I'll never forget teleporting into the ground. 10th level wizard, took years to finally get there, DOA trying to get to a birthday party from the dungeon (or back to town with all the loot, or wherever it was).
|
I'll never forget teleporting into the ground. 10th level wizard, took years to finally get there, DOA trying to get to a birthday party from the dungeon (or back to town with all the loot, or wherever it was).
This is partially the result of "hardcore mode on" mentality (1st/2nd ed) and being trapped in the confines of a mostly binary results system (All of D&D's history).
A proper treatment and broadening of the spell would be Inimical effects: A, B and C (just as a quick write-up)
Inimical effects A would include:
Death
Lost/wrong location + major damage + disorientation for some time
Major damage + disorientation for some time
Minor damage + disorientation
Disorientation (or effects similar)
B would be
Lost/wrong location + major damage + disorientation for some time
Major damage + disorientation for some time
Minor damage + disorientation
Disorientation (or effects similar)
and C would be
Off target by a some distance
Minor damage + disorientation
Disorientation (or effects similar)
So teleporting to town, friends house for bday party, to friend (arcane connection) all would use inimical C track, while teleporting to the Dungeon of Rumors (which you never have seen) would be on A or a "not even try".
Part of this is depth of detail, advancing rules through play or excluding this due to laziness/print space in book.
I give the earlier editions a bit of a pass because they were written OVER 20 YEARS AGO - there are no excuses for 3rd ed or PF to just port over this lack of depth or detail: how does this work in fortified areas, vaults, scry and die, the town magic shop, etc. Are there special easy wards vs teleport (and other spells: invisibility, silence) how do these spells impact the world, city life, commerce? To me - not answering these questions in the rulebooks after these issues have been around for more than 20 years is really inexcusable.
I will come back and address some other points raised in a bit, heading out to the Dentist to see if they are going to hit me with some permanent Wis Damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that you had to use Ted Williams and Ben Franklin as your examples and that they are two hundred years apart.Actually, those were my absurd examples. My real examples were the grocery store checkout clerk, and also almost everyone I ever regularly played with.
Well, to be fair, my role playing cancelled out my optimization quite a bit ;-)
Our 2nd edition game was heavily modified but it worked.
We used figs and even made up a movement system with hexes that worked surprisingly well. We had a walk, charge, and a run and casters could cast and walk. (I could post rules/details if anyone is interested)
I'm with Mark. I love crafting and when I GM having crafters in the party is always a plus. When a player crafts a weapon they have a stronger attachment to that item than items found or purchased. And since I do not have magic item stores in my games it's a great way for a player to customize his gear.
I might be coming down too hard on PF. It's not entirely fair to compare it to a game that we over many year specifically altered to fit our group. There are a great many things I love about PF, but running/GM'ing games is not one of those great many things. Perhaps that is something that can change.
-MD
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couple of follow up points (while waiting for the Dentist to open):
Casting much like every other revised action in my AD&D 3 has a speed associated with it. I didn't list a casting speed and stated that casting should be a full round action because I was giving out pointers using the game as written (not with a modified initiative system). In my speed system lower level spells are faster than higher level spells, also spells take a speed hit if they have somatic or material components. So magic missile can almost work like a counterspell if you tag the enemy caster before he can get his spell off (hence all the various protections from that spell).
I would also say treat all casting as a full round action for purposes of movement, with the exception of a few spells that need to be cast fast (feather fall) breaking that rule.
As to the crafting suggestion that goes with any and all suggestions - if you or your players are attached to it work out a compromise. My initial post in this thread was intended to help groups who are trying to get an AD&D feel, not to cause a schism in an existing PF game where some of the players are attached to existing game mechanics.
I do feel that some of the "magic" and "awe" of earlier editions was that players could not easily craft items, that in fact not being able to make most items nor being able to buy them helped in keeping that mystique. That and putting the magic items in the DMG vs one book (PF).
All of this being my opinion of course - some people love that players can craft - just stating why it goes against the early edition feel.
Mark Hoover mentioned the Teleporting wizard at the head of his army, and why would he want to walk or ride along with them? I would postulate that part of this is purely aesthetic. Some groups want the teleporting wizard (high powered high level) while others feel that a high level wizard can still be powerful without being all powerful.
Again - this comes down to individual preference. I prefer less spells and powers, I prefer heroic instead of super heroic. I should have stuck with 2nd ed - but that's history now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a Herculean task to envision modifying Pathfinder, and D&D Next got the jump on a new system (dibs). If Pathfinder ever considers revision, good ideas may be barred from duplication. Fundamentally, it starts with character classes, the phenomenon of more focus on a sheet and what it can do "by the numbers" versus imagination and what it can do "by the story put forth before you." May be mixing threads into what people would want to see for a Pathfinder 2E, but moreso if we perceive the character rules bloat as the effect which has caused a mechanical focus versus a creative one, then we are really expressing a thematic perception of where the game should be.
Fundamentally, it starts with character classes, the phenomenon of more focus on a sheet and what it can do "by the numbers" versus imagination and what it can do "by the story put forth before you." May be mixing threads into what people would want to see for a Pathfinder 2E, but moreso if we perceive the character rules bloat as the effect which has caused a mechanical focus versus a creative one, then we are really expressing a thematic perception of where the game should be.
Heh, this makes me laugh. As if PF made folks concentrate on their character sheets. I had a guy in my 1e games who consistently played wizards or dwarf fighters. When playing these characters his dwarves always got as strong as they could and hacked everything with an axe; his wizards always blasted with attack spells. Period. He played "by the numbers" all the time.
Some people are hard-wired to numbers. Others are creative types. A precious few do both well or neither. People are people; a game system doesn't make them who they are.
I've seen some VERY dynamic players who could probably spend an entire night glancing at their character once or twice for a reference. I've also seen tactics types who obsess over bonuses and don't really care what the ghoul queen's motivation is for dangling those teenagers over that pit of her newly-turned offspring. The bottom line is there are all kinds of players, playing all kinds of ways, in lots of different systems. PF is no different.
All 3x and PF did was present MORE for the numbers types to obsess over and lay down baselines for how dynamic types do their daring-do. In many people's opinions the designers did so inelegantly with too much clutter. Similarly when I was a kid running a games shop at the tail end of 2e folks complained that D&D didn't do ENOUGH to provide those numbers and guidelines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One big difference I've identified, is declaring actions in game mechanics terms versus descriptive terms.
As a kid I remember more "I want to swing from the rafters." "Ok, make a dexterity check." "
Now I see more "I make an acrobatics check to avoid the AoO." "Ok, you beat his CMD."
That's a bad example but if you've seen both you'll know what I mean I think.
Perception is an easier example.
"I roll perception." "OK there's a secret compartment in the bookshelf."
vs
"I pull out some books from the bookshelf."
One big difference I've identified, is declaring actions in game mechanics terms versus descriptive terms.
As a kid I remember more "I want to swing from the rafters." "Ok, make a dexterity check." "
Now I see more "I make an acrobatics check to avoid the AoO." "Ok, you beat his CMD."
That's a bad example but if you've seen both you'll know what I mean I think.
Perception is an easier example.
"I roll perception." "OK there's a secret compartment in the bookshelf."
vs
"I pull out some books from the bookshelf."
This is an easy area to recapture the "feel" you remember, but also have the results based on the character's skill instead of the player's persuasiveness.
You declare your actions the way you did in 1e. That earns you the skill check you get to make in 3e. No descriptive declaration, no skill check. For the DM, it's easy to enforce:
Player: "I climb down the cliff. I roll a 17."
DM: "Um, climb how, and where on the cliff, exactly? Presumably you're not jumping -- that wouldn't need a roll."
Player: "Well, is there a ledge where I am? (Consults equipment) I get out my rope and pitons, and pound the pitons in and rope myself in, and then do down that way."
DM: "Cool. 17 succeeds."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One big difference I've identified, is declaring actions in game mechanics terms versus descriptive terms.
As a kid I remember more "I want to swing from the rafters." "Ok, make a dexterity check." "
Now I see more "I make an acrobatics check to avoid the AoO." "Ok, you beat his CMD."
That's a bad example but if you've seen both you'll know what I mean I think.
Perception is an easier example.
"I roll perception." "OK there's a secret compartment in the bookshelf."
vs
"I pull out some books from the bookshelf."
Very true Grimmy, I know exactly what you mean. What I've done is ask players to dig a little deeper.
"I make a Perception check"
Me: For what
"Anything"
Me: you notice a lot
"Are there any traps or anything out of the ordinary?"
Me: Oh, you were looking for traps? No, no obvious signs that say "trap here." you did however notice scorches on the wall across from the wall sconce and an oddly-colored flagstone covering most of the middle of the hall.
"I use acrobatics to avoid the AoO"
Me: how, and where are you moving to?
"I roll to...here"
Me: please note - while you avoid the AoOs you are still flanked by the cardinal's guards here. Your acrobatics is high enough you might be able to make a jump for the chandolier overhead; I'll add your jump roll TO your 5' move to represent swinging, if you want to chance it?
Where I find it near impossible is on social rolls. Diplomacy took the wind out of a lot of RP sails. Still, I try to muddle through.
I only had one book at the table when I ran an AD&D game. That was either the Monster manual or the module. Everything else I did not need. That is a lot of freedom.
Everything the players needed to know is on the character sheet. Everything I needed to know what on one page of the Monster Manual. That's a lot of freedom.
As a player freedom lets you look up at the GM when he is describing something. Freedom lets the GM focus on storytelling. I just do not have that kind of freedom when running Pathfinder.
So I get to the page and I see it's a CR 7, and it's a skull icon, a castle icon and a star? I don't know what those icons are but them mean something so I need to look them up.
"Please hold a sec", I say as I flip to the front of the book to determine it is a creature type Undead, in an urban area with a Temperate climate. Why not just write that down so we don't have to match iconography?? Anyway I need to be versed on the various traits of the Undead type since that is not listed on the create page but a separate entry on page 309. Ok, I'm read up back to the game.
"Ok, sorry for the wait", I tell the players.
We start combat and I find a feat on the monster that I am usure of. Well I need to find that quickly. Now I have the core rulebook open and I'm reading in that book trying to find the feat description.
Battle is over and now I need to figure out what treasure it has. That's not even listed in the MM! Now I'm scouring the DM's guide trying to find a treasure by CR table or something. Good lord.
I'm not a Mentat, I'm Paul Mother f*^&ng Maud'Dib, rider of sandworms. I can't be expected to memorize all this stuff and run a good game.
On the GM's side most of this could be fixed by listing the monsters traits, feats and abilities in it's entirety.
I'm not as down on the actual game system rules. As cumbersome as they are its still just good ol' roleplaying. The rules/system is just a vehicle for several people with dice to tell a collaborative story. The fact that the rules can not be contained on one page and spill out into books that players and GM's alike have to rummage through is a problem. One that could be fixed with less iconography and a few more pages.
-MD
*edited for a little more clarity
Muad'Dib, I'm not seeing that your complaints don't almost equally apply to AD&D.
Climate/terrain is irrelevant except when setting up an adenture; it doesn't come up at all when running an AP. That's a prep issue that cuts across editions. Having an icon for it is nice, but it's also listed in the stat block in words, so, yes, they do "just write it down," and you can ignore the icons like I do.
A lot of what made undead in AD&D undead wasn't clearly spelled out, so you ad-libbed it; 3.X tells you straight-up so you don't have to guess or try to remember. And, unlike in AD&D, the 3e entry tells you straight-out that the thing is undead, right under the header; you don't need to read through the text and infer it.
Treasure type in AD&D used to be listed in the MM, but you flipped to the back, rolled against type, and then referred to the DMG to see what it actually was. That's still the case, except you no longer need to figure out what "double Q, half H and a side of ranch" translates to in terms of coins, gems, etc.
Book bloat too. Keep 'em coming. Sometimes I game w/out any books in PF. None. I just sit down and wing it. I did the same back in 1e. Drives my players insane.
"But the DMG says..."
"But the MM shows skeletons have..."
"But in Ultimate Campaign..."
I don't care. I'm running. Trust me to be fair, balanced and even. If I get a rule wrong, trust it's for the right reason.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do w/the system. I don't own MOST of the books for PF. I tell my players to use whatever they find on PFSRD. A couple have taken me up on the offer and picked some weird trait or feat.
If it does come up in play I just hack it and move on. If I get it right or wrong it doesn't slow down gameplay.
Now movement on a grid map, THAT slows play. There's ways around that though and it isn't a requirement of PF to use one. So again, it's not the system.
Now on the flip, this is a true story: I lugged ALL my AD&D books one day to school. They filled my entire gym bag in eighth grade. Anyway I go to hoist the bag over my shoulder coming out of lunch and "pop!" Herniated groin.
Oh yeah, that was AWESOME! I collapse in a spasm of pain under the weight of near a dozen hardcover gaming books and a binder, then have to grunt through the pain to my dad why he had to come pick me up from school and what I'm doing in a wheelchair. The cherry on top? The doctor, accompanied by a group of students, decides to do a FULL exam, including rectal.
...
No point to telling you all that story, I just think it's hilarious. Hope you all had a good laugh and realize: it's not about the amount of books, it's how you choose to USE them that matters. Make your game what you want and pick the books you choose to use wisely. They may try to kill you someday...
TOZ, it never fails. You chime in and what you say; it MAKES me see you as your icon. I picture you IRL looking like Chevy Chase in Fletch and literally not giving a F about anything at the gaming table, grinning the whole way. Oh, and for some reason you're in a smoking jacket. Is that weird?
And I'm not sure why he was looking up treasure anyway. Don't the APs (and other adventures) include treasure in the encounter spec?Muad'Dib, I'm not seeing that your complaints don't almost equally apply to AD&D.
Climate/terrain is irrelevant except when setting up an adenture; it doesn't come up at all when running an AP. That's a prep issue that cuts across editions. Having an icon for it is nice, but it's also listed in the stat block in words, so, yes, they do "just write it down," and you can ignore the icons like I do.
A lot of what made undead in AD&D undead wasn't clearly spelled out, so you ad-libbed it; 3.X tells you straight-up so you don't have to guess or try to remember. And, unlike in AD&D, the 3e entry tells you straight-out that the thing is undead, right under the header; you don't need to read through the text and infer it.
Treasure type in AD&D used to be listed in the MM, but you flipped to the back, rolled against type, and then referred to the DMG to see what it actually was. That's still the case, except you no longer need to figure out what "double Q, half H and a side of ranch" translates to in terms of coins, gems, etc.
It was an story like example of what it looks like at the table when we fumble through the various books. But hey look, every concern I have for the game is unfounded and I'm just playing the game wrong so don't mind me.
Book bloat too. Keep 'em coming. Sometimes I game w/out any books in PF. None. I just sit down and wing it. I did the same back in 1e. Drives my players insane.
"But the DMG says..."
"But the MM shows skeletons have..."
"But in Ultimate Campaign..."
I don't care. I'm running. Trust me to be fair, balanced and even. If I get a rule wrong, trust it's for the right reason.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do w/the system. I don't own MOST of the books for PF. I tell my players to use whatever they find on PFSRD. A couple have taken me up on the offer and picked some weird trait or feat.
** spoiler omitted **
If it does come up in play I just hack it and move on. If I get it right or wrong it doesn't slow down gameplay.
Now movement on a grid map, THAT slows play. There's ways around that though and it isn't a requirement of PF to use one. So again, it's not the system.
Now on the flip, this is a true story: I lugged ALL my AD&D books one day to school. They filled my entire gym bag in eighth grade. Anyway I go to hoist the bag over my shoulder coming out of lunch and "pop!" Herniated groin.
Oh yeah, that was AWESOME! I collapse in a spasm of pain under the weight of near a dozen hardcover gaming books and a binder, then have to grunt through the pain to my dad why he had to come pick me up from school and what I'm doing in a wheelchair. The cherry on top? The doctor, accompanied by a group of students, decides to do a FULL exam, including rectal.
...
No point to telling you all that story, I just think it's hilarious. Hope you all had a good laugh and realize: it's not about the amount of books, it's how you choose to USE them that matters. Make your game what you want and pick the books you choose to use wisely. They may try to kill you someday...
Huh, you said, 'rectal'. Huh, huh.
Seriously though, I like your style. We may disagree occasionally but I have run games with nothing but the players telling me what their character's are like and me running an adventure I had written earlier in my head. Once we were in a car and we used the next number/letter we saw if we needed a random number generator. It was a cool deal.
You remind me of my younger self.
I really liked the ability checks as the central mechanism in the games of my youth. Roll under an ability score.
With situational modifiers it was a resolution mechanism for almost anything you wanted to try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, this makes me laugh. As if PF made folks concentrate on their character sheets. I had a guy in my 1e games who consistently played wizards or dwarf fighters. When playing these characters his dwarves always got as strong as they could and hacked everything with an axe; his wizards always blasted with attack spells. Period. He played "by the numbers" all the time.Some people are hard-wired to numbers. Others are creative types. A precious few do both well or neither. People are people; a game system doesn't make them who they are.
I've seen some VERY dynamic players who could probably spend an entire night glancing at their character once or twice for a reference. I've also seen tactics types who obsess over bonuses and don't really care what the ghoul queen's motivation is for dangling those teenagers over that pit of her newly-turned offspring. The bottom line is there are all kinds of players, playing all kinds of ways, in lots of different systems. PF is no different.
All 3x and PF did was present MORE for the numbers types to obsess over and lay down baselines for how dynamic types do their daring-do. In many people's opinions the designers did so inelegantly with too much clutter. Similarly when I was a kid running a games shop at the tail end of 2e folks complained that D&D didn't do ENOUGH to provide those numbers and guidelines.
This, tbh.
In the same way 4e (IMO) lends itself to being a tactical miniatures game, it doesn't stop people who really want to RP in it from doing so, 3e/Pathfinder gave the optimization people a heck of a lot to play with, so of course they do so and are possibly more likely to buy the game. Those of us without any real interest in playing the optimization game are as free to ignore it as we ever were.
I encountered people with different playstyles way back in the 80s, it isn't anything new. It's certainly more visible nowadays due to the internet and (what appears to me, at least, to be) a substantially larger player base interacting with one another. Organized play environments also contribute somewhat, as you're far more likely to end up at a table with people who have vastly different things they want out of the game.
The first thing the community as a whole needs to accept is: None of this is a bad thing.
A common argument I see is "It's hard enough finding a group as it is, I don't want to have to hunt around for one that matches my specific playstyle."
Really, that's no different to having to find a group to play the specific game you want to play. If the only group in the area was playing AD&D (or T&T, or Rolemaster) while I wanted BECMI D&D (or d6 Star Wars, or CoC), I had to find a way deal with that too. It's not that different, other than having to dig a bit deeper than the label on the rulebook.
If anything, I think it's a bit easier to find the right people for a playstyle than the right people for a specific game. Finding people of a similar mindset means you've got a long-term group that is more likely to last moving from game to game over the years, while finding people just interested in the same rulebook means a group more likely to drift apart when people get bored of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would anyone ever write a chandelier into a room description if it wasn't meant to be swung on?
Chandeliers awesome. Like pre-nerf spiked chain plus alchemist's fire. Best home furnishing for two-weapon fighting.
Book bloat too. Keep 'em coming. Sometimes I game w/out any books in PF. None. I just sit down and wing it. I did the same back in 1e. Drives my players insane.
"But the DMG says..."
"But the MM shows skeletons have..."
"But in Ultimate Campaign..."
I don't care. I'm running. Trust me to be fair, balanced and even. If I get a rule wrong, trust it's for the right reason.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do w/the system. I don't own MOST of the books for PF. I tell my players to use whatever they find on PFSRD. A couple have taken me up on the offer and picked some weird trait or feat.
** spoiler omitted **
If it does come up in play I just hack it and move on. If I get it right or wrong it doesn't slow down gameplay.
Now movement on a grid map, THAT slows play. There's ways around that though and it isn't a requirement of PF to use one. So again, it's not the system.
Now on the flip, this is a true story: I lugged ALL my AD&D books one day to school. They filled my entire gym bag in eighth grade. Anyway I go to hoist the bag over my shoulder coming out of lunch and "pop!" Herniated groin.
Oh yeah, that was AWESOME! I collapse in a spasm of pain under the weight of near a dozen hardcover gaming books and a binder, then have to grunt through the pain to my dad why he had to come pick me up from school and what I'm doing in a wheelchair. The cherry on top? The doctor, accompanied by a group of students, decides to do a FULL exam, including rectal.
...
No point to telling you all that story, I just think it's hilarious. Hope you all had a good laugh and realize: it's not about the amount of books, it's how you choose to USE them that matters. Make your game what you want and pick the books you choose to use wisely. They may try to kill you someday...
Yeah, I recall one player that was always quoting this or that and trying to tell the dm what the stats of something where.
So you know what the dm did? He modified everything, on the fly. You were always left guessing, we started out fighting pie golems. Somethings were only vulnerable to brass weapons, it was all rather cool and you never knew what to expect. The other guy hated it, all his knowledge was useless, redundant.
That is one way to silence a know all.
...pie golems...Now, see, that's just wrong.
If you make my character fight a pie golem, and there's no pie on the table for the player, expect him to raid your fridge, cupboard and/or pantry, thence to commit justifiable pieicide.
On the other hand, there's always a Pi golem...
|
One big difference I've identified, is declaring actions in game mechanics terms versus descriptive terms.
As a kid I remember more "I want to swing from the rafters." "Ok, make a dexterity check." "
Now I see more "I make an acrobatics check to avoid the AoO." "Ok, you beat his CMD."
That's a bad example but if you've seen both you'll know what I mean I think.
Perception is an easier example.
"I roll perception." "OK there's a secret compartment in the bookshelf."
vs
"I pull out some books from the bookshelf."This is an easy area to recapture the "feel" you remember, but also have the results based on the character's skill instead of the player's persuasiveness.
You declare your actions the way you did in 1e. That earns you the skill check you get to make in 3e. No descriptive declaration, no skill check. For the DM, it's easy to enforce:
PLAYER: I pull each book on the bookshelf forward, hoping one will trigger a secret passage.
*rolls low*GM: Even though that's how it works, you somehow manage to fail.
Then again, that type of stuff generally doesn't have a defined triggering mechanism in Pathfinder. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just have to say I'm enjoying this thread.
But now I want to watch some Twin Peaks and eat some pie.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...What I've done is ask players to dig a little deeper...
That's part of it. The system encourages new players to engage in "roll" play by replacing most, if not all, player interactions with the game world with a specific check and rule. At its extreme, players can anticipate mathematical results like a computer game. Of course, we hope there's GMs who are not simply there to referee die rolls and guide players from one numerical combat to the next. But unless one has been exposed to the "old school," what are new players to think? Maybe it's good enough, or maybe they just don't know there's more out there to an RPG than numbers.
Oh, and for some reason you're in a smoking jacket. Is that weird?Weirdly accurate.
Somehow, that image doesn't work for me unless it means the jacket is actually smouldering.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may be one of the most interesting topics I've read in a while. So let me throw some thoughts/ideas in.
I've been running PFS only for a while, which I do enjoy doing. I plan on continuing to do so because I like meeting so many new players, something I would miss if I ran hame games exclusively. But there is the drawback that other people have mentioned, players have access to pretty much anything they want, vastly reducing the challenge level that the old-school games seemed to have.
So with that, I dug out some of my old Necromancer Games modules. I think that I am going to run a home-game with some, in my opinion, needed restriction. I'm going to list them out, let me know if they seem like deal breakers. Also, with a full-time job and family I wouldm't have time to home-brew everything, so published material it is. But it's good material.
1 - CRB classes/races only -- most modules don't assume that gunslingers and summoners are running around creating chaos
2 - The magic shop, for the most part, is closed. There will be access to some minor magical items, but very limited. There will be plenty of items to find however.
3 - No Crafting feats, I feel this leads to overpowered parties, reducing the challenge.
4 - WBL and encounter balancing are out. While the main adventure is more or less balanced, the areas surrounding the starting town/dungeon aren't. Low level PC's can explore freely, but will need to exercise caution.
These are just some of the ideas I have so far. The intent is to put some of the challenge and uncertainty back into the game. No more steam-rolling every encounter.
Everyones feedback would be appreciated.
While the main adventure is more or less balanced, the areas surrounding the starting town/dungeon aren't. Low level PC's can explore freely, but will need to exercise caution.
This is something that's been on my mind for a while and I'm not sure how to resolve. How can I throw in monsters that are too strong for the players to fight and not kill everyone? How do I indicate to the players, without saying "roll initiative, and also prepare to make with the running", that a given fight is too hard? I feel like if I say at the beginning of the campaign that not every monster is carefully tailored to their difficulty level, the players will expect (rightly, I think) for there to be some way to tell when it's okay to fight and when it's not. And I don't see a good way to try to give that information out.
Well I can help. Have them quickly reduced to very low hp, but not killed, and explain it seems to be preparing to take them all out in one swoop once their hp is down enough across the board. Emphasise through description it seems unstoppable, start to prove it is unstoppable, but give them time to get out.
Or to exploit a common trope of now this monster/villain is serious, have it kill off an npc. Sword art did that with the first boss cutting the good strong knight in half. Ok, we know he means business, and can any of us beat him?
Or an ooze so massive and corrosive, don't even bother staying guys, you are germs vs. bleach.
@RCdubs: these all sound fine. I still chafe at the no crafting thing but you've run PFS so I'm sure you have the handle on this. Hopefully you give the wizard something cool when you take away their bonus feat at 1st level.
I think the wilderness areas being variable is your strongest OD&D angle. One thing that was always dangerous in older editions was random encounters. Consider; you made about half or more of your EXP on gold, so random encounters that usually didn't carry any treasure were already a low return on investment for the players. Add in the "random" nature where you might be a 5th level party meeting 2 goblins, or the same party meeting an ettin and his ogre cousins, and you've got the potential for some really challenging encounters.
For the PFS crowd, I would sculpt some random encounter charts for various areas. Then if the party was going there I'd call for either a Diplomacy or Knowledge roll; in return I'd reward them with SOME kind of forewarning of a couple of the monsters in the chart. Ex:
(player rolls Diplomacy for Gather Information)If you're setting out for the Forest of Vryr, you should know; there be a dragon in them woods. A great, green she beast locals call Treerender whose breath is so foul it can boil a man's flesh from his bones. She's served by a special kind o' kobold what makes its way in the daytime and aint bothered by the light like their cave-dwelling cousins. Vryr can be a dangerous place, mark my words...
Now, if the party's second level, they might think twice. Heck, even if they're 10th level they still might have some reservations. But they feel a LITTLE more prepared, aren't blindsided by a potential TPK and if they choose to still go can feel they're really being adventurous.
I think, because old modules didn't have a lot of NPCs save the villains and victims, many folks discount the value of RP in "old school" games. If you guys don't or don't agree that's cool. Anyway, I'd say watch out for that bear trap and fill up your "exploration" parts of the game with just as many rich interactions with locals as you can.
|
|
RCW has some good ideas for making the changes without a whole re-write of the game. Mostly DM game management changes - which does fall into the purview of the DM in question (long as its communicated to all the players).
4 - WBL and encounter balancing are out. While the main adventure is more or less balanced, the areas surrounding the starting town/dungeon aren't. Low level PC's can explore freely, but will need to exercise caution.
This is perfect - coming from a background where I ended up running more 2nd Ed Gamma World than 1st ed AD&D - it was common for players to explore the wilderness more in that game than they would in AD&D and the encounters were 100% random. You could just as easily encounter a small Group of Badders(similar to Orcs) as you could a roaming Defense Borg flying overhead or squad of heavily armed Knights of Genetic Purity looking for some mutants to kill. The way I (the GM) managed the encounters was what made all the difference.
There are several ways to handle the "open" sandbox - the game needs a good perception system or mechanic (on the mechanical side of things) and possibly a "tactical retreat" mechanic. On the DM side of things the players need to know that not everything they encounter is killable, supposed to be killed or even encountered.
3rd ed/PF players would have to be retrained to understand this and at first it may go against their instinct. There will be plenty of running from moderate to highly powerful encounters (Red Dragon, family of Hill Giants) that lower level PCs will just have to run from with no shame.
A DM will also need to retrain himself if he is used to running 3rd ed/PF encounters - since the players running away does not become a chance to rub it in (AoO fest on fleeing PCs).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirikrautha mentioned getting "wrecked".
I think "getting wrecked" vs. killed can get silly if it happens to often but it should occur (neg hp is not death). If players see and assess an encounter after playing this style for a while but make a miscalculation on their skill vs. threat I may allow a tactical retreat. If it is repeat behavior then they need to learn the hard way - usually it won't come to that if there is good communication between players and DM.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
thejeff - the loot problem (without reducing amounts) could be an issue unless of course you brought back management fees associated with level. Low-mid level fighter paying for training, paying stipend to stay out of local military service, building his own school, guild and eventually his hold. Same goes for wizard who wants a small lab or the ability to research lost lore. "Lost Lore" you say? "But Aux, I thought you wouldn't allow crafting?" I would allow research into small alchemical research, making low level potions or even researching magical properties of existing items (since I don't reveal all when items are found and spells are used to detect item powers).
Suffice to say - the life management fees are currently out of the system - and I would include feasting as part of a social/life management fee just as I would offering up treasure to the church as part of a tithe. Not all of these fees need be material and hell - If my crazed Barbarian player was just coming off of a week long bender I would consider giving him a small (+1 bonus) on saves, or reaction rolls or something to reflect his recharged base when he goes on his next adventure.
So excess wealth could be re-built and engineered to work differently than it does now to take focus off of the wealth = X amount of adventuring gear paradigm.
A hyper-critical point here - if you are going to re-build a WBL system (and expected gear) or even go slow on xp (1/2 xp per encounter) then you AS DM, must make sure that that the party has the base resources to go on adventures. A few potions going in and maybe a few potions near the end of the adventure. If they are running on fumes they will be reluctant to take risks and continue on. So while countering aspects of X-mass tree is appealing, make mechanical assumptions based off of resources required for the party to get their job done, i.e - finish the adventure.
Anyway, good stuff here - I am glad this isn't a PF or AD&D bash. Whenever I say PF doesn't work or crafting or any aspect of PF - I am saying that it doesn't work for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ, it never fails. You chime in and what you say; it MAKES me see you as your icon. I picture you IRL looking like Chevy Chase in Fletch and literally not giving a F about anything at the gaming table, grinning the whole way. Oh, and for some reason you're in a smoking jacket. Is that weird?
TOZ doesn't physically resemble Chevy Chase, but he can do the deadpan zinger like Fletch (more book Fletch than movie Fletch).
Somehow, that image doesn't work for me unless it means the jacket is actually smouldering.Oh, and for some reason you're in a smoking jacket. Is that weird?Weirdly accurate.
And with a pipe coming down a staircase. If you're old enough to catch that reference you should be in a nursing home. ;>)
Where I find it near impossible is on social rolls. Diplomacy took the wind out of a lot of RP sails. Still, I try to muddle through.
Perception is an easier example."I roll perception." "OK there's a secret compartment in the bookshelf."
vs
"I pull out some books from the bookshelf."
Ahhh...Perception and Diplomacy, the two skills most responsible for squashing role-play in modern gaming. Eliminating (or at least nerfing) those two skills in a PF game would go a long way towards recapturing the "old-school" feel in a game.