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.
The DM was 'the world' both the confrontational and the cooperative. Due to the nature of a dungeon crawl most of the time it was confrontational. However, that was often misunderstood even by good players and DMs to be be conflict. Cooperation was the intent cooperative storytelling.
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.I'm amused by this just because I think of "grognard" as the exact opposite of "Drama club type". The grognards were the war-gamers and the deadly "old-school" types who b@$#&ed about the drama club kids ruining their hobby. For the drama club types I think the White Wolf players.
With the lack of internet communication back then, both tended to exist without much overlap, depending on where you were. I've seen people with completely different recollections of how RPGs used to be played in their community even within the same city.
The war-gamer types tended to play AD&D modules, delving into dungeons and overcoming traps, while the drama club players were buying up campaign setting sourcebooks and dreaming of living in the Forgotten Realms or Mystara, plotting the downfall of kingdoms and wining and dining with royalty. As usual, there were also some doing both :)
White Wolf, that was still at least 10 years away from existing ;)
Interesting snippet of White Wolf history. They were formed in 1991 from a merger between Lion Rampant and White Wolf magazine. Lion Rampant's editor was one Lisa Stevens :)
It's a different game and while you can play it closer to the old style, it pushes you in a certain direction.
I do have to agree there. If I picked up the rulebook as a fresh-faced gamer today, like I did BECMI D&D in the early 80s, it would have a completely different feel to it.
I guess I think more in terms of older gamers playing Pathfinder than how the newer ones must experience it, that's somewhat of an alien concept to me :)
Much like 4e can be played as an RPG if you want to, yet if you read the earlier modules tends to look more like a linked set of miniatures-based skirmish encounters. That was my main issue with it, the way it focused on "encounters" and guided new players towards thinking of it in those terms. 4e pushes encounters, 3e/PF push character builds.
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.with the lack of internet communication back then, both tended to exist without much overlap, depending on where you were. I've seen people with completely different recollections of how RPGs used to be played in their community even within the same city.
The war-gamer types tended to play AD&D modules, delving into dungeons and overcoming traps, while the drama club players were buying up campaign setting sourcebooks and dreaming of living in the Forgotten Realms or Mystara, plotting the downfall of kingdoms and wining and dining with royalty. As usual, there were also some doing both :)
White Wolf, that was still at least 10 years away from existing ;)
Both certainly existed, and I was closer to the drama school type myself. Though we never really bought up sourcebooks. I don't think I ever played in a published D&D setting, other than maybe a couple of con games, until PF. And not much of that. It was all homebrew. Bought up a bunch of modules and the original Greyhawk folder, but mostly just used them as inspiration, not for actual games.
But even then I had that impression, mostly from articles in Dragon and a few other sources.
Yeah, WW was later, but they exemplified the stereotype of the style. :)
Almost everything I played was player made. One kids and teenagers had a lot less disposable income. And two, it was a matter of pride to produce your own. Artificially aging scrolls and maps making 'magical' alphabets drawing your own illustrations all that was part of the hobby a big part.
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.I'm amused by this just because I think of "grognard" as the exact opposite of "Drama club type". The grognards were the war-gamers and the deadly "old-school" types who b@$#&ed about the drama club kids ruining their hobby. For the drama club types I think the White Wolf players.
With the lack of internet communication back then, both tended to exist without much overlap, depending on where you were. I've seen people with completely different recollections of how RPGs used to be played in their community even within the same city.
The war-gamer types tended to play AD&D modules, delving into dungeons and overcoming traps, while the drama club players were buying up campaign setting sourcebooks and dreaming of living in the Forgotten Realms or Mystara, plotting the downfall of kingdoms and wining and dining with royalty. As usual, there were also some doing both :)
White Wolf, that was still at least 10 years away from existing ;)
Interesting snippet of White Wolf history. They were formed in 1991 from a merger between Lion Rampant and White Wolf magazine. Lion Rampant's editor was one Lisa Stevens :)
Its funny, as I read through your list of stuff i realized there was a giant list of gaming books i used to own but can now not find. I did Find a copy of Traps Fore in a box the other day (the Author has apparently since then gone on to be one of the most prolific Battle Tech novel Authors apparently)
On the Confrontational Style, in all honesty I dont think it was specifically the rules. The Few Modules i remember reading from that period seemed to set the confrontational tone. But it may be my mind over this stuff is geting foggy after so many years.
On the White Wolf stuff Please no dates, im feeling old already.
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.
This, plus the economics of publishing RPGs, is why 3.5 died in the splatbook explosion, and why Pathfinder is in the splatbook explosion phase of its lifecycle.
If I want to get the feel of AD&D, I play DungeonWorld. Honestly, I'm trying to lure the Pathfinder players in my group who are getting fed up with That One Guy and The Other Guy who seem to take turns ending combat in the surprise round every fight, and who both take grim delight in trampling over any kind of "talk to the NPC" encounters en route to the next "Win it in the surprise round!" fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the White Wolf stuff Please no dates, im feeling old already.
Forget WW, it's the date on my D&D red box that makes me feel old :)
I'm just thankful I don't have OD&D...
Its funny, as I read through your list of stuff i realized there was a giant list of gaming books i used to own but can now not find. I did Find a copy of Traps Fore in a box the other day (the Author has apparently since then gone on to be one of the most prolific Battle Tech novel Authors apparently)
On the Confrontational Style, in all honesty I dont think it was specifically the rules. The Few Modules i remember reading from that period seemed to set the confrontational tone. But it may be my mind over this stuff is geting foggy after so many years.
On the White Wolf stuff Please no dates, im feeling old already.
Nope not confrontational at the beginning. It gradually moved that way. I saw it creep in and that with the lowering of trust made adversaries of the GMs and the players. Also the fact society openly mocked honor and fairplay made it almost inevitable. Making the 'most popular roleplaying game' more like a video game shoved it hard away from spontinaety, cooperation, and trust. Sorry for the spelling on a mobile.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I remember using a fairly complex set of miniatures/movement rules back in the day. It was a hex-map based system we incorporated from a game called The Fantasy Trip (from Steve Jackson games, a precursor to GURPS). We weren't the only ones using it either. Seemed a shame to have all that pretty Ral Partha pewter and not put it to good use!
The biggest differences w/ AD&D I find are:
a) Skill points - 1E didn't do much at all with skills. I remember playing a Fighter/Thief back in Thieves World who pretended to be visiting nobility and spread a cloud of lies wherever they went. It was a ton of fun, and nary a Bluff check nor a Sense Motive was ever made. It was all just me spitballing.
b) the sprawling complexity - Pathfinder/3.5 give you a TON of options ...feats, skills, traits, archetypes, alternative racial characteristics. 1E didn't have any of that. Outside of a few articles in Dragon Magazine, you were pretty much stuck with what's in the Player's Handbook. I remember when Oriental Adventures came out; it basically doubled your options as a player (but only for that style of game).
Personally, I love having so many options! But it's easy to limit your options if you're not into that. I'm currently playing in a CRB-only campaign and having a great time with it. It feels quite a lot like the ol' AD&D, actually. It seems a lot of groups around here run CRB + APG only. It's pretty much the same as old school D&D, only improved.
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. ** spoiler omitted **
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 ** spoiler omitted **...
Except the Golem example is false.
There were ignore MR spells (Melf Minute Missiles), or even lower MR spells in 2E AD&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I love having so many options! But it's easy to limit your options if you're not into that. I'm currently playing in a CRB-only campaign and having a great time with it. It feels quite a lot like the ol' AD&D, actually. It seems a lot of groups around here run CRB + APG only. It's pretty much the same as old school D&D, only improved.
Yep, that pretty much covers me too :) I have every Pathfinder hardcover apart from Bestiary 3 (need to pick that up next month when I can afford it) but most of them tend to stay on the shelf during a game.
Likewise, at least in one of the games I'm in, half of the CRB tends to go ignored too. It's comforting to know if I *want* a rule for something, it's there, but most of the time I can happily do without it and rule something on the spot.
Ultimate Campaign, for example: perfect for when I run a kingdoms-based campaign, but in other games it can sit there unused. Many of my players never touch those extra classes and feats from the countless splatbooks, but again occasionally one will want something different, and the options are there if we ever want them. The actual number of options in play on the table tends to be quite small, usually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yup, my new campaign (kicking off next Saturday) is pretty much just CRB with some very limited stuff from other books (mainly fitting archtypes etc.)
I even hesitated a bit on monks and paladins, due to the settings tone, but ultimately decided on working them in if a player decided they wanted one.
Its nice to have all the options, but sometimes less is more, keeps a tighter focus and establishes a cohesive setting.
I will also recommend any pathfinder GMs here that need players..try a VTT game on Roll20 , there are plenty of players there chomping at the bit for a game, I had 8 players plus a 10-12 extra within 2 days of advertising my pathfinder campaign.
I remember using a fairly complex set of miniatures/movement rules back in the day. It was a hex-map based system we incorporated from a game called The Fantasy Trip (from Steve Jackson games, a precursor to GURPS). We weren't the only ones using it either. Seemed a shame to have all that pretty Ral Partha pewter and not put it to good use!
The biggest differences w/ AD&D I find are:
a) Skill points - 1E didn't do much at all with skills. I remember playing a Fighter/Thief back in Thieves World who pretended to be visiting nobility and spread a cloud of lies wherever they went. It was a ton of fun, and nary a Bluff check nor a Sense Motive was ever made. It was all just me spitballing.
b) the sprawling complexity - Pathfinder/3.5 give you a TON of options ...feats, skills, traits, archetypes, alternative racial characteristics. 1E didn't have any of that. Outside of a few articles in Dragon Magazine, you were pretty much stuck with what's in the Player's Handbook. I remember when Oriental Adventures came out; it basically doubled your options as a player (but only for that style of game).
Personally, I love having so many options! But it's easy to limit your options if you're not into that. I'm currently playing in a CRB-only campaign and having a great time with it. It feels...
Early d&d wasn't a skill based game the addition of skills. Is an improvement. I owned the oriental adventures book but I think I'd quit playing by then. I am going to limit the campaign/options when I convert to my home system. No firearms certainly, probably make magic much rarer esp magic items. But I have found a great group here with pathfinder and I firmly believe I can recapture the old school feel with pathfinders flexibility, imagination, and support.
As old as some of you feel well I might not be the oldest here but my youngest of my first batch is nearly thirty
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to believe Skill rules, as many other rules have, evolved from trust issues.
At some point, someone decided their character knows and can do everything, so someone had to sit down and come up with a way to control that.
The more you trust the people you're playing with, the less you need to lean on rules to stop them going too far. Once upon a time, this was a relatively tiny hobby. Obviously, we don't want to restrict it to a few people "in the know", we want our hobby to expand. That means going mainstream, and that means letting *just anyone* play <gasp>.
Thus, people started playing in wider circles, and with people they didn't quite trust as much as their close regular group. Some people had to play with groups of people they didn't know at all, in order to get a game. More arguments occured at the table, due to a lack of trust, and more rules got piled on to reduce these arguments.
At some point, new players to the game found rulebooks full of rules for every possible situation. Some players actually enjoyed this part of the game so much they played for the enjoyment of the rules alone. The game grew and grew, and as it grew, so did the number of things individual people could find they loved about it.
That's where we stand today. A game that's got so many aspects to it that it has a huge audience, compared to those little black and white pamphlets we used to get from that dusty little back-street store nobody else ever used.
I like to think that overall, that's a good thing :)
(Sure, some publishers latched onto the idea this could also sell more books, but I think that happened after the overall complexity changes occured. Those books don't tend to be additional complexity, just books full of extra classes, feats, skills, etc for the existing system)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Early d&d wasn't a skill based game the addition of skills. Is an improvement. I owned the oriental adventures book but I think I'd quit playing by then. I am going to limit the campaign/options when I convert to my home system. No firearms certainly, probably make magic much rarer esp magic items. But I have found a great group here with pathfinder and I firmly believe I can recapture the old school feel with pathfinders flexibility, imagination, and support.
As old as some of you feel well I might not be the oldest here but my youngest of my first batch is nearly thirty
Finding the right group is everything.
My first time out, I found myself playing at a table with a group of twenty year olds. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it wasn't a good fit. I got the sense that several of them clammed up around me, almost like they felt they were playing with their parent in the room!
From what you describe, it sounds like you'd be pretty happy running a CRB-only type game. That still gives you 11 core classes and the same basic 7 core races ...that's about as close to AD&D as you're going to get. It also cuts out a lot of the cheesier options, like gun fighters and synthesist summoners.
I tend to agree with you about magic items as well. Personally, I'd rather see the DM hand out a few key magic items as rewards, and cut out Ye Olde Magic Shoppe altogether.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuffFrom what you describe, it sounds like you'd be pretty happy running a CRB-only type game. That still gives you 11 core classes and the same basic 7 core races ...that's about as close to AD&D as you're going to get. It also cuts out a lot of the cheesier options, like gun fighters and synthesist summoners.
I'd have to add that if you don't mind fudging a few things here and there, it's possible to remove entire subsystems from the game. You might have to make up some missing balance here and there, but you could potentially just do away with feats and/or skills (you'd have to add some skills back in for rogues and rogue-alikes, and perhaps use a feat or two as a fixed ability for some classes), and much of the complexity of the combat system (Attacks of Opportunity spring to mind instantly). It'll change a lot of the existing dynamics, but some people may not mind the change.
I removed AoOs (the Beginner Box combat rules don't use them either, just as an FYI), I'm told that invalidates quite a few character builds, but the people I play with don't go in for "character builds" anyway, so there's no harm done.
An illusionist in AD&D runs into a golem, immune to spells, and needs to get it away from a door. He knows his spells won't work on it. He tells the DM he's using his fly spell and making an illusion of the cliff stretching out a few more feet. He's hoping if it looks like he's running on the cliff, using fly, the golem might pursue and fall into the chasm below. Won't destroy it but gets him past the door and buys a lot of time. He's using an illusion in an unusual way. Was creativity rewarded? Absolutely. The AD&D caster didn't have a lot of spells (and no abilities) to work with, so he was forced to think in an unconventional way that didn't have a rule saying it would or wouldn't work, or might work with a % chance. A fighter without the +3 weapon in those days might have pretended to play dead (would the golem keep attacking a dead foe or move onto something else?) While some DMs might have finished him off, who knows. He's desperate, trying something creative, and there's no "bluff" check back then that makes him think this will or won't succeed.
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.
This sounds more like it's just nostalgia talking, or the play style of your group changing over the years.
If you're dealing with something immune to magic, it's immune to magic. Doesn't matter if you're loaded down with magic items to expand your spell list, and special class abilities won't get you around it. From the other side of things, while your GM could argue that an illusion won't fool something that's immune to magic in Pathfinder, they could make the same argument for AD&D.
Similarly, a GM might be inclined to ask for a bluff check on playing dead (I wouldn't, at least not under these circumstances), but it likely wouldn't be an especially hard check. A GM thinking that's something that calls for dice running AD&D would probably ad hoc a roll in there too, based on the golem's int or wis maybe to see if it could puzzle that out. All having the bluff skill in there changes is that this hypothetical PC the ability to pump it up and have no chance of failure on this sort of thing.
That said, a gridded, tactically oriented approach to combat does push people to approaching combat with a matching mindset. If you ditch battle maps, it encourages more creativity... but it also breaks the functionality of all the tactical happy options, which can potentially really mess up a given player if they have a character concept based around that sort of thing.
All depends on what everyone in your group wants out of the game, really.
My first game I ever played was AD&D, about a month before 3ed came out, man it was a real good time. We beat a dungeon and I just stayed in it because the other players who knew other dungeons were out there let me have my fun for awhile. I turned it into a dungeon defender game lol, speccing it out, enslaving kobolds as minions, trying to hatch a baby dragon egg; the town assumed we turned evil and sent new heroes against us (making us the "monsters") and it was epic, maybe even magical. Eventually the other players told me about new dungeons and we crawled out of my base but I will never forget the magic of that game. Maybe it was because I was the young kid at the table, maybe it was because the grownups let me be the leader (even though I didn't have a clue what I was doing), maybe it was just because it was so old school of a dungeon crawl; who knows, but I loved it so much.
About a month later I got the third PHB and then I thought it was everything AD&D was but even better, those old checks now had skill points, AC went up not down, etc. I haven't (or rarely except when being nostalgic) looked back, but I do get you; there was something so fun that is now either gone or rarely seen now in RPG's, it's hard to place it but I miss it.
I think that Wolfgang Baur summed it up in a Dungeon mag once where he compared the old school versus new school type of DM's; he said the old schoolers were more impartial to the players actions while new school DM's are more "directors" moving, nudging, fudging. Both have pluses and minuses, but the old school DM is very rare to find. I think the magic was the antics and ingenuity were left in the hands of the players in the old school style, whereas the new school GM's do most of that stuff now.
Just my take, I'd love to hear your guys thoughts on it, though.
Removing AoO's isn't such a huge deal for 'builds.' so much as its the only way to control the field (and a valuable means of limiting opposing spellcasting.)
If you go back to the way I've seen older editions described, where the whole round is simultaneous and a character can choose to 'intercept' a moving opponent and attack him rather than just stand there looking like an imbecile as he runs past him, then that's actually an improvement over the AoO system.
I've actually been toying with the idea of replacing AoOs with "if an opponent takes an action in a square next to you, your turn is bumped up the initiative track to happen next, and you may take your turn before any effects from their action apply to you." That would allow people to get in a final strike (or to stagger away) before dying or falling unconscious, for example.
I've actually been toying with the idea of replacing AoOs with "if an opponent takes an action in a square next to you, your turn is bumped up the initiative track to happen next, and you may take your turn before any effects from their action apply to you." That would allow people to get in a final strike (or to stagger away) before dying or falling unconscious, for example.Removing AoO's isn't such a huge deal for 'builds.' so much as its the only way to control the field (and a valuable means of limiting opposing spellcasting.)
If you go back to the way I've seen older editions described, where the whole round is simultaneous and a character can choose to 'intercept' a moving opponent and attack him rather than just stand there looking like an imbecile as he runs past him, then that's actually an improvement over the AoO system.
What's wrong with AoO's? I can think of at least a dozen things powers, feats and rules that would have to be scrapped also if AoO's gets scrapped. I think it's a great way to take advantage of an opponent letting their guard down, threaten range is something to me that adds to the experience, not takes away from it.
It's an interesting idea Matt, but it feels... I don't know... weird to me.
One idea I've been toying with myself is inverting initiative. Highest initiative goes last, but can choose to push their initiative 'down' to interrupt somebody going before them. Straight down to counter-charging the monster charging your squishies, or rushing/shooting the mage who's conjuring up some kind of nastiness from the aether.
Would things like improved initiative and high dex then give out negatives or is that just penalizing creatures for being fast?
I've got nothing against miniatures. I was making a troop of Polish Hussars and asked my parents for a christmas gift of some figures when my mom seeing these nifty looking and much cheaper little avon catalogue sized books changed my hobby entirely.
I bought much fewer figures. You don't need five or ten or twenty dwarves like you do a maniple of legionarries. So I understand some people wanting to make a tactical game out of it. I choose cinematic or mythic style and encourage players to vibrantly narrate their actions. I reward players who do this. I understand that's hard for some. I also try to whenever possible let the characters use those special abilities they've got. I want them to shine.
If a character wants to create a build to take advantage of rules, well I work with him so we can make that character fit his conception and the style of play we use. I've never seen any player dissatisfied with how the play goes. Only had two players I had to let go. They were friends who were literally OCD obsessive rules lawyers. I told them roleplay comes first and rules second if you find me unfair say so but we will not slow down gameplay. If I'm unfair we'll fix it. After the second trial session I talked with the regulars and broke the bad news. I said 'sorry boys thanks for coming but we're not a good fit'. Six weeks later they came back pretending to be different people.
No kidding used different names etc. Seems they had trouble finding others to play with. I want Beowulf and Sir Gwain and the Green Knight, People of the Black Circle and Lord of the Rings. Farfrhad and the Grey Mouser and the Bloodguard belong at my table along with Elrond and Achilles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think the "change" has more to do with GMing style than the rules expansion. to me, the new rules are a net positive, we lost some creativity but got some nice rules for people to understand. The new combat (3rd ed style) was likewise better, more robust, even on a grid. The thing people "lost" was the impartial referee type, who prided himself on DESIGNING not DIRECTING; the older players might understand this but the newer players expect GM's to do this to a degree. I'm sadly a newer gamer in the sense that I'm not the impartial designer, my players hate those GM's; they call them reactionary or punisher GM's. They also have not been playing as long as me to see the magic of leaving the GM creativity in the design and playing the game as an impartial ref their to let them experience the world. The magic was left to the players in the old school GM's, they didn't fudge rolls for the players or the monsters, that was the trust. Now people can get butt-hurt over "the GM killed my PC" because it was entirely in the GM's arsenal to save them, or not have an OP encounter, and players expectations moved with, or rather gravitated to the new style. Players now play knowing the GM isn't impartial, and if something happens, the GM was ultimately culpable, the older players I've played with were usually more cautious and creative, newer players are more thematic and are more akin to actors, bolder, more brash, playing up to the GM's style. Put those new school players in a game with an old school GM and they will probably die and cry foul.
One thing I have done to "bring back" that flavor is incorporating the Fate Systems Aspects/invoke/compel mechanic.
This has encouraged my players to think as much on the fluff as the crunch of a character,
One thing I have done to "bring back" that flavor is incorporating the Fate Systems Aspects/invoke/compel mechanic.
This has encouraged my players to think as much on the fluff as the crunch of a character,
What system is that? Sorry for my ignorance but I am not familiar, I would love to look at it though or at least a brief explanation will suffice. Sorry I'm not as "old school" as this crowd, I'm only thirty and really only played one AD&D game, as I described above. I kind of got in at third edition and am probably unfamiliar with most of the old cool flavor stuff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fate is a more narrativist style system. (It expands off the FUDGE system).
In essence Aspects are short phrases that describe something about your character. (strong as an ox, Short Fuse, Weirdness magnet, etc...) Each character has a number of these "Aspects."
Each player starts with a number of FATE points and more can be earned through play. Players can "Invoke" an aspect during a scene to "bypass" a complication (this costs a FATE point). Or the player can "Compel" an Aspect to further "complicate" the scene. (thereby earning a FATE point).
The GM can also "Compel" a players aspect... But the player can spend a FATE point to negate it. Or RP through the "GM Compel" Thereby earning 2 FATE.
FATE Points can also be spent on minor mechanical bonuses during play.
This is a short quick synopsis of how it works; but by no means the full extent of it.
The Dresden Files RPG by Evil Hat Productions uses the FATE system.
It can't. Ever. Sorry...
I think the primary difference to me is the stifling effect of the rules.
(Snip)
Magic items are commodities now. It's the difference between Diablo II and Diablo III with its auction house. If I can just go buy it, why adventure for it? I'd be better off being a banker.
I strongly recommend you look at either FATE or Dungeon World.
Dungeon World is what I use for short arc campaigns. If I could get my PFS group to get past the "sunk cost" of assimilating all the supplements to make their builds, I'd probably never play Pathfinder again...
Dungeon World has some problems where the designer/developer combo don't always explain everything as clearly as I'd like them to.
But dear lord, it is so refreshing to show up, put a stack of character sheets in the middle of the table, say:
"OK, in the next 5 minutes, everyone look through those sheets until you find something you like - the class name is on the bottom of the first page. The ones with the blue highlighter marks are plot-essential, someone has to take at least one of them. You are allowed to barter or swap, but everyone reach in, grab two, and either suggest them to someone else, or take one."
"OK, allocate your stats and name your character. Write your character's name on the standee in front of you. It will be really helpful for immersion if your name is Greek. If you don't know any Greek names, I've got four copies of a list of suggestions on the half-pages next to the character sheets."
"OK, see that area called 'Bonds'? I want you to pick one other character name from the standees in front of everyone else and fill in one of those bonds."
"Now, you're all on the deck of the ship, as Poseidon's displeasure rumbles and tears about you. The sails are going to shred at any instant, and you can feel the lower holds filling up with water as your galley threatens to sink into the wine dark sea."
"It has been four years since Agamemnon lead the Greeks across the Aegean, to besiege Illium. You were hired by a man named Apolodoros in Pylea on the Greek side of the coast. What were you hired to do, how did it go wrong, and what have you done to blaspheme against the God of the Sea?"
Then point to each player who suggests something, hand them a karma token for adding the detail, and use that to start the game.
===
Mechanically, you describe what you're doing (there are guidelines presented in the rulebook), the GM will say "roll 2d6+{MOD}" where a Mod is based on an attribute - it uses the same six attributes, but a different modifier system, to Pathfinder. There are a few cases where your mod is +Bonds, which mean that if you can get people you have bonds with to narrate something, you get a bonus if that person you're Bonded to narrates something appropriate.
On a modified die roll of...
12+ What you describe happens, and the GM gives a better bonus. Sometimes.
10+ What you describe happens.
7-9: What you describe happens, and the GM will give you a couple of choices of negative consequences.
6-: What you describe doesn't happen, the GM gives you a range of negative consequences, and you pick two. On the plus side, you gain an experience point.
And that's the game in a nutshell.
I don't know if having a simpler ruleset could recapture the old school style, as someone who plays a new school approach with new school players, we'd just wind up going back to a medium we were more comfortable. I doesn't boil down to rules imo, it boils down to approach. I played with an old school GM recently who just switched to the PF rules and it had a very old school approach; newer players cried about bad stuff, the GM was stunned by their reaction. He tried pointing out that he ran his encounters as written, was impartial, they called it counter-punching. The stupid moves sometimes ended badly, while creativity had unexpected rewards. It definitely wasn't the way I ran (although my players love my high octane style), but it was legit. I actually have tried to bring a somewhat different approach after meeting this old school GM who made me realize just how much of a new schooler I was. I try to design more effectively, and fudge less often. Players have noticed, I actually asked them if they wanted me to play without the screen and they all cried "no!". They hated the old school approach, while I have a lot of fond memories of those old hat gamers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can't. Ever. Sorry...
I've been playing D&D since the paperbacks, and I took a hiatus right after 3rd edition came out, so I can only give you the perspective of a gamer who spent most of his time in 1st and 2nd Ed. and recently came back to Pathfinder (though back then we did play everything else we could get our hands on, from Palladium to James Bond). I think the primary difference to me is the stifling effect of the rules.
Start with skills and feats. Previously, your class gave you a handful of abilities (many of which were either combat-based bonuses or absolute things that you could perform). The rest was role-play. As the game has increased the number of abilities/skills, it has constrained characters. Now, unless it is explicitly stated in the rules, many GMs restrict you from doing it. A player spends his time scouring the rulebook for abilities and changes the way his character plays by adding predetermined abilities at level-up (what a previous poster called "building"). Rather than your character choosing to try something new or different in order to meet a new challenge (such as deciding to disarm or tackle a powerful enemy) you must be "built" to do such things from the beginning. Instead of adding options, skills and feats have actually reduced the number available to an individual character. This is part of what exacerbated the martial/caster disparity. Once you limit characters to only predefined actions based on their build, the only way to gain flexibility is through magic.
These limits increase with the switch to grid-based combat. When combat was primarily mental, the immersion was better. In addition, your options were greater when you could describe what you were trying to do tactically, rather than having to move figurines a certain number of spaces. This game has gone from being mental to being mechanical.
The final nail in the coffin is the rise of organized play. Some of the requirements of organized play, especially the magic mart and need for...
All of this. So much.
It can't. Ever. Sorry...
I
I strongly recommend you look at either FATE or Dungeon World.
Dungeon World is what I use for short arc campaigns. If I could get my PFS group to get past the "sunk cost" of assimilating all the supplements to make their builds, I'd probably never play Pathfinder again...
Dungeon World has some problems where the designer/developer combo don't always explain everything as clearly as I'd like them to.
But dear lord, it is so refreshing to show up, put a stack of character sheets in the middle of the table, say:
"OK, in the next 5 minutes, everyone look through those sheets until you find something you like - the class name is on the bottom of the first page. The ones with the blue highlighter marks are plot-essential, someone has to take at least one of them. You are allowed to barter or swap, but everyone reach in, grab two, and either suggest them to someone else, or take one."
"OK, allocate your stats and name your character. Write your character's name on the standee in front of you. It will be really helpful for immersion if your name is Greek. If you don't know any Greek names, I've got four copies of a list of suggestions on the half-pages next to the character sheets."
"OK, see that area called 'Bonds'? I want you to pick one other character name from the standees in front of everyone else and fill in one of those bonds."
"Now, you're all on the deck of the ship, as Poseidon's displeasure rumbles and tears about you. The sails are going to shred at any instant, and you can feel the lower holds filling up with water as your galley threatens to sink into the wine dark sea."
"It has been four years since Agamemnon lead the Greeks...
Did you work with Scott P.?
Did you work with Scott P.?
Scott Palter? Yes. Other than that, I've known a number of other Scotts as I've been in the game industry...so not sure which one you're referring to.
And Dungeon World can be had for free Here
Scott Palter? Yes. Other than that, I've known a number of other Scotts as I've been in the game industry...so not sure which one you're referring to.
Did you work with Scott P.?
Thats the one I sent you a PM.
Roleplaying should be collaborative storytelling. Anything that gets in the way of that is not better.
I suggest playing one of the many collaborative storytelling games. These games (usually) eliminate dice, the GM, character stats, and the goal of 'winning', replacing them with imagination and creativity.
Wil Wheaton playing Fiasco.
Yeah PF is the rules, but a lot of good stuff can be had within that system, I wind up not liking the no dice Collab story telling stuff.
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.
One modification I've read about (but haven't tried) is that you can describe what you're doing (or say what the character would be saying) instead of rolling a d20, and the GM decides how well you did and assigns you a number from 1 to 20 based on that.
It can't. Ever. Sorry...
I think the primary difference to me is the stifling effect of the rules.
(Snip)
Magic items are commodities now. It's the difference between Diablo II and Diablo III with its auction house. If I can just go buy it, why adventure for it? I'd be better off being a banker.
I strongly recommend you look at either FATE or Dungeon World.
Dungeon World is what I use for short arc campaigns. If I could get my PFS group to get past the "sunk cost" of assimilating all the supplements to make their builds, I'd probably never play Pathfinder again...
Dungeon World has some problems where the designer/developer combo don't always explain everything as clearly as I'd like them to.
But dear lord, it is so refreshing to show up, put a stack of character sheets in the middle of the table, say:
"OK, in the next 5 minutes, everyone look through those sheets until you find something you like - the class name is on the bottom of the first page. The ones with the blue highlighter marks are plot-essential, someone has to take at least one of them. You are allowed to barter or swap, but everyone reach in, grab two, and either suggest them to someone else, or take one."
"OK, allocate your stats and name your character. Write your character's name on the standee in front of you. It will be really helpful for immersion if your name is Greek. If you don't know any Greek names, I've got four copies of a list of suggestions on the half-pages next to the character sheets."
"OK, see that area called 'Bonds'? I want you to pick one other character name from the standees in front of everyone else and fill in one of those bonds."
"Now, you're all on the deck of the ship, as Poseidon's displeasure rumbles and tears about you. The sails are going to shred at any instant, and you can feel the lower holds filling up with water as your galley threatens to sink into the wine dark sea."
"It has been four years since Agamemnon lead the Greeks...
I played an online campaign with I believe the fate system. However there were 'connections' iirc between the characters. It was tough to set up online. But the potential was awesome. I used some of the ideas in a OSRIC campaign and they were a great way to cementba group.
*I could be wrong about the system but I believe it was a d6 deal hard for me to remember.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of hate appeals to the GM's sense of "that was creative enough for me to fudge it", to me, it undermines the challenge the players are facing, and I've seen players in my own game try this out and try to use it as a crutch. To me, I'd rather someone try not to fluff me about how they can see in the dark or etcetera. Its too much like praying to the GM, like doing a rain dance or something. This is I guess what makes me new school also, I'm not going to allow someone to fluff past a challenge or fudge out of the rules; to me I want to see some goggle of nightvision if you want to see in the dark.
I kind of hate appeals to the GM's sense of "that was creative enough for me to fudge it", to me, it undermines the challenge the players are facing, and I've seen players in my own game try this out and try to use it as a crutch. To me, I'd rather someone try not to fluff me about how they can see in the dark or etcetera. Its too much like praying to the GM, like doing a rain dance or something. This is I guess what makes me new school also, I'm not going to allow someone to fluff past a challenge or fudge out of the rules; to me I want to see some goggle of nightvision if you want to see in the dark.
No such thing as a magic item assembly line in old school. You have to work that out with theGm as to darkvision or what not. No ones talking about fluffing past a challenge. If the rules don't exist the GM needs to use common sense to come up with a number to succeed some GMs would give you a 5 or 10% bonus if you roleplayed it to the max but thats the nature of improv storytelling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of hate appeals to the GM's sense of "that was creative enough for me to fudge it", to me, it undermines the challenge the players are facing, and I've seen players in my own game try this out and try to use it as a crutch. To me, I'd rather someone try not to fluff me about how they can see in the dark or etcetera. Its too much like praying to the GM, like doing a rain dance or something. This is I guess what makes me new school also, I'm not going to allow someone to fluff past a challenge or fudge out of the rules; to me I want to see some goggle of nightvision if you want to see in the dark.
And I really hate having to spend two feats to be able to bull rush someone without a penalty...
Different play styles for different people. I will note that mechanical encouragement for description seems to work well for every group I've gotten into using it, and I really love the improvisational problem solving.
To me, improv problem solving is easier with looser rules systems - there are fewer ways to be told "I'm sorry, you can't do that, because you don't have feat chain X, Y and Z." rather than "OK, that sounds entertaining and awesome."
I'd much rather encourage entertaining and awesome than rules diving.
I kind of hate appeals to the GM's sense of "that was creative enough for me to fudge it", to me, it undermines the challenge the players are facing, and I've seen players in my own game try this out and try to use it as a crutch. To me, I'd rather someone try not to fluff me about how they can see in the dark or etcetera. Its too much like praying to the GM, like doing a rain dance or something. This is I guess what makes me new school also, I'm not going to allow someone to fluff past a challenge or fudge out of the rules; to me I want to see some goggle of nightvision if you want to see in the dark.And I really hate having to spend two feats to be able to bull rush someone without a penalty...
Different play styles for different people. I will note that mechanical encouragement for description seems to work well for every group I've gotten into using it, and I really love the improvisational problem solving.
To me, improv problem solving is easier with looser rules systems - there are fewer ways to be told "I'm sorry, you can't do that, because you don't have feat chain X, Y and Z." rather than "OK, that sounds entertaining and awesome."
I'd much rather encourage entertaining and awesome than rules diving.
That's fair, I can see from the other threads that we have wildly different play styles, and that's ok. I'm guessing your group loves playing in your games as much as mine does my games. But yeah in my game, a PC that wanted to bull rush someone without the appropriate feats would incur the same penalty regardless of how good they role played it, and using abilities they don't have access to is off the table. Bull rush is a bad example because you CAN bull rush without feats, but attacking an ongoing spell to dispel it without spell sunder is not going to happen.