| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wacky,
Remember the WBL is a guideline to 'help the DM'. It's there to determine both how powerful enemies are by loot, and how much stuff characters have to actually be 'balanced' characters of their level.
Characters with more or less WBL are more or less powerful then the baseline, and need to be treated accordingly.
It didn't matter as much in 1E, because melee characters were much more powerful there, and magic was much more biased to them. It was far easier to fit out a fighter with magic sword, shield and armor then it was for a wizard to get a Wand, for instance.
In PF, item creation rules say 'I create for me first, then you', which means spellcasters have just as much gear as martials, which is another huge power shift.
Since martials are LESS powerful, relatively, in PF, going sparse with gear HURTS them. Conversely, more WBL helps casters who can craft easily more then martials.
If you underequip martials, casters aren't affected as much. Their spells are much less reliant on gear, and they can even spend spells to replace what they don't have from gear.
Non-casters don't have the option, and suffer accordingly.
The 3.5 cleric was built upon this premise. Greater Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Vestment, Shield of Faith are all hour/level buffs that effectively give them magic gear for no cost. Add in Persistent Spell cheese and they needed remarkably little magic...and what magic they got was leveraged to be even stronger, as they didn't need to spend money on Enhancement bonuses or Rings of Protection.
==Aelryinth
I'd prefer just making costs for actions.
Losing a con point for dying, vs 5k and a negative level? Ouch! that's 1E.
It took a 16th level cleric to give you back one of the two levels that vampire just took with one blow! And it was actual energy 'I lose experience' drain! Negative levels were FEARED.
Save or dies could be BRUTAL...but as you leveled, happened to you less and less, because your saves IMPROVED vs them.
That's 1E to me, where you squirmed when a spectre popped up because, oh god, if you didn't kill it fastfastfast someone was going to have to earn 2 levels all over again.
=====
Mages leveled slow from 1-4.
From 5-9 they ROCKETED. Basically took 30k for each level, while most other classes were doubling the amounts required for each level. So, for instance, f/m-u's were 4-6, 4-7, 5/8, and 6/9.
They hit par xp at level 13, and fighters leveled faster thereafter. What was it, 250k/level vs 375k? So, you had a fighter/20 about the same time you got a wizard/17.
==Aelryinth
|
WBL has always been around in some fashion, when monsters had random treasure type "A" and another "E." Players were "stuck" with whatever the random loot happened to be. Wizards added only spells they could scrounge. There was an uncertainty built into the game to see how players would do with what they got, not how they would do when they always got what they wanted. In 3E, the perception shifted to "player first."
Definitely some pros and cons here. A pro because less reliance on GM or module arbitrariness, play the character you want rather than what random events drive you to.
A con because less chances at in-game player innovation using what they have versus what they want.
Think about the play for a second. A player in 2E makes a fighter with a 12 Strength, high Dex and Con. His rationale: I'll make do until I get Gauntlets of Ogre Power at 5th level and a Belt of Hill Giant Strength by 9th. I'll have the best of all worlds: high strength, Dex, and Con. In PF, that's legit and you'll goto the magic mart if the loot isn't what you want.
But in 2E, what happens if he's wrong? There was no guarantee for loot; the world doesn't always give you a gold star for trying. You got creative with what you had. That's not so much a factor anymore, and I suspect many players weren't sad to see that go. But I want to convey there was a method to the madness, a built-in attempt to have the players be creative and never expect they'll have what they want in order to overcome challenges. Old school.
|
Remember the WBL is a guideline to 'help the DM'.
Perhaps, but reading the forums gives me the impression it's used more these days as a "reason" to fire the GM if they don't immediately have the proper amount of gold fall directly out of the sky whenever a character levels / uses a consumable item / etc.
|
|
One bit of irony - in combat, as spellcasters progressed higher and higher, the spells that were most useful to them were the blaster spells, so often deemed ineffectual in 3.x/PF. Because at least they did half damage when the high-level enemies made their (rather easy) saves...most of the more effective spells from 3.x/PF were rather laughable at those levels, as they simply fizzled out as the enemy rolled a 4...and succeeded.
Now that I think about it. A good way of recapturing the esssnce of ADnD? Stop "optimizing" your characters. Roll 4d6 take the top 3 for your stats and put the numbers were you want them. Not everyone will come out as equals, and that's fine. Game balance is nice and all, but it's not king.
Do away with the WBL. Fight for your gold and magic items. GP doesn't "magically" appear just because you spent it and everyone should always have the same amount of money.
There's a problem with this in a way. See, ever since 3rd ED, games have been more combat oriented* and also more competitive. Characters would also move between games. If I brought in a really lucky fighter with a 1800 str and a +3 sword and you had a ranger with a 16 and a +1, we could still both have fun and the DM had no issues "balancing". But now that's harder.
I also don't hand out WBL if they spend their WBL on wands and such. I keep track of what I hand out, and I try to make the stuff either unique and a "must keep" or fungible and salable, whereupon I reduce the 'value' of that in my head by 1/2. if they sell the "must keep' item and buy some wands and burn thru them, too bad, that's their choice. OTOH, when I do hand out partially charged wands, low level scrolls and potions to a higher level party, I don;t bother including those in my "WBL" calcs. I also use 'must keep" items to balance the party a little.
* not that "kick in the door and kill them all" wasn;t a play style since OD&D.
It would be balanced more because the numbers were smaller, and because that Ranger could still shine against Giant-Type foes...+1 dmg/level is awesome. That being said, there's a NOTABLE difference between a guy doing d8+1 and d8+9 in killing power.
I tend to agree that swapping permanents for consumables should count against WBL, otherwise mechanical exploiters just try to max out gold/kill by spending all their cash on consumables they can to max out killing power.
Of course, that leads right into one of the great game truisms: Always leave 'em wanting more.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have all the characters that don't have innate magical powers (or that have been deemed "weak" by the community, like monks, rogues and fighters) proress on the Fast table; .
Yeah, no thanks. That "deemed "weak" by the community" is bogus. First of all, it's NOT "the community" it's a very few VERY VERY loud posters who in many cases have even admitted they don't even play Pathfinder. At our table, and in JJ's table, Fighters & Rogues are popular classes that really contribute, in fact even in our 13th level group the straight Fighter is far & away the most dangerous PC in the group.
Mind you, when we're talking 17th level+ then heck yes, spellcasters rule. But martials rule levels 1-4.
Mind you, in some of their cases, they might be playing PF and in at least one case it was shown they were playing a super-optimized 'rocket tag" game. That's not "badwrongfun"- since they were having fun.
But the rules don't need to be massively changed for a small minority*. IRL, fighters and rogues are among the most popular classes out there.
"They" will say "monks, rogues and fighters" are weak but just saying over and over again on these boards (by the same few posters) does not make it true. "They" have an agenda (or two or three agendas, in at least one case, it's obvious that poster just hates PF and will jump on any & all bandwagons to show how bad the game is. Another one wants to promote his own game, etc...)
* not that 4skp for fighters and more cool talents for rogues would be so bad...
It didn't matter as much in 1E, because melee characters were much more powerful there, and magic was much more biased to them. It was far easier to fit out a fighter with magic sword, shield and armor then it was for a wizard to get a Wand, for instance.
Since martials are LESS powerful, relatively, in PF, going sparse with gear HURTS them. Conversely, more WBL helps casters who can craft easily more then martials.
Yes, Mooks were often equipted with +1 or even +2 weapons & armor, so much so that any decent 9th level adventurer had a whole armory of such.
That's what makes me laugh about so-called 'low magic' campaigns, where less of such loot makes the caster/martial divide deeper and wider.
True, IMHO martials rule over casters lvls 1-4 but there's not much magic loot at that level in any game. Once you get to lvl 9 or so, martials NEED cool loot to stay abreast*, and any good DM will see this and send loot accordingly.
One bit of irony - in combat, as spellcasters progressed higher and higher, the spells that were most useful to them were the blaster spells, so often deemed ineffectual in 3.x/PF. Because at least they did half damage when the high-level enemies made their (rather easy) saves...most of the more effective spells from 3.x/PF were rather laughable at those levels, as they simply fizzled out as the enemy rolled a 4...and succeeded.
This is mostly true. With just a couple of modest magic items, a fighter would expect to make any really dangerous saves almost all the time. I had fighters who with their gear had NEGATIVE saves (in other words, in the unlikely event they were faced by some weird spell or effect that gave penalties to to the save, they would still save 95% of the time, a "nat one" still failing of course).
Definitely some pros and cons here. A pro because less reliance on GM or module arbitrariness, play the character you want rather than what random events drive you to.A con because less chances at in-game player innovation using what they have versus what they want.
Think about the play for a second. A player in 2E makes a fighter with a 12 Strength, high Dex and Con. His rationale: I'll make do until I get Gauntlets of Ogre Power at 5th level and a Belt of Hill Giant Strength by 9th. I'll have the best of all worlds: high strength, Dex, and Con. In PF, that's legit and you'll goto the magic mart if the loot isn't what you want.
But in 2E, what happens if he's wrong? There was no guarantee for loot; the world doesn't always give you a gold star for trying. You got creative with what you had.
Right, Loot was more free, but HWAAAAY more random. No way could you expect to get a Str boosty item by 9th. A +2 magic weapon of some sort? Sure, easy-peasy. You'd have several. But likely not that keen Katana your build called for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Want to recapture some of the essence, least from times when I PLAYED 1e/2e?
1. roll 4d6, take the best 3; no re-rolls and apply all rolls AS rolled. This means: you show up wanting to play a paladin; you end up rolling up a m-u with a 4 dex and a 12 Int as your highest stat (it happened)
2. If you're a level 1 spell caster cast 1 spell. That's it, just 1. No cantrips, scrolls or what-not at level 1... just that spell.
3. Learn to debate. Get REALLY good at it. Learn math, physics, history and study a lot of science. Be ready to quote not only game rules but also debate those rules with A LOT of passionate, real-world numbers/examples
4. Talk to NPCs. No, don't roll anything (Charisma is basically there to fill space on your sheet), just start talking and hope you impress your GM.
5. Learn to impress your GM. Not just in the game (see 3 and 4) but find out what his drink of choice is; buy him food; laugh at his jokes. This will pay dividends in rulings later.
6. Invent telepathic transmission. This is the only way you and your GM will see EXACTLY the same thing when he's describing the action. Otherwise see the post above about the mapless fight scene.
7. Manage disappointment. You won't be building your character; they will change as the game changes. Sometimes you will die, fail a save and turn to stone, be put to sleep, charmed, or otherwise transformed in some way beyond your control. You have far fewer resources to not only prevent these changes but to reverse them when they occur. Accept the change.
8. Don't get attached to your PC. For the first 3 levels don't even name them. Even after that make sure you've always got 5 backups ready to go at a moment's notice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Want to recapture some of the essence, least from times when I PLAYED 1e/2e?
1. roll 4d6, take the best 3; no re-rolls and apply all rolls AS rolled. This means: you show up wanting to play a paladin; you end up rolling up a m-u with a 4 dex and a 12 Int as your highest stat (it happened)
2. If you're a level 1 spell caster cast 1 spell. That's it, just 1. No cantrips, scrolls or what-not at level 1... just that spell.
3. Learn to debate. Get REALLY good at it. Learn math, physics, history and study a lot of science. Be ready to quote not only game rules but also debate those rules with A LOT of passionate, real-world numbers/examples
4. Talk to NPCs. No, don't roll anything (Charisma is basically there to fill space on your sheet), just start talking and hope you impress your GM.
5. Learn to impress your GM. Not just in the game (see 3 and 4) but find out what his drink of choice is; buy him food; laugh at his jokes. This will pay dividends in rulings later.
6. Invent telepathic transmission. This is the only way you and your GM will see EXACTLY the same thing when he's describing the action. Otherwise see the post above about the mapless fight scene.
7. Manage disappointment. You won't be building your character; they will change as the game changes. Sometimes you will die, fail a save and turn to stone, be put to sleep, charmed, or otherwise transformed in some way beyond your control. You have far fewer resources to not only prevent these changes but to reverse them when they occur. Accept the change.
8. Don't get attached to your PC. For the first 3 levels don't even name them. Even after that make sure you've always got 5 backups ready to go at a moment's notice.
Why do you keep doing this? We get it: you HATED AD&D and think PF is great. That's fine but this thread is not intended for someone like you, yet you keep making this same point over and over again. The OP asked for ways to recapture an AD&D feel in Pathfinder, not to elicit a list of why AD&D is bad and one should avoid anything to do with it.
|
Good to see you staying positive Hoover, nothing like that pure edition hatred to f-up the start of the weekend.
Good luck with the thread.
Is there anything to my impression there's been a slow but noticeable progression from the offhand, occasionally vicious tyranny of DMs under the early editions to the braying entitlement and misplaced egalitarianism of modern players in 3.5/3.75?
Is it possible we can find a happy medium of mutual respect in which the players trust their DM, and the DM in turn accepts input without the vein in his forehead standing out?
I loved 1st Edition. I still do. When played by players and DM in synch, it was for me by far the best experience. Unfortunately, now that both sides seem so often to be lobbing shells over the screen, simple enjoyment's fallen by the wayside for all concerned.
What's the solution?
I wonder if the issue of DM-player relations is based largely on group consistency. When I was playing as a youngster, I played with people that were my friends outside of gaming, so there was a built in familiarity and trust. Hence, our games were not confrontational (DM vs. Players) at all.
Both Pathfinder and D&D have organized play (Pathfinder Society and Encounters) wherein you are often gaming with total strangers and the group makeup might shift from week to week, not to mention the advent of playing with strangers from around the globe via PbP gaming. This would create an environment wherein you probably would not want to rely on "trusting" the DM and feel a need for greater codification of the rules and might engender a more DM vs. Players mindset. I would venture a guess that modern games played by groups of people who know each other well outside of the gaming table are still pretty easy going but I can't speak from personal experience.
TL;DR--Only game with people you know really, really well. Problem solved!
Want to recapture some of the essence, least from times when I PLAYED 1e/2e?
5. Learn to impress your GM. Not just in the game (see 3 and 4) but find out what his drink of choice is; buy him food; laugh at his jokes. This will pay dividends in rulings later.
So hope your GM cheats? Yeah that's the group I want to play with.
I think allowing the less magically-capable characters to advance in level faster, as was the case in the older versions of D&D, is something to which DMs could consider returning. If a 10th level wizard is always more powerful than a 10th level rogue and you're looking for game balance, well ... let the rogue achieve 10th level while the wizard is on the verge of 8th or even 7th.
Have all the characters that don't have innate magical powers (or that have been deemed "weak" by the community, like monks, rogues and fighters) proress on the Fast table; put characters like bards, paladins, rangers and other middle-of-the-road types on the Medium track; make summoners and all full casters advance Slowly.
Very cool idea. Good thinking!
If a class is op it advances slowly, get your juice, but others get to catch up.
Want to recapture some of the essence, least from times when I PLAYED 1e/2e?
1. roll 4d6, take the best 3; no re-rolls and apply all rolls AS rolled. This means: you show up wanting to play a paladin; you end up rolling up a m-u with a 4 dex and a 12 Int as your highest stat (it happened)
2. If you're a level 1 spell caster cast 1 spell. That's it, just 1. No cantrips, scrolls or what-not at level 1... just that spell.
3. Learn to debate. Get REALLY good at it. Learn math, physics, history and study a lot of science. Be ready to quote not only game rules but also debate those rules with A LOT of passionate, real-world numbers/examples
4. Talk to NPCs. No, don't roll anything (Charisma is basically there to fill space on your sheet), just start talking and hope you impress your GM.
5. Learn to impress your GM. Not just in the game (see 3 and 4) but find out what his drink of choice is; buy him food; laugh at his jokes. This will pay dividends in rulings later.
6. Invent telepathic transmission. This is the only way you and your GM will see EXACTLY the same thing when he's describing the action. Otherwise see the post above about the mapless fight scene.
7. Manage disappointment. You won't be building your character; they will change as the game changes. Sometimes you will die, fail a save and turn to stone, be put to sleep, charmed, or otherwise transformed in some way beyond your control. You have far fewer resources to not only prevent these changes but to reverse them when they occur. Accept the change.
8. Don't get attached to your PC. For the first 3 levels don't even name them. Even after that make sure you've always got 5 backups ready to go at a moment's notice.
Quite amusing, but I've got a big reveal for you.
Fight scenes don't actually require maps.
:O
Yep, just describe features, what is relevant, and distance. I rarely use maps anymore, just describe distance and make a note of it. Always relying upon grid maps and boards is for board gamers (of course, using maps is also very old in dnd, I miss my hex maps).
The other thing about fight scenes having maps is that it can be very detached and depersonalised. It can be far better to describe it as if the players are there, with points on distance, obstructions and what they threaten than to write everything down or assemble all the pieces on a board. Try to use description instead, miniatures and strict maps marking 5 foot squares are not needed.
Yes, I do play old-school in quite a few ways.
Note: one game that bridged old and new quite well a Vietnam game I played in. Very personal and well described and visibility was terrible (jungles, urgh), but once in a while for complex skirmishes a map was used. This made it a bit more detached and war-gamey when the actual intent of the game was horror. Horror loves limited visibility and frightening descriptions. I still prefer the in depth non-board, it really drags you into what is going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want to recapture some of the essence, least from times when I PLAYED 1e/2e?
1. roll 4d6, take the best 3; no re-rolls and apply all rolls AS rolled. This means: you show up wanting to play a paladin; you end up rolling up a m-u with a 4 dex and a 12 Int as your highest stat (it happened)
2. If you're a level 1 spell caster cast 1 spell. That's it, just 1. No cantrips, scrolls or what-not at level 1... just that spell.
3. Learn to debate. Get REALLY good at it. Learn math, physics, history and study a lot of science. Be ready to quote not only game rules but also debate those rules with A LOT of passionate, real-world numbers/examples
4. Talk to NPCs. No, don't roll anything (Charisma is basically there to fill space on your sheet), just start talking and hope you impress your GM.
5. Learn to impress your GM. Not just in the game (see 3 and 4) but find out what his drink of choice is; buy him food; laugh at his jokes. This will pay dividends in rulings later.
6. Invent telepathic transmission. This is the only way you and your GM will see EXACTLY the same thing when he's describing the action. Otherwise see the post above about the mapless fight scene.
7. Manage disappointment. You won't be building your character; they will change as the game changes. Sometimes you will die, fail a save and turn to stone, be put to sleep, charmed, or otherwise transformed in some way beyond your control. You have far fewer resources to not only prevent these changes but to reverse them when they occur. Accept the change.
8. Don't get attached to your PC. For the first 3 levels don't even name them. Even after that make sure you've always got 5 backups ready to go at a moment's notice.
Quite amusing, but I've got a big reveal for you.
Fight scenes don't actually require maps.
:O
Yep, just describe features, what is relevant, and distance. I rarely use maps anymore, just describe distance and make a note of it. Always relying upon grid maps and boards is for...
I still encourage guys to draw their character or paint a miniature if they like and I even sometimes use them to give the character an idea of where they are if they are not good at visual spatial stuff but a die works just as were there. I encourage them more to write a backstory if they want and I do reward them for it.
That would be a great idea except for the part in AD&D where it wasn't really true.
Druids levelled really fast, Wizards did in the mid levels, Clerics and Fighters were close, Rangers and Paladins got the shaft despite not being that much stronger than the base fighter (especially where weapon specialisation entered the equation). Thieves levelled fastest but were pretty much terrible as a single class and only really worth bothering with as part of a multi class combination.
A friend and I loved our thieves, and we made them work solo for many years. They are best teaming up with melee, but you could trust them to scout a bit once their skills went up a bit on the d100 table.
Also that glorious early game where you are trying to steal everything you can in the cities so you can level prior to the dungeons, ha ha. Great times, a very fun way to encourage player action outside of dungeons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a great idea except for the part in AD&D where it wasn't really true.
Druids levelled really fast, Wizards did in the mid levels, Clerics and Fighters were close, Rangers and Paladins got the shaft despite not being that much stronger than the base fighter (especially where weapon specialisation entered the equation). Thieves levelled fastest but were pretty much terrible as a single class and only really worth bothering with as part of a multi class combination.
A friend and I loved our thieves, and we made them work solo for many years. They are best teaming up with melee, but you could trust them to scout a bit once their skills went up a bit on the d100 table.
Also that glorious early game where you are trying to steal everything you can in the cities so you can level prior to the dungeons, ha ha. Great times, a very fun way to encourage player action outside of dungeons.
Cleric thief or cleric assassin it was like the Swiss army knife and Leatherman multitool of 'Expert Treasure-Hunters'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half-naked sexy babe chained up in BBEG room? Succubus trap, every time.
Unless she's being prodded at by nine ugly men. Then it's a Decapus ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, PF still has a lot of rulings in it. The rules aren't iron-clad. There are a lot of holes once you go digging.
One way to "recapture the essence" may be to accept the rulings and be less concerned by the "shared experience" between PF players.
Conversation tend to break down into rules, interpretations, and house-rules. Few are the times people just except the idea that GM rulings are still very much a part of the game. Which is kind of the whole point of playing with a GM as opposed to a video game. The GM can handle situations not predicted by the architectures of the game. This allows a certain boundless freedom. In other sorts of interactive media, you can only do as much as the game makers accounted for.
Sometimes I even see questions about rules legal ways to run monsters.
I know I'm guilty of things like this. I just don't think any of that actually helps the game be fun, it just helps sate my need to play "by the rules". Which is something even the devs get confused about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless she's being prodded at by nine ugly men. Then it's a Decapus ;)
Half-naked sexy babe chained up in BBEG room? Succubus trap, every time.
Oooo...nice, obscure reference to the fabled "lost" orange covered version of B3: Palace of the Silver Princess. Have a virtual cookie!
You know, PF still has a lot of rulings in it. The rules aren't iron-clad. There are a lot of holes once you go digging.
Good point. One only need look at the massive Rules Questions section of this forum for evidence of that statement.
The problem with low level thieves is that their chance of successfully using their skills is abysmally low, they can wear little armour, use few weapons and their saves are poor. You don't want to be anywhere near a fight as a 1e AD&D rogue and out of combat picking up the dice to roll your skills is a huge risk.
I don't really remember what being a low level thief was like, because there was so much theft going on you can easily level really fast.
It isn't THAT much gold to level when you think about it and gp is xp. One job, approach it with good sense or a touch of backstab and you are set. Few more, level again. Then dungeon time.
You can keep trying to convince me they were bad, but our experiences clearly differ. Most enjoyable class behind fighting man, great if you didn't want to just hit things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My first ever character was a red box basic DND thief. Lots of fun. It was 1987, my DM was 12 I was 7. Tyrant DM killed me. My next was a fighter, at which point humiliating me was more amusing than killing the character. Not sure how but I never stopped loving tabletop RPGs.
My first ever character was a red box basic DND thief. Lots of fun. It was 1987, my DM was 12 I was 7. Tyrant DM killed me. My next was a fighter, at which point humiliating me was more amusing than killing the character. Not sure how but I never stopped loving tabletop RPGs.
+1 for Red Box.
-1 for Tyrant DM.+1 for loving RPGs anyway.
Half the fun of playing at that age, of course, is turning the tables and having their character ripped apart by many-toothed-horrors when you get your turn in the DM chair.
Skills suck?
I can make a 1 in 4 roll. I've made harder rolls (like needing a 19-20 to hit on a d20).
I was going over the table of thief skill progression recently. I do love it, and I was finding some ways it was superior to 3.5/pf.
Just look at it.
http://cybertrout.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/thief-skills1.jpg
Look at that climb walls and how quick pick pocket goes up. Find/remove traps takes a while, but it increased quickly.
You know, PF still has a lot of rulings in it. The rules aren't iron-clad. There are a lot of holes once you go digging.
One way to "recapture the essence" may be to accept the rulings and be less concerned by the "shared experience" between PF players.
Conversation tend to break down into rules, interpretations, and house-rules. Few are the times people just except the idea that GM rulings are still very much a part of the game. Which is kind of the whole point of playing with a GM as opposed to a video game. The GM can handle situations not predicted by the architectures of the game. This allows a certain boundless freedom. In other sorts of interactive media, you can only do as much as the game makers accounted for.
Sometimes I even see questions about rules legal ways to run monsters.
I know I'm guilty of things like this. I just don't think any of that actually helps the game be fun, it just helps sate my need to play "by the rules". Which is something even the devs get confused about.
Great post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you guys are right; I should stop dissing old school D&D. It wasn't all bad. My snarky post above was my experience as a player. As a DM I really liked the game. Yes, because of the grey areas of the rules there was a lot more talking, at least in my experience.
I usually let the players roll 4d6, take the best 3, and re-roll 1's, maybe 2's. I also tended to hand out something unique to get them going at 1st level. Maybe a 1/day magic power or a magic item that would grow in power with them. My games tended to involve a lot of roleplay, a lot of trying weird stuff and a lot of adventure.
I jumped right into 2e when it came out, but when 3x arrived I was there at Gen Con that year and I was soul crushed. They'd completely re-written the game I loved. I kept playing 2e for a couple years before finally getting into 3x.
But the thing I liked was that, with all the rules plus feats I had less work to do. I didn't have to houserule as much or try to balance a power I gave to one guy but not another. I had baselines from which to rule. It made my job easier.
Honestly, all snark aside the only thing I can consistently point to in AD&D that I wasn't a fan of is the arguing. Every time I houseruled something there'd always be that ONE guy who didn't agree because he read it differently. We were all DM's back then; maybe that was the problem.
But there was also debate over playing without maps. You guys that pulled it off flawlessly - bless you and your games. You obviously are better storytellers than I, and I mean that sincerely without sarcasm. I've struggled with such descriptions for years and it ALWAYS seemed that the vision in my head never quite matched what my players were seeing.
So for me AD&D was a LOT of talking, describing, debating and socializing with a few dice rolls thrown in for sound effects. The reality of killer DM's only came up when I was playing; when I ran the game hardly anyone ever died. But then a LOT of my games imploded and never made it past like 6th or 7th level because of all the debates and hurt feelings.
Yes, I like the new editions. For me the essence of old D&D versus new boils down to one thing: description.
Sure, you can make a roll with a skill and talk your way out of a fight with some gate guards, but I do honestly miss when you had to ACTUALLY talk to those guards. I don't miss other skill checks, but I do miss things like speaking in character, describing off the wall actions you want your character to take or whatever.
Anyway to Logan specifically or other folks in this thread: sorry for cheezing you off. I didn't mean to dis old D&D and I honestly do have reverence for it. It is a solid first step into gaming and none of what I have today would've been possible without it.
I'm trying to figure out how I can get a 'partial success' dynamic into Pathfinder. The mechanism seems like awesome with a side of awesome sauce. Probably allow it on a 1 or 2 less than needed that's only five or ten percent on a die twenty and it should make the players happy.
KH: some skills already have a "get close/partial success" sort of thing to them. Fail your climb roll by 4 or less and you just don't make any progress but you don't fall. Maybe use that as a baseline.
KH: some skills already have a "get close/partial success" sort of thing to them. Fail your climb roll by 4 or less and you just don't make any progress but you don't fall. Maybe use that as a baseline.
That sounds like an excellent place to start.