|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Pathfinder system, but I hold a fear it's drifting from what made AD&D special. I've puzzled out what attracted me to AD&D in the first place (it wasn't the "to hit" system). It was the creative spirit of the game that I fear is being buried under the crush of rule after rule, and added power after power. While more rules have pros and cons (e.g. Pathfinder item creation, a pro compared to hazy AD&D rules), I want to capture the creative social spirit rather than creative mechanical effort.
I compare the RPG creative spirit to the "lunar crash exercise" many did as a kid.
It's an RPG. You've got a class (Astronaut) which gives you knowledge of the moon and how to use certain equipment. You've got a GM (the instructor) to describe anything. You've got an "equipment guide." Above all, you've got your ingenuity. The purpose of the puzzle is to think outside the box, to fit a square peg in a round hole, to creatively make use of the items in perhaps unconventional ways (use the crashed ship's fire extinguishers for propulsion, etc.)
You work as a team, you get creative. Here's the key: There was less emphasis on the mechanics and more emphasis on the creative aspect. I saw a lot of creative attempts in AD&D, not all successful, but attempted because there wasn't a rule saying you can or cannot succeed. For example
Meanwhile, a Pathfinder caster would use a supernatural ability, or pull out a Wand of Intensified Snowballs, or any number of preset "trump" abilities to get past unlimited spell resistance. He doesn't need to get creative; the game has a built-in selection of preset options, press button A, B, or C.
The AD&D player had a very limited set of abilities and unlike Pathfinder, there wasn't always a rule of A trumps B, B trumps C (e.g. spells that would bypass spell immunity). Like the lunar exercise, sometimes you had to take an unconventional, creative approach. Now I'm not saying players can't or won't today, but a continued slew of rules may be a disincentive to pure creativity. In the above spoiler, there's a preset "trump" mechanically in place. One doesn't have to get creative, one just has to know which rule to apply. Note, I'm not talking about pure combat mechanics. The game isn't all about combat, and I grasp combat is about mechanics and math, always has been, not where I'm headed.
A system composed of too many rules stifles the need for creativity. You simply apply X ability to Y situation. Problem solved. And that's my personal observation. In AD&D, I saw players try all sorts of imaginative, crazy things, like leaping off a 20' ledge onto a dragon's back hoping it would count as a backstab since they couldn't get behind the dragon. I see far far less in Pathfinder, with some of the exact same players.
So, what to do about it? I'm certainly not going back to AD&D; I like the Pathfinder core classes, the fixes. Nor am I buying the beginner box. My thoughts: simplify the game again as much as possible.
1. Restrict players to the Core and 1 accessory book of their choice (that reasonably ties to the character). Discourage character creation to be all about mechanics. Encourage players to generate characters based on concept, not mechanical benefit (how many archetypes are considered "useless" by players? How many choose the clerical "Travel" domain because they're genuinely enthused about Travel and not the awesome "dimensional hop" ability? How many dip into a class simply to get Evasion or Rage?)
2. Skills. 4th Edition encounters can simply be an exercise in mathematics by making a series of skill checks. How fun, a computer program with a dice generator can run that for you. Pick ability X, apply to situation Y. Don't substitute role play for skill play. While some skills are math (a knowledge check), others have a social game aspect that should be played. Unless purely mechanical, players should have to describe what they're doing, and if it's unclear if it'll automatically succeed, we can apply a skill check.
3. Don't stop the game to look up a rule. I'm sure there's a rule for everything. I had my AD&D books memorized, but that'll never happen in my lifetime for all the Pathfinder rules. Grappling even has a flowchart because it can get so insanely convoluted. If the player doesn't have it before them and I don't know, just do what players did for 30 years before: adjudicate it with what seems fair and reasonable.
4. Restore some Core concepts. Make those golems immune to all magic (not everything has a "trump"). Put some (not all) traps in that can only be uncovered by player action, not a generic "perception" check. Don't be afraid to ban something that the group has found to "bend or break" the game.
5. Look for more "open-ended" adventures that inspire creativity. Stolen Lands (Kingmaker) has a great 3-dimensional bandit fort that can be taken in a dozen different ways, none necessarily better than the other (players might spend an hour discussing how to take it and not once roll dice, make a skill check, etc.) Dungeon's Challenge of Champions presented meta-game challenges to make the players use their own ingenuity and creativity.
Maybe I'm behind the times. But I'm always on the lookout for ways to improve the game I run.
I like the Pathfinder system, but I hold a fear it's drifting from what made AD&D special. I've puzzled out what attracted me to AD&D in the first place (it wasn't the "to hit" system). It was the creative spirit of the game that I fear is being buried under the crush of rule after rule, and added power after power. While more rules have pros and cons (e.g. Pathfinder item creation, a pro compared to hazy AD&D rules), I want to capture the creative social spirit rather than creative mechanical effort...
I don't have time right now to think about and respond to this as I'd like, but I will say right off the bat that you might want to check out some other systems that have attempted this already, such as 13th Age. I'm on the fence about them. I've mostly found them ultimately dissatisfying and come back to basically the position that you seem to be in, but still it's worth at least checking them out first (13th Age in particular) if you haven't already. You might be able to save yourself some trouble.
EDIT: There are plenty of others, too, like Savage Worlds and Dungeon World, not to mention, of course, 4th Edition. They're all good in their own ways, but something always seems to drag me back to Pathfinder, despite its many aggravations. But you might as well see if you have the same experience.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Encourage description.
I have a current player that took so much responsibility away from me when he joined my group. I love it. I use to think it was the gms job to describe everything.
Now my players describe their actions. Not just "I attack the orc" but "After dodging the orcs incoming mace by ducking, I spin to regain an advantage while cutting at the orcs leg to limit his movement. Then using the momentum of the spin I jump up in the air and stab down into his battered cuirass."
If it's extremely well told, that player earns a gold coin that can be traded in for a bonus to d20 rolls.
Creativity in story telling as well as decisions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on your group and how your games are actually run. I've found that most AD&D games were played with extensive houserules, because of too much ambiguity in mechanics. Without 3x/PF's more defined rules set where A trumps B, and B trumps C, home groups had to make up their own versions since the AD&D rules weren't clear enough for all matters to resolve. 3x/PF fixed that - as that was indeed a problem.
In our group, we don't allow rules lawyer players to bring meta into the game once we're playing it. The players are responsible to fully know they own character, class features, unique magic items - how they work in game, so there is a minimal need to look up the feature in a book. The GM within his/her ability and understanding of game mastery is responsible for everything else. So to some degree, the rules aren't constantly rearing their ugly heads, its the GMs responsibility to get it right.
Rules discussions are done between games, never during play.
I played AD&D for almost 20 years (both editions), and since having gone to 3x/PF, sessions feel pretty much the same as they always have in every edition in the past. However, I have no nostalgic attraction to ever playing AD&D again. While the rules are now more clearly defined, the game doesn't feel any different in play than it always has - so there is nothing to miss...
@bornofhate - we do much the same with player stated descriptions of their actions in play, but this isn't an edition difference, this is an active choice of play by any RPG group. This works for any system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dot for interest
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite screams of STORMWIND! I suspect are coming, I find that chess-like tactics, along with rules optimizing (as opposed to power gaming, there's a difference) has really shut down what I used to do as Role-playing. We'd have games where no dice rolled, for example.
Now, sure- it POSSIBLE to do that even with hyperoptimized PC's in the 3.0 and later chess tactics games. But everyone is human, and you have just so much brainpower, and thus when you're thinking a lot of what chess move to make next you won't make those role-playing quips and when the rules are solid, there's less ways to try something outrageous.
And, when you have spent all your creative energies thinking of ways to get that last bit of DPr out of a character, then-STORMWIND! or no- you're not thinking as much of what your PC's actual "character" is.
I mean, back in the day, you rolled your stats, then came up with his background and personality. Now, you set up the stats, and (if you even bother) think of an excuse as to why your Fighter has INT & CHA of 7.
Rules are great to have, but every time you add an extra rule you also cut out another chance to get creative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My old group of players played 3.0 pretty much the same way we had AD&D 1 and 2 before it. There were tons of rules in the books we just didn't focus on too much, and we winged it when necessary to make the story flow, and just basically had a good time.
When I moved, I found a new group of players, and they were way more representative of 3+ players; using a grid for combat, worrying about every bonus/penalty in the rules, etc. It seemed to totally bog things down for me. I wanted to relive the good days of gaming, and I'd never played in a rules-heavy environment.
Now that I'm more conversant with the rules, I do find applying them tends to enhance the game, but I'm still not into rules heavy. My group has a nice balance where our optimizer player can build the powerhouse he wants, or concept only player can get by with his best build, and no one cries foul every time I get a rule wrong or just don't apply it. This wouldn't work for every table, but it works for ours.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that one of the best aids to roleplaying is to know the rules well. When you don't have to look things up mid-game even with a PC life on the line, when you can translate between mechanics and abstractions (and back again) rapidly enough to accommodate even the wackiest ideas on the fly, when every mechanical detail corresponds to something observable—and therefore describable—in the game world; when you can do all that, roleplaying has room to flourish. I advise choosing a system within your capability to master to that degree.
-------------------------------------
Side note on creative attempts at overcoming obstacles: I think the biggest obstacle to this has nothing to do with the system being used. I've encountered a LOT of GMs who treat anything not explicitly granted by a spell or ability as an attempt to game the system—right on down to having your everburning torch sticking out of your backpack for a hands-free light source. I kid you not, that is a real example.
People don't stick to their character sheets because they have no interest in trying something creative. They stick to their character sheets because one or more past GMs drilled it into them that anything else is offensive and wrong.
Your best solution, I suggest, would be to create a situation where they don't have a Tenser's solution to X spell for the challenge at hand, but they're also not in such immediate peril that it's game over. Being stuck forces creative thinking. But the important part is that when they DO try something out of the box, reward it handsomely. Let them see that coming up with something new can actually work.
Do it consistently enough, and they might start looking at their sheets a little less. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're seeing is an outgrowth of not so much the rules growing complexity, but the Internet gaming culture which brings with it a mentality of "one right way to play" along with the need for instant approval of whatever is being done.
At least anecdotally, this doesn't apply to me or those I game with, out of the 30 or so people in various groups in my area (known from the local FLGS), I am the only person, I know of, who ever visits RPG forums of any kind. I know many who look to rules for MtG at Wizards site, but never for D&D. I've never met anyone face to face that ever visited the Paizo site, let alone RPG.net, ENWorld or any other RPG related site in my area.
I can't even guess how widespread is the practice to follow or not follow the internet gaming community. My guess is that the non-internet gaming community members are far larger than those who do use the internet for that purpose.
So I don't think what you've stated is as true as you think it is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a fascinating thread and I think Touc has it totally right. Looking back on AD&D, I certainly would never go back to having to design every single magic item my PC's found. I hated the way XP was done. And I do think a grid based combat system is necessary.
All that being said, the way the players and I used to roleplay was much different back then. I do agree with Gamer-Printer's assessment that the system in and of itself should not stifle role-playing, but nowadays I feel like in my busy world of wife and kids and a big boy job, that I simply can't retain the rules like I could as a teen. My brain is too full.
There is a spirit that was somewhat lost when we moved to D20 and I lament that. Would I go back to AD&D? Absolutely not. But, this has given me a lot to think about.
I ran a campaign right at the tail end of 2nd edition for an evil party. There were (2) PC's remaining at the top of this decrepit, abandoned tower. One was a Vampire Cleric, the other an evil Psion from Sigil. They cleared it finally after a battle with a lich when they looked out the window and saw a former comrade, a hulking brute fighter (half-giant I think) running across the moat to the gatehouse yelling..."smite evil!!" This comrade with an 7 intelligence happened onto a potion with a picture of a brain stamped on it (from an earlier dungeon). Despite the cleric yelling "Stop!" he drank it. It reversed his alignment and increased his intelligence by 4. Disgusted with realizing he served the whims of an evil cleric, he fled.
Fast forward to him running into the ruined tower after the PC's and their faces dropped. After several tense moments, they healed up and tried to ready for him as much as they could, but he smashed through them. After several moments of grueling combat, the half-giant wrestled the cleric to the floor, just as the sun's rising rays were cresting the horizon. He was doomed...or so he thought as the halfling (with a couple of hp's left) used his dorje of concussion (whatever it was called) to collapse the weak, crumbling floor from under the wrestling pair, dropping them into the dark room below. That quick thinking saved him. To finish the brute off, the psion continued to drop pieces of stone floor and debris on the fighter, killing him. The vampire changed into mist and fled the room.
I'm leaving out some details and some mechanics (we did actually have a few), but that was the most fun I've ever had as DM. That kind of zaniness doesn't really happen anymore.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, not to open another can of worms, but I also think we have the rise of MMO's to attribute to this decline. I rue the day I first heard the term, DPS...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never played AD&D. I have played a bit of dungeon world, and it seems to play similarly as you describe. But I have a few notes on your proposal.
1. While I dont restrict rulebooks, but I always encourage players to base themselves on character concept first. But that does NOT mean tying certain ideas with certain necessary archetypes (IE a pirate HAS to be one of the poorly conceived pirate-based archetypes). I've no problem refluffing barbarian as monk-types because the player prefers the mechanics. Or having a guy re-fluff hammer as dwarven battle bread. Too many people get caught up on class names and forget the mechanics exist independantly.
2. This is the one I disagree most with, especially for social skills. Simply put, this is escapism. The shy/akward person who isn't necessarily capable of pulling a confident speech out of their ass on the spot might still want to play a face-type. This punishes players who aren't naturally their characters. I dont care if you (a PC) make the best speech in the world, you are still going to fail because of your -3 in diplomacy. Does it discourage speechifying? Yes. But I want players to be successful at what they wanted their fantasy to be successful at.
3. There are ways to get around that (I have a "max 30 second interrupt then I rule"). It's a good practice, BUT relies on trust between you and your players. I don't have the luxury of playing with close friends, or even people I've known for more than 6 months. Trust is needed first. And more rules provide a consistency that is hard to have otherwise.
4. That one don't bug me that much. I ban what I want, and I dont mind having simple workarounds to certain things. I'm pretty sure most GMs do this already.
5. That would probably be a good idea. BUT it's very hard on the GM. I will NEVER run an adventure path (I GM for creative reasons) and I cant prep for everything. However, I improvise decently. At that point it's up to the players to ask questions. There are infinite ways past the problem, and I do my best not to show any obvious ones.
I think D&D has unfortunately spawned 2 very different types of play for TRPGs:
1) The "open" play (AD&D): limited rules, much more weight on the GM, much less consistency for the players. BUT requiring more creativity, more improvisation. Good for groups who trust their GM to be fair, and dont mind the inconsistency.
2) The "simulationist" play (3.X): plenty of rules, less openness, considerably more options to consider. BUT much more consistent (90% of the time, no need to invent rules), much more vast in options.
I might be off my rocker. But I think pathfinder is simply too steeped in the simulationist perspective to become an open-play game. I will admit I prefer the simulationist (I prefer removing rules than having to invent new ones) if only because there is more choice to the player (and the GM).
TLDR: Too many rules only stifles creativity if you let it. AD&D & Pathfinder are dissimilar enough that I dont think they can be brought together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feedback from my players and observation of them has been intriguing as well:
* First time gamer #1, Pathfinder is his first system. Hates tracking all the bonuses and forgets some at times. Prefers a class with few features to keep it simple.
* First time gamer #2, likes the system, likes the idea of less rules
* Old school gamer #1 (taking a break now due to career change), likes the classes, overwhelmed by high level play due to sheer volume of options.
* Old school gamer #2, keeps it simple (e.g. plays an evoker, uses the Core spells)
* Savvy gamer #1, knows the sytem inside and out, likes it all, has a mind for numbers
* Savvy gamer #2, same as #1, less about rolling dice and more about the pure RP
* Savvy gamer #3, knows the system and is good any way, played 3rd and transitioned to PF with me, does a decent job at building the world (adds a storyline of his own) without GM hints or prompts
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so either, which is why I consider the messageboard community to be extremely disconnected from gamers at large.What you're seeing is an outgrowth of not so much the rules growing complexity, but the Internet gaming culture which brings with it a mentality of "one right way to play" along with the need for instant approval of whatever is being done.At least anecdotally, this doesn't apply to me or those I game with, out of the 30 or so people in various groups in my area (known from the local FLGS), I am the only person, I know of, who ever visits RPG forums of any kind. I know many who look to rules for MtG at Wizards site, but never for D&D. I've never met anyone face to face that ever visited the Paizo site, let alone RPG.net, ENWorld or any other RPG related site in my area.
I can't even guess how widespread is the practice to follow or not follow the internet gaming community. My guess is that the non-internet gaming community members are far larger than those who do use the internet for that purpose.
So I don't think what you've stated is as true as you think it is.
Oh definitely. IRL table-top games are far disconnected from Theorycrafting. This is why when the Optimizers and theorycrafters scream loudly about (say for example) Martial/caster disparity! and 'fighters are teh suxxor' , but IRL you see games where rogue & fighter are very popular choices and even the star of the team. Then I agree with JJ in that the rules don't really need to "fix' the martial/caster disparity" because IRL, in normal tables where games rarely get to high level and players play as a TEAM instead of a set of PvP stats for a DPR comparo- then he's right, the disparity is mostly a myth.
I'd also hazard a guess that This is also why some "VERY IMPORTANT FAQ PLEASE!!!! questions don't get answered (like my very own question about "sno-cone wish machine, I will bet) as the designers know that this is just not how games are played in reality. Simulacrum gets you unlimited wishes? Well, I see how you could read the spell that way but you have to have a game where;
1. The PC's are that high
2. the player is willing to try and get something that cheezy past the DM.
3. The DM doesn't just laugh and say NO!.
I suspect there are such games, but they are so rare that I can understand why the Devs dont want to spend a lot of staff-hours fixing such rare happenings.
As to some more about myself (to perhaps color my views):
1) First system is pathfinder. Only been playing for less than a year, and gm-ing since last autumn.
2)I'm a "balanced" player. I love to RP, I love mechanics (and numbers) but above all I use TRPGs as a form of escapism. I've played simple & complex, and can appreciate both.
Another note: while I understand what you are trying to do, that's a player thing and not a system one (I believe). I've never played MMOs ( so that may color my experience).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think D&D has unfortunately spawned 2 very different types of play for TRPGs:
1) The "open" play (AD&D): limited rules, much more weight on the GM, much less consistency for the players. BUT requiring more creativity, more improvisation. Good for groups who trust their GM to be fair, and dont mind the inconsistency.
2) The "simulationist" play (3.X): plenty of rules, less openness, considerably more options to consider. BUT much more consistent (90% of the time, no need to invent rules), much more vast in options.
I might be off my rocker. But I think pathfinder is simply too steeped in the simulationist perspective to become an open-play game. I will admit I prefer the simulationist (I prefer removing rules than having to invent new ones) if only because there is more choice to the player (and the GM).
TLDR: Too many rules only stifles creativity if you let it. AD&D & Pathfinder are dissimilar enough that I dont think they can be brought together.
I think you're right on the money here, but I'm less pessimistic than you. I still hold out hope that the community can eventually evolve a sort of enlightened consensus that bridges these two styles. I myself had drifted fully into style 2, only to more recently be moving back pretty dramatically in the direction of style 1.
I think that the ideal situation is probably one where we basically treat style 2 as the default, but nonetheless simultaneously accept that at the end of the day GM trust and fiat are what the game is all about, and the GM has the right to change or create any rules he wants for whatever reason he wants to change or create them. He should be extremely conversant in the rules so that he's not relying on this power, but it should be there when he needs it. I think this is roughly what Jiggy was (I think very sensibly) advocating above.
Ultimately, the GM is the one doing the heavy lifting of creating the game and story, and it's mostly his show. He needs the freedom to make it what he wants. On the other hand, I find many, many GMs too inflexible about their vision or their style of play, particularly with regard to character creation (for instance, the OP's suggestion to limit creation to the Core and one additional book seems excessively restrictive to me). The game is still a collaborative process, and players need a lot of freedom too when it comes to their characters.
It's a very tenuous balance, I'll admit... Okay, maybe I'm not so optimistic. But anyway, discussions like this one certainly seem like a step in the right direction.
EDIT: A lot of GMs also seem to really abuse their fiat power too, which is what leads to RAW fetishism. I joined a campaign through meetup once where the GM had literally about 40 or 50 pages of houserules, and on top of that would decide on a case by case basis things like whether a given monster got an AoO against you when you moved away from it, based on which way it was facing or how distracted he thought it was at the time by other factors. That was really aggravating, and made both character creation and combat take an unnecessarily ridiculous amount of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, in AD&D GMs had all the power, and by 3rd and 4th edition, players had it. Both groups proved that they cannot be trusted. GMs need to show flexibility and not abuse fiat, and players need to show flexibility and not abuse RAW. If everyone does that, then in theory having these kinds of intricate 3rd edition rule systems around can be a very good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what game I find ideal for capturing the essence of AD&D?
AD&D
You do have a point... I think the main problem people have with this is that AD&D is not all that good for character customization, which is a very big deal to a lot of people. I would guess that if it felt like you could meaningfully build a really broad array on concepts in AD&D, a lot more people would probably play it.
You do have a point... I think the main problem people have with this is that AD&D is not all that good for character customization, which is a very big deal to a lot of people. I would guess that if it felt like you could meaningfully build a really broad array on concepts in AD&D, a lot more people would probably play it.You know what game I find ideal for capturing the essence of AD&D?
AD&D
I dont think it's the idea of "character concepts" (which is pure fluff) that is in question, but the notion of "mechanical concepts". It's the notion of having a variety of mechanics that encapsulate what you perceive as your character, and having them unique from something you perceive as different.
I dont think it's the idea of "character concepts" (which is pure fluff) that is in question, but the notion of "mechanical concepts". It's the notion of having a variety of mechanics that encapsulate what you perceive as your character, and having them unique from something you perceive as different.
That's why I said meaningfully build a broad array of concepts. Sure, in theory you can take reskinning/fluff very far, and describe any kind of damage dealing as whatever you want. But to many that's ultimately unsatisfying, and is the reason engines like Cortex and Powered by Apocalypse fall flat, even for people who would theoretically like a lot of the goals of those systems. You want the way your character fights to do something mechanically that differentiates it from fighting some other way.
Another change, probably partly MMO influenced, is encounter and adventure design. I picked up Rappan Athuk for PF not too long ago, and it's classic 1E D&D brutal. Some encounters are way beyond the party's ability to handle. I think the brutal random encounter tables and occasional unwinnable encounter contributed to the roleplaying atmosphere of AD&D. If you know that every time you roll initiative you should be able to beat the encounter you approach the game differently. It's important that the GM and PCs are on the same page on this, if the GM starts throwing unwinnable encounters at PCs to railroad them into a course of action that's bad GMing. But if there's an understanding that a random encounter table might produce an EL +7 encounter or that some parts of a dungeon have unbeatable monsters that tends to make players have fun roleplaying rather than focus on having fun beating APL +3 encounters in a certain number of rounds.
Totally. I think this is an important point.
Ultimately, the GM is the one doing the heavy lifting of creating the game and story, and it's mostly his show.Just to highlight the diversity among PF players, I wanted to note how the above statement isn't always true.
In my own case as a GM, it's not my story, nor is it my show. I GM because I enjoy facilitating the players to craft their own story through the paths their characters choose to pursue throughout the course of the game. The world is its own entity which functions entirely independently of the players, who function entirely independently from any vision I may have. There are nearly infinite things the PC's could choose to do, and the world will respond accordingly.
(I will confess there have been times I was too rusty/scatterbrained and just cobbled together some railroad, but nobody's perfect ;)
Sure; I think you kind of misunderstood me, or I didn't communicate my point very well. The latter is probably more likely. I meant the GM is doing the heavy lifting as in he just has a lot more work to do. I think that's pretty invariably going to be true when using the 3.5 engine, regardless of how participationist, narrativist or sandbox-y any one particular game is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do have a point... I think the main problem people have with this is that AD&D is not all that good for character customization, which is a very big deal to a lot of people. I would guess that if it felt like you could meaningfully build a really broad array on concepts in AD&D, a lot more people would probably play it.You know what game I find ideal for capturing the essence of AD&D?
AD&D
The two problems I tend to find are:
1) Finding other people that want to play it. On the other hand, I can yell "Pathfinder" and have to turn people away.
2) Converting Paizo APs (which I love) to run with another system. Simpler to just run them with Pathfinder, and knock PF into shape with large heavy objects until it works the way I want it to (and recently I've started thinking using the Beginner Box combat rules solves most of my problems)
The two problems I tend to find are:
1) Finding other people that want to play it. On the other hand, I can yell "Pathfinder" and have to turn people away.
2) Converting Paizo APs (which I love) to run with another system. Simpler to just run them with Pathfinder, and knock PF into shape with large heavy objects until it works the way I want it to (and recently I've started thinking using the Beginner Box combat rules solves most of my problems)
Definitely agree, these are very significant issues too.
EDIT: It would be nice, though, if we didn't have to do quite so much knocking-into-shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Converting Paizo APs (which I love) to run with another system. Simpler to just run them with Pathfinder, and knock PF into shape with large heavy objects until it works the way I want it to (and recently I've started thinking using the Beginner Box combat rules solves most of my problems)Theoretically can't you run Paizo APs as written, with some creative adjudicating/reinterpreting on the GM's part. Especially if you're using a retroclone that has a bit more in common than the original AD&D?
Probably, yeah. Then we're back to 1) and being easier to find Pathfinder players (ironically I can find more players that are happy to play Pathfinder heavily modified to near-BECMI D&D levels than I can to find BECMI D&D :D ) I also like the fact I've got shelves full of addon rules for Pathfinder if the situation ever warrants it. Sometimes playing something that's current and supported outweighs pretty much any other concerns.
You do have a point... I think the main problem people have with this is that AD&D is not all that good for character customization, which is a very big deal to a lot of people. I would guess that if it felt like you could meaningfully build a really broad array on concepts in AD&D, a lot more people would probably play it.You know what game I find ideal for capturing the essence of AD&D?
AD&D
You can build anything you and your DM can agree on. A well written concept within the GM's world (or proposed world) with fair and relatively balanced mechanics could be easily accepted. There is a revival of the 'old school rules' for just the reasons listed here.
I played 'Khemsa' a magic using martial artist with ad&d rules.
When the rules are 'eye bleeding complex'. I almost always give the player the advantage. I always reward a good narrative to the players action.
You can build anything you and your DM can agree on...You do have a point... I think the main problem people have with this is that AD&D is not all that good for character customization, which is a very big deal to a lot of people. I would guess that if it felt like you could meaningfully build a really broad array on concepts in AD&D, a lot more people would probably play it.You know what game I find ideal for capturing the essence of AD&D?
AD&D
Okay, but then you're basically writing your own system. Any system can do anything as long as you make up all the rules for that thing yourself. The trick is to find a balance between rules complexity and having to make up your own rules to fill in the gaps.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite screams of STORMWIND! I suspect are coming, I find that chess-like tactics, along with rules optimizing (as opposed to power gaming, there's a difference) has really shut down what I used to do as Role-playing. We'd have games where no dice rolled, for example.
Now, sure- it POSSIBLE to do that even with hyperoptimized PC's in the 3.0 and later chess tactics games. But everyone is human, and you have just so much brainpower, and thus when you're thinking a lot of what chess move to make next you won't make those role-playing quips and when the rules are solid, there's less ways to try something outrageous.
And, when you have spent all your creative energies thinking of ways to get that last bit of DPr out of a character, then-STORMWIND! or no- you're not thinking as much of what your PC's actual "character" is.
I mean, back in the day, you rolled your stats, then came up with his background and personality. Now, you set up the stats, and (if you even bother) think of an excuse as to why your Fighter has INT & CHA of 7.
Rules are great to have, but every time you add an extra rule you also cut out another chance to get creative.
No, please, be a little more passive-aggressive and condescending. I don't feel insulted enough for my day just yet.
I grew up playing 2nd edition. I don't miss it. The older versions of D&D were just as legalistic and wretched as the modern editions; the only real difference is that, culturally, a lot more rules got ignored.
Contrary to your extraordinarily wrong view, my issue tends to be not roleplaying during those few games or situations when it's not appropriate. My groups tend to be rather RP heavy and we'll have long periods of diceless story advancement punctuated by brief flurries of plastic-clattering terror known popularly as 'combat'. Even during combat, gambits & sideways tactics are common, with my all-time-world-championship move still being throwing the party onto a dragon using a bag of holding & bloodstorm blade levels (second place: using illusions to be the BBEG and the party wizard at the same time - she had a split personality). The trouble is that during those few quick pick-up games we do - arenas, comedy games, that sort of thing - I can't seem to turn the 'in character' instinct off, much to the annoyance of the four other guys at the table, all of whom are knee-deep in the 'beer and pretzels' mindset by then while I'm still stone-cold sober.
Quit insulting my play style. I don't insult yours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, not to open another can of worms, but I also think we have the rise of MMO's to attribute to this decline. I rue the day I first heard the term, DPS...
Yes, when people here ask how to maximize dps and later claim mmos' have in no way attributed to the decline of roleplay, with hostility mind you, it causes my teeth to grind in frustration.
Okay, but then you're basically writing your own system. Any system can do anything as long as you make up all the rules for that thing yourself. The trick is to find a balance between rules complexity and having to make up your own rules to fill in the gaps.You can build anything you and your DM can agree on...You do have a point... I think the main problem people have with this is that AD&D is not all that good for character customization, which is a very big deal to a lot of people. I would guess that if it felt like you could meaningfully build a really broad array on concepts in AD&D, a lot more people would probably play it.You know what game I find ideal for capturing the essence of AD&D?
AD&D
If you want it is possible to convert a template for standard classes to a point buy system. You might be surprised how they balance or don't. Then build a class based off the average of the 'core' classes/races.
But that's the beauty of an old school system. You usually don't need a huge set of rules it's more of an art than a science. Computer games and their obsession with balance and conversely power creep have for better or worse infected pencil and dice rpgs.
Some people obsess over where each piece is moved now. Not character, piece. When you view your miniature as a chess piece you've lost the feel of combat. Combat is organic and fluid and above all chaotic. You should feel like you're in a fight. Once in a horror game our party split in two in the fog. We wound up in a 'blue on blue' situation. One of our military guys Airforce actually screamed like a little girl when we made contact. It was one of the best gaming sessions we ever had. Impossible if you obssessed over each piece and couldn't feel that visceral fear.
That's not putting anyone down or their playing style. It's just different and in my experience better.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I have been lucky yet I have almost never had a fellow roleplayer use the term DPS. I do hear it once in awhile. Still there is so much more worse things in life then hearing the word DPS. As long as a potential player or dm runs or plays a good game at the table I don't care what he says.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but change =/= better. Often change is worse. Roleplaying should be collaborative storytelling. Anything that gets in the way of that is not better. And things do change back. You don't have to keep digging if you find yourself in a hole
People attack 4e as being rollplay when the irony is it accelerrated far more id say in 3 or even with "2.5".
The culture of gaming has changed. I'm generalizing but its more about players and options with less trust in dms and more demand for official rules on everything to supercede dm decisions. The dm used to be "in charge" of the game. It seems more and more he's becoming a figure head and simply a waiter of monsters and treasure to serve at the players' leisure. Ill have 3 goblins no salt and no funny business because I know all their stats. Roll in front of us so I know he rolls are legit and I can verify its the right AC.
Sadly, this actually would be my reasoning if dealing with an overly grognard dm drama club type...but generally Iwould abhor that very mind set if the gm was known to be a fair referee.
Sadly, this actually would be my reasoning if dealing with an overly grognard dm drama club type...but generally Iwould abhor that very mind set if the gm was known to be a fair referee.People attack 4e as being rollplay when the irony is it accelerrated far more id say in 3 or even with "2.5".
The culture of gaming has changed. I'm generalizing but its more about players and options with less trust in dms and more demand for official rules on everything to supercede dm decisions. The dm used to be "in charge" of the game. It seems more and more he's becoming a figure head and simply a waiter of monsters and treasure to serve at the players' leisure. Ill have 3 goblins no salt and no funny business because I know all their stats. Roll in front of us so I know he rolls are legit and I can verify its the right AC.
Studies have shown we live in a much 'lower trust' society. I remember when people living in the suburbs never locked their doors or took the keys out of their cars. We need to trust the people we are gaming with. Rules lawyer has always been an insult for a reason. Yet the proliferation of rules and erratta rewards munchkins and rules laywers. We need to encourage improvisation (what made the hobby great). And reward imagination and roleplaying. Recently I had a party made up of members of a militant religious order. It included paladin and ranger types fighter types, clerics of course and even 'scouts' and 'mages'. Many medieval orders had more than just Knights.
We had a centaur cleric/ranger, a faun 'scout', a female human paladin, a halfing cleric/scout and a female half elf cleric magicuser. All members of The Order of St Christopher. They investigated a ruined church a town under seige and bandits on the main road. We used ad&d 1st e clone and had a blast. Plenty of soft rules, trust, and always fairplay. Flexible? Yes we were outside the rules in some areas they don't cover everything.
My rambling point? Trust, we need to trust one another. If we can get back to the trust we can return to that feel that old school improv. And we can do it with this cool Pathfinder system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
….
Side note on creative attempts at overcoming obstacles: I think the biggest obstacle to this has nothing to do with the system being used. I've encountered a LOT of GMs who treat anything not explicitly granted by a spell or ability as an attempt to game the system—right on down to having your everburning torch sticking out of your backpack for a hands-free light source. I kid you not, that is a real example.People don't stick to their character sheets because they have no interest in trying something creative. They stick to their character sheets because one or more past GMs drilled it into them that anything else is offensive and wrong.
Your best solution, I suggest, would be to create a situation where they don't have a Tenser's solution to X spell for the challenge at hand, but they're also not in such immediate peril that it's game over. Being stuck forces creative thinking. But the important part is that when they DO try something out of the box, reward it handsomely. Let them see that coming up with something new can actually work.
Do it consistently enough, and they might start looking at their sheets a little less. :)
Ermagherd, this so much this, a bazillion times this. As a card-carrying Grognard who is now a PF player/GM I have been burnt too many times by GMs who do not see creativity as anything other than trying to "bend" the "rules". To the point of absurdity as you have stated. I still remember my brother not letting me crash-tackle/body charge a goblin in BECMI because it wasn't just an attack roll with my cleric's mace, and I think he was unsure how to handle it...
As a GM I reward creativity, and encourage my players to do more with what they have rather than focus and bemoan on which cool spell/class feature they don't have. Your character's biggest potential ability IS NOT WRITTEN ON THE CHARACTER SHEET. It is PERSONALITY. And let's not diminish the story potential of the "dumb/stupid/naive" character with low INT/WIS/CHA who nevertheless has a spark of inspiration to do something completely ridiculous that just happens to throw the foes off guard, or completely kills the entire party. That's what having a personality is all about, rather than reducing your play to reference to the sheet and what is written on it......
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time has changed players, GMs, and the expectations of both. One can not expect a game, a hobby, a culture to remain static for more than four decades.I'll second the influence of MMOs has changed RPGs and RPG players. 1E and 2E didn't have strict rules on movement and attack actions, so roleplaying was more emphasized. Starting with 3E action economy is a major component of d20 games. MMOs contribute to this, younger players learn a lot of strategy and tactics playing online RPG-type games.
Much of that change is only really seen on the Internet, through the proliferation of message board discussions by hardcore optimizers cooperating to create the best builds.
Even back in the day there were people who would sit down with calculators and work out the best way to do the most damage in the least possible time, it's not really anything new. It's just more visible.
The precise ratio of optimization-focused players has changed, perhaps, but not by a huge amount. The majority still seem content to simply sit down and play, while it's the outlying percentage of extreme players that we tend to see on the Internet. The hardcore optimizers and system mastery analysts, the heavy roleplayers, and those that are a mix of the above. Then there's PFS, which by its nature lends itself to primarily RAW play, and some people only ever get to play in PFS so that's all they experience.
The average Pathfinder player seems to be nothing like any of us on the boards, they just buy a Core Rulebook, maybe a couple of supplements, and have fun messing around in a strange fantasy world.
For those of us that want something more than that, be it optimization, roleplay, or both, Pathfinder still works. It's just a matter of getting the right group together. It's still an RPG, the main rule is still "Here's a book of suggestions on how to play. Take, leave, or change as much or little as you want to make the game you want to play."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the OP - making Pathfinder work in a way that focuses on creativity over mathematics.
You identified skills as one of the major culprits here. The way I tend to handle that is to use skills and creative roleplay together.
Some things really do seem to be a straight skill check. Climb, right, all you can do is roll to see if you succeed or not?
There's lots more you can do, if the player is of a mind to think creatively about it. If they think to ask for more details about that wall, it could be there's some wear and tear over here, which could be used for handholds - or some vines over there. A player that tells me they're choosing a specific spot is going to get a bonus (or a penalty, depending on the circumstance) to that climb roll.
Then there's that old favorite, the diplomacy roll...
Example situation: Petitioning the prince to let you borrow the antique sword from his museum (you know, that sword with the +10 bonus against liches that you need to go slay the BBEG)
Well, sure, you could just make a diplomacy roll to see if it lets you borrow it. That works.
If a character decides to add to that with some creative ideas, such as hinting at a future trade agreement with their barony, I'm inclined to give a bonus to that roll, or to start the prince off at a better attitude.
If the player wants to RP through negotiating a trade agreement right there and then, I'm inclined to throw the diplomacy check out of the window. Offering a NPC something they want in exchange for something you want works in my games without mechanics getting in the way. If you offer something they want badly enough, random chance isn't going to factor into it, any more than someone offering me a million dollars for my Pathfinder Core Rulebook is going to make me pause and think (I love this game, but not that much, I have a PDF and know where to buy another hard copy...)
At the end of the day, it's down to whether you see characters and NPCs as people in a story, or playing pieces in a game. When you throw the game part out of the equation and think of them purely as people, that's already 50% of the work done in making it a more creative-orientated game. Characters are people, with personalities, lives, wants, desires, fears, and emotions. The numbers just help to represent them on paper, in your head you can go far, far past the numbers.
The funny thing is, The old AD&D rules were set up dor a confrontational style between PC's and GM's and The reason so many house rules were created for them is that they were not written by people with professional writing experience. It got better with 2nd ed, but 1ed?. Its funny though when Gygax died by buddy said he wanted to do a tribute game so he sat down to re-read the rules which he hadnt done inyears and i realized we had been using alot of house rules.
But fast forward to PF, Story Creates adventure, how that story is conveyed creates the sense of Adventure. And while i enjoyed the old school modules if they could be re-written by modern writers youd get a much better adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The precise ratio of optimization-focused players has changed, perhaps, but not by a huge amount. The majority still seem content to simply sit down and play, while it's the outlying percentage of extreme players that we tend to see on the Internet. The hardcore optimizers and system mastery analysts, the heavy roleplayers, and those that are a mix of the above. Then there's PFS, which by its nature lends itself to primarily RAW play, and some people only ever get to play in PFS so that's all they experience.The average Pathfinder player seems to be nothing like any of us on the boards, they just buy a Core Rulebook, maybe a couple of supplements, and have fun messing around in a strange fantasy world.
For those of us that want something more than that, be it optimization, roleplay, or both, Pathfinder still works. It's just a matter of getting the right group together. It's still an RPG, the main rule is still "Here's a book of suggestions on how to play. Take, leave, or change as much or little as you want to make the game you want to play."
First, let me say I'm on a mobile so forgive my mistakes. One of the most startling changes for me was the community on the internet. This group is despite the occasional disagreement is very useful and a real community. People brought together for the love of a hobby. And a great game. Everyone wants to get something out of this community and bring something to the table. There's really nothing like PFS and it is actually very much like Gygax's vision for tournements for d&d much like chess tournaments with 'ranked' DMs modules and players.
It is one of Paizo's triumphs. A few tweaks and a little flexibility and this could go anywhere.