment. Haven't seen those in ages.
It’s even there on my profile. You can Google me, even. I'm no JJ or SKR mind you.Nice. Love the good tendencies subscript in your alignment. Haven't seen those in ages.
Yeah, I miss those.
I've only been playing since 2005.2009 and didn't even know Pathfinder existed until 2011. I wonder if I'll be complaining about the good old days of tabletop RPGs in 40 or so years.
"Back in my day it was actually 'pen and paper,' none of this 'astral thought projection into un-constructed dream space' nonsense you kids do nowadays."
"We had to walk up hill both ways in the snow to make the Monk work and that's how we liked it!"
2010 for me, became a dm by my second game though. didn't start pathfinder till 2011.