| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I try to do. Replace standard bonus items with inherent bonuses/combo items.
Make the rest of the items either minor fun things or significant unique items. Dump "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" except for scrolls, potions, etc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played the hell out of AD&D, and still get massive bouts of nostalgia about it, but I like to pause and temper that with a bit of rational thought sometimes.
The difference is that AD&D was basically one big game of "mother-may-I." If the DM was awesome, so was the game. That's still true. But if the 1e DM wasn't good, the game was very, very, very bad. 3e ushered in a lot of hard-coded rules, and one thing those brought was a measure of standardization -- the DM is less responsible for making up everything on the spot, so there is more tolerance for him being less than a living legend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In older editions, "building" a character looked like this:
1. Grab a notebook and write up a character sheet
2. Grab a few D6 depending on what method your DM allowed you to use
3. Roll and hope for lucky sixes
4. Pick the best race and class dependent on said rolls
5. Pick gear and plan for the worse while hoping for the best
I remember a "campaign" that was nothing more than a trip through a tavern cellar into Underdark where I repeated this process no less than four times before I finally called it quits. I only felt really connected to 2 characters I played throughout 1e and 2e; ironically they were the PCs my DM's gave me the most leeway to design completely on my own.
PCs back in the day had no say in what magic items they got; "combat options" consisted of "do I use a mace or a 2-handed sword?"; even spells were left up to random chance. Every wizard had the chance to be the same as every other wizard depending on rolls. This meant that while you could inject whatever personality you wanted into your character, beyond ability scores he/she was mechanically the same as other kinds of the same race/class combinations.
Now in PF, if I want a bully-boy rogue, a classic burglar or combat-focused knife man, I have mechanical options that build each of those. I even have traits, feats and other little bits and bobs that let me make 2 DIFFERENT burglars; one that focuses on dungeons and stealth while another is a canny con-man charmer. THAT'S what I meant by player agency.
Please understand; I mean NO disrespect to older editions, old-school gamers or the rich heritage of my games. In fact I have a very healthy respect for them. Its just that, in MY experience, the one thing I happily left behind from older editions was the sense that the players were passive to the story save for their own combat actions or general plot interaction.
IMO GMs are NOT god. They are teachers, guides; a lens through which the players' eyes see the world better. I want my players to create the story with me and as they build their characters, making choices both mechanical and fluff in nature, they help craft the world we all inhabit.
Again, other people might have had a completely different experience than I did in those older editions. I have been playing for over 3 decades now and I'm fully aware that not everyone plays like me. However these are my opinions based on my experiences. And again, let me be clear; I mean no ill will towards the old school.
@DrDeth: to you specifically I'd direct this - thank you. I don't know that I've ever seen it before in other threads but this would probably be an appropriate place to do it. Thank you for your contributions to the game I love. I had the opportunity to thank Gary Gygax once in person. He wasn't at a table but just hanging out on the steps outside the convention stage while just 40' away 3x was being announced. He was very gracious and I know he was a mortal man but when he chatted for a minute with me and my buddies it was like being in the presence of some mythical creature.
Anyway doc, we owe you, and other creators of your vision a real debt for your lovely creations. I truly appreciate every effort you ever poured into the game. Moreso I thank you for instilling a sense in the game of ownership; this idea that if I as the DM didn't like something I could change it and make the game my own. Now with current editions my players have the same options. Thank you DrDeth for the thief and everything else you've gifted us. I just hope we don't let you prometheans down now that you gave us fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is Dungeon World 'supported' or do you need to DYI stuff? I love writing dungeons, worlds, campaigns, races etc. My favorite part of the game is the prep sometimes.This is why I like Dungeon World, by and large.
I get the old school AD&D feel, avoid the standardized magic item conundrum, and have lots of self-contained options for classes for people to use.
The rules are simple, but need a bit better explanation at times.
It has a few third party support products for settings, but it's really meant to be improvisational to its core. The lighter the rules system, the easier it is to be an improv GM.
My last session started with the following:
"Four years ago, Agamemnon led the Greeks to the plains of Illium. You're on the decks of a heaving ship as the breath of Boreas is threatening to rip your sails to tatters. In your ship's hold is a cargo going from Pylea to Caria, shipment paid for by Armistokles of Pymea.
What did he pay you to transport?
Who is it to be delivered to, assuming you survive your current problem...
What have you done to bring down the wrath of Poseidon?
What do you do now?"
I made up the rest from what the players wrote down on their character sheets, defined a few antagonists, put in a few intra-party friction points and ran them through a Ray Harryhousen movie.
Here's what I try to do. Replace standard bonus items with inherent bonuses/combo items.
Make the rest of the items either minor fun things or significant unique items. Dump "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" except for scrolls, potions, etc.
So certain, 'power ups' at certain levels for the non-casters out there that represent training, skill progression, that sixth sense a professional can develop about their chosen craft?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Dungeon World 'supported' or do you need to DYI stuff? I love writing dungeons, worlds, campaigns, races etc. My favorite part of the game is the prep sometimes.This is why I like Dungeon World, by and large.
I get the old school AD&D feel, avoid the standardized magic item conundrum, and have lots of self-contained options for classes for people to use.
The rules are simple, but need a bit better explanation at times.
It has a few third party support products for settings, but it's really meant to be improvisational to its core. The lighter the rules system, the easier it is to be an improv GM.
My last session started with the following:
"Four years ago, Agamemnon led the Greeks to the plains of Illium. You're on the decks of a heaving ship as the breath of Boreas is threatening to rip your sails to tatters. In your ship's hold is a cargo going from Pylea to Caria, shipment paid for by Armistokles of Pymea.
What did he pay you to transport?
Who is it to be delivered to, assuming you survive your current problem...
What have you done to bring down the wrath of Poseidon?
What do you do now?"I made up the rest from what the players wrote down on their character sheets, defined a few antagonists, put in a few intra-party friction points and ran them through a Ray Harryhousen movie.
Is there a PDF out there? It sounds exactly like how I like to run games. Some of the sites listed when I google Dungeon World come up as 'dangerous'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a "campaign" that was nothing more than a trip through a tavern cellar into Underdark where I repeated this process no less than four times before I finally called it quits. I only felt really connected to 2 characters I played throughout 1e and 2e; ironically they were the PCs my DM's gave me the most leeway to design completely on my own.PCs back in the day had no say in what magic items they got; "combat options" consisted of "do I use a mace or a 2-handed sword?"; even spells were left up to random chance. Every wizard had the chance to be the same as every other wizard depending on rolls. This meant that while you could inject whatever personality you wanted into your character, beyond ability scores he/she was mechanically the same as other kinds of the same race/class combinations. .. In fact I have a very healthy respect for them. Its just that, in MY experience, the one thing I happily left behind from older editions was the sense that the players were passive to the story save for their own combat actions or general plot interaction.
@DrDeth: to you specifically I'd direct this - thank you. I don't know that I've ever seen it before in other threads but this would probably be an appropriate place to do it. Thank you for your contributions to the game I love. I had the opportunity to thank Gary Gygax once in person. He wasn't at a table but just hanging out on the steps outside the convention stage while just 40' away 3x was being announced. He was very gracious and I know he was a mortal man but when he chatted for a minute with me and my buddies it was like being in the presence of some mythical creature.
Anyway doc, we owe you, and other creators of your vision a real debt for your lovely creations. I truly appreciate every effort you ever poured into the game. Moreso I thank you for instilling a sense in the game of ownership; this idea that if I as the DM didn't like something I could change it and make the game my own. Now with current editions my players have the same options. Thank you DrDeth for the thief and everything else you've gifted us. I just hope we don't let you prometheans down now that you gave us fire.
Well, as had been said, one thing that was hugely different back in "old school" days was the wide disparity. I mostly had good experiences, but I also played with the second most experienced group in the game. YMmostcertainlywouldV back in those days, much more than today.
And you're very welcome, but my contribution was modest compared to Gary & Dave. Of course, I am still alive, so there's that...;-)
So certain, 'power ups' at certain levels for the non-casters out there that represent training, skill progression, that sixth sense a professional can develop about their chosen craft?Here's what I try to do. Replace standard bonus items with inherent bonuses/combo items.
Make the rest of the items either minor fun things or significant unique items. Dump "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" except for scrolls, potions, etc.
Mostly. Mind you there's still rings of protection and cloaks of resistance, but they would not be a "must have". And of course casters could still get stuff too, but they dont need them as much at higher levels.
|
So certain, 'power ups' at certain levels for the non-casters out there that represent training, skill progression, that sixth sense a professional can develop about their chosen craft?Here's what I try to do. Replace standard bonus items with inherent bonuses/combo items.
Make the rest of the items either minor fun things or significant unique items. Dump "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" except for scrolls, potions, etc.
Yep, though magic users get 'em too, generally. I did a thread on this long ago. I still think it's a good idea for a certain style of game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found memories of under mountain. That was game of pure survival. We'd make 3 1st level characters each and go in with party of 12 plus hirelings. The GM let us start with 500 GP each and you couldn't buy magic items except for potions. It was a slaughter and by the time we leveled up enough to survive we'd be down to 1 character each and all the hirelings would be dead. Then it was short lived after that. It all came down the random encounters. I think we did this about dozen times and the highest level we got was 7th. Most of the time we never made it past 3rd.
Those were fun days.
So true. Altho I disagree with the Rogue haters around here (many of whom don;t even play rogues or even pathfinder) , even so the class certainly would be much nicer if today, as then, your rogue was 10th level while the wizard was merely 8th!...Looking back on AD&D, I certainly would never go back to having to design every single magic item my PC's found. I hated the way XP was done. And I do think a grid based combat system is necessary.
All that being said, the way the players and I used to roleplay was much different back then. I do agree with Gamer-Printer's assessment that the system in and of itself should not stifle role-playing, but nowadays I feel like in my busy world of wife and kids and a big boy job, that I simply can't retain the rules like I could as a teen. My brain is too full.
There is a spirit that was somewhat lost when we moved to D20 and I lament that. Would I go back to AD&D? Absolutely not. But, this has given me a lot to think about.
** spoiler omitted **...
As a thief player, I loved how xp was done.
:P
For sure. Absolutely.
Mostly. Mind you there's still rings of protection and cloaks of resistance, but they would not be a "must have". And of course casters could still get stuff too, but they dont need them as much at higher levels.So certain, 'power ups' at certain levels for the non-casters out there that represent training, skill progression, that sixth sense a professional can develop about their chosen craft?Here's what I try to do. Replace standard bonus items with inherent bonuses/combo items.
Make the rest of the items either minor fun things or significant unique items. Dump "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" except for scrolls, potions, etc.
That was true in the old days as well. Casters started to overpower the non-casters at some point. But everyone had a niche they could fill and feel useful in at any level. You still needed thieves, fighters, etc. Bonus if you pulled off a ranger or monk.
Monks were the best underpowered, over statted class out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Monty Haul
I suspect the demise of Monty Haul may be do to one of those new rules (or guideline really). The concept of Wealth By Level sets expectations for wealth. That may be higher than you (or I) prefer, but it also reins in the Monty Haul syndrome.
Not sure how that makes it better. Simply giving the characters the 'Monty Haul' level of magic items/money rather than them finding it in a dungeon changes the problem not at all.
DMs needed to be careful not to give too many magic items away or too powerful magic items. Now it is assumed there is an assembly line somewhere where everybody gets the same standardized magic item. There is nothing less 'magical' than a standardized magic item.
Can you imagine Sam, Merry, and Pippin at Ye Olde Outfitters in Rivendell saying, 'I'll take that masterwork sting, mithril mail shirt, phial of Galadriel, and Arwen's girdle of Chastity." Laughter, "Just kidding, no Arwen Girdle."
Of course, since today's players have come to expect something like a WoW or Skyrim experience I'm not sure you could ever change back.
The big problem here is that magic items are a HUGE part of how characters (particularly non-casters) remain relevant and manage to do anything in the current rules.
Resolve those issues, and you'll have a game where many of us who refuse to participate in 'low magic' campaigns (where 'low magic' is defined as 'few magic items' as opposed to 'limited magic in the world, reducing the magical natures of monsters and limiting mages') would have no problem with it.
I would say except for monks. Monks now get so many abilities and a whole lot of style options, that the monk I just created feels more propped up by his class and feat abilities than his magic items (he has only a few and some potions). This is an undeniably good thing (and quite different to how much magic gear the fighter or ranger needs). So much so, that when he killed a windscythe, he wore its skull as an ornamental helmet (because it looked cool and fit with his boar style) and I didn't feel at all worried my "helmet slot" was being filled with a useless item.
I'm playing a monk, I don't need that many magic items. I use a ki reinforced AC to deflect a dragon's bite harmlessly away. Don't even neeeed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a PDF out there? It sounds exactly like how I like to run games. Some of the sites listed when I google Dungeon World come up as 'dangerous'.Is Dungeon World 'supported' or do you need to DYI stuff? I love writing dungeons, worlds, campaigns, races etc. My favorite part of the game is the prep sometimes.This is why I like Dungeon World, by and large.
I get the old school AD&D feel, avoid the standardized magic item conundrum, and have lots of self-contained options for classes for people to use.
The rules are simple, but need a bit better explanation at times.
It has a few third party support products for settings, but it's really meant to be improvisational to its core. The lighter the rules system, the easier it is to be an improv GM.
My last session started with the following:
"Four years ago, Agamemnon led the Greeks to the plains of Illium. You're on the decks of a heaving ship as the breath of Boreas is threatening to rip your sails to tatters. In your ship's hold is a cargo going from Pylea to Caria, shipment paid for by Armistokles of Pymea.
What did he pay you to transport?
Who is it to be delivered to, assuming you survive your current problem...
What have you done to bring down the wrath of Poseidon?
What do you do now?"I made up the rest from what the players wrote down on their character sheets, defined a few antagonists, put in a few intra-party friction points and ran them through a Ray Harryhousen movie.
Dungeon World for sale at RPG Now
Dungeon World Gazeteer, text of the ruleboook in HTML format - legit and free to use.
Is there a PDF out there? It sounds exactly like how I like to run games. Some of the sites listed when I google Dungeon World come up as 'dangerous'.This is why I like Dungeon
It has a few third party support products for settings, but it's really meant to be improvisational to its core. The lighter the rules system, the easier it is to be an improv GM.
My last session started with the following:
"Four years ago, Agamemnon led the Greeks to the plains of Illium. You're on the decks of a heaving ship as the breath of Boreas is threatening to rip your sails to tatters. In your ship's hold is a cargo going from Pylea to Caria, shipment paid for by Armistokles of Pymea.
What did he pay you to transport?
Who is it to be delivered to, assuming you survive your current problem...
What have you done to bring down the wrath of Poseidon?
What do you do now?"I made up the rest from what the players wrote down on their character sheets, defined a few antagonists, put in a few intra-party friction points and ran them through a Ray Harryhousen movie.
Dungeon World for sale at RPG Now
Dungeon World Gazeteer, text of the ruleboook in HTML format - legit and free to use.
Dungeon World SRD - also legit and free to use.Thanks
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nuck Chorris only used 19 build points to keep things fair for the rest of Golarion.
Dwarven Monk.
16 STR, 15 DEX, 16 CON, 7 INT, 16 WIS, 5 CHA.
Lighting Reflexes at 1st, Iron Will at 3rd, Great Fortitude at 5th. First stat boost to DEX.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had an issue with creativity in any game, whether it's Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, or HERO (the latter having MUCH more rules than the former two). The OP says that it's difficult to be creative under the weight of such rules, but I've always found that to be incorrect in my experience. I use the rules to enhance creativity, and if something isn't covered in the rules, I simply ad hoc it with what makes sense at the time.
Honestly, I think the real issue isn't the rules. I think the issue with creativity is a fear of both the GM and the player to think outside of those ruleset. They see it as constraining when in fact, it can be the groundwork for allowing cool things. I think once you get over that and learn to use the rules to add to creativity, you'll find your games having that extra charm that it used to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right the point was it had a cartoon, several print magazines, news articles good or bad that indicated people were interested. Whether it was kids buying the product and magazines with a much bigger proportion of their disposible income or parents concerned about what their kids were doing it was the thing. It was the 'it' happening.
Now it's just another hobby and most of the kids that were playing d&d are now playing ghost ops or halo or surfingporn.
It's not bigger now. Even with the OSR it's fading. When d&d puts out another weekly cartoon I'll consider it to be growing.
It's not a question of raw size. It's a question of how niche or mainstream the hobby and its related activities are. There may have been more players in the 1980s fad stage, but it was never a mainstream hobby, nor were its related activities. The MMORPGs didn't exist. Fantasy, D&D-ish movies were few number. There was only the D&D cartoon on the television. Those several print magazines all had relatively little reach.
In the decades since, while active players may have declined, there's a much wider body of former players than there was in the 1980s, extending the familiarity of the game in the public at large. Fantasy movies are a lot more common. Fantasy conventions and cosplay are more common. RPGs have appeared in at least 2 sitcoms in recent years. There are regular TV shows that are fantasy-based. Kids engage in a lot of free-form role playing on internet forums. Millions of people play MMORPGs and games like Diablo.
From where I'm observing things, the difference between when I started playing in 1981 and now is huge. If we think of the RPGing and its influence as a shadow, the umbra may be a little bit smaller since the current player base isn't as big as the big fad heyday, but the penumbra is much bigger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, while antecdoctal, I see that D&D has become much more widely accepted along with many of the other nerdom stuff (video games especially). I've seen gaming tables run the gamut from jocks to goths to preps and everything in between. It's a good feeling, as long as they aren't chased away by "purists" that believe that those types of people aren't "real gamers".
Hate those kinds of people.
Nuck Chorris only used 19 build points to keep things fair for the rest of Golarion.
Dwarven Monk.
16 STR, 15 DEX, 16 CON, 7 INT, 16 WIS, 5 CHA.
Lighting Reflexes at 1st, Iron Will at 3rd, Great Fortitude at 5th. First stat boost to DEX.
that's no pretty dumb monk...that's one ugly dumb monk.
Or maybe just dislikeable...and really...I mean it...he is literally dumb...as in...bad INT....
:)
What I'm wondering is why so many people are complaining about Pathfinder's 'rulesy' nature and how modern RPGs are badwrongfun for taking aspects that they enjoyed from their older games, while posting on a modern RPG's forum and supposedly play that modern game. I have no problem with other people having different opinions about their games, however, those games still exist, tweak them to your liking or play pathfinder the way you want to; I don't see the reason to make snide offhand comments against attitudes you don't like, be it 'MMORPG terminology, optimization, having more defined rules, etc...'
I happen to prefer having a stronger rules set, I like to know that I'm playing within a certain set of rules and that everyone is on the same playing field. I've been burned too many times by GMs that basically require you to convince them for anything you get, so whoever was the better talker/manipulator got what he/she wanted. That really bugs me, I assume that I am working from a certain framework and expect the GM and players to work within that framework, if that framework is being broken I really feel like I should be told something about what to expect instead of being forced to figure things out on my own.
(I'm not accusing anyone who prefers a more open playstyle of these attitudes, simply what I've experienced from some of them.)
Some people are afraid to tweak. Others don't have the time. Some are new at that game and afraid to veer off the beaten path. Others are old hands that aren't use to the large amount of rules.
Personally, I come from a 2ed background and my dad always taught me to improv. Don't let the rules constrain you. Use them to allow the players to do cool stuff. I've never had a problem with that, even when running rules heavy games like the HERO system.
The big problem here is that magic items are a HUGE part of how characters (particularly non-casters) remain relevant and manage to do anything in the current rules.I would say except for monks. Monks now get so many abilities and a whole lot of style options, that the monk I just created feels more propped up by his class and feat abilities than his magic items (he has only a few and some potions). This is an undeniably good thing (and quite different to how much magic gear the fighter or ranger needs). So much so, that when he killed a windscythe, he wore its skull as an ornamental helmet (because it looked cool and fit with his boar style) and I didn't feel at all worried my "helmet slot" was being filled with a useless item.
The thing about the monk class is that it has many abilities with little synergy, and they desperately need many different high ability scores.
If you wanted to pull an AD&D and use a dice-rolling method for ability scores, restricting monks to those who got 16 or higher in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, I suppose it might somehow work out.
Your standard Monk is going to already be behind the curve in terms of AC and to-hit, and to maintain his own curve from there he needs to progressively acquire enhancement bonuses to attributes (particular Strength or Dex and Wisdom), to attack/damage, to AC (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Deflection, etc) and saves (Cloak of Resistance. Yes the monk has 'all good saves' but between his heavily divided ability scores and the game's expectation of having said cloak, eventually he'll start falling behind on saving throws without it.)
That's a lot of crap, and to be honest I'd prefer all these attributes be built into a character rather than hung on them.
My vanilla monk is doing just fine parrying dragon bites, thank you.
We used point buy 20. I dropped int and cha to make him work.
Cloak of resist? Naaa, passed all my saves so far.
My older brother who got me into AD&D taught me much the same as you Odraude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DrDeth: to you specifically I'd direct this - thank you. I don't know that I've ever seen it before in other threads but this would probably be an appropriate place to do it. Thank you for your contributions to the game I love. I had the opportunity to thank Gary Gygax once in person. He wasn't at a table but just hanging out on the steps outside the convention stage while just 40' away 3x was being announced. He was very gracious and I know he was a mortal man but when he chatted for a minute with me and my buddies it was like being in the presence of some mythical creature.Anyway doc, we owe you, and other creators of your vision a real debt for your lovely creations. I truly appreciate every effort you ever poured into the game. Moreso I thank you for instilling a sense in the game of ownership; this idea that if I as the DM didn't like something I could change it and make the game my own. Now with current editions my players have the same options. Thank you DrDeth for the thief and everything else you've gifted us. I just hope we don't let you prometheans down now that you gave us fire.
Hear hear!
...
I remember a "campaign" that was nothing more than a trip through a tavern cellar into Underdark where I repeated this process no less than four times before I finally called it quits. I only felt really connected to 2 characters I played throughout 1e and 2e; ironically they were the PCs my DM's gave me the most leeway to design completely on my own.PCs back in the day had no say in what magic items they got; "combat options" consisted of "do I use a mace or a 2-handed sword?"; even spells were left up to random chance. Every wizard had the chance to be the same as every other wizard depending on rolls. This meant that while you could inject whatever personality you wanted into your character, beyond ability scores he/she was mechanically the same as other kinds of the same race/class combinations. .. In fact I have a very healthy respect for them. Its just that, in MY experience, the one thing I happily left behind from older editions was the sense that the players were passive to the story save for their own combat actions or general plot interaction.
@DrDeth: to you specifically I'd direct this - thank you. I don't know that I've ever seen it before in other threads but this would probably be an appropriate place to do it. Thank you for your contributions to the game I love. I had the opportunity to thank Gary Gygax once in person. He wasn't at a table but just hanging out on the steps outside the convention stage while just 40' away 3x was being announced. He was very gracious and I know he was a mortal man but when he chatted for a minute with me and my buddies it was like being in the presence of some mythical creature.
Anyway doc, we owe you, and other creators of your vision a real debt for your lovely creations. I truly appreciate every effort you ever poured into the game. Moreso I thank you for instilling a sense in the game of ownership; this idea that if I as the DM didn't like something I could change it and make the game my own. Now with current
Ummm...who exactly ARE you, DrDeth?
If you are not comfortable revealing that I'll understand but apparently some posters know your real identity and I have to say that I am curious after reading Mark Hoover's post.
Right the point was it had a cartoon, several print magazines, news articles good or bad that indicated people were interested. Whether it was kids buying the product and magazines with a much bigger proportion of their disposible income or parents concerned about what their kids were doing it was the thing. It was the 'it' happening.
Now it's just another hobby and most of the kids that were playing d&d are now playing ghost ops or halo or surfingporn.
It's not bigger now. Even with the OSR it's fading. When d&d puts out another weekly cartoon I'll consider it to be growing.
It's not a question of raw size. It's a question of how niche or mainstream the hobby and its related activities are. There may have been more players in the 1980s fad stage, but it was never a mainstream hobby, nor were its related activities. The MMORPGs didn't exist. Fantasy, D&D-ish movies were few number. There was only the D&D cartoon on the television. Those several print magazines all had relatively little reach.
In the decades since, while active players may have declined, there's a much wider body of former players than there was in the 1980s, extending the familiarity of the game in the public at large. Fantasy movies are a lot more common. Fantasy conventions and cosplay are more common. RPGs have appeared in at least 2 sitcoms in recent years. There are regular TV shows that are fantasy-based. Kids engage in a lot of free-form role playing on internet forums. Millions of people play MMORPGs and games like Diablo.
From where I'm observing things, the difference between when I started playing in 1981 and now is huge. If we think of the RPGing and its influence as a shadow, the umbra may be a little bit smaller since the current player base isn't as big as the big fad heyday, but the penumbra is much bigger.
I'm only talking about tabletop rpgs. The hobby does have more former adherents. You know when the penumbra is getting bigger? When the sun is setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm...who exactly ARE you, DrDeth?@DrDeth: to you specifically I'd direct this - thank you. I don't know that I've ever seen it before in other threads but this would probably be an appropriate place to do it. Thank you for your contributions to the game I love. I had the opportunity to thank Gary Gygax once in person. He wasn't at a table but just hanging out on the steps outside the convention stage while just 40' away 3x was being announced. He was very gracious and I know he was a mortal man but when he chatted for a minute with me and my buddies it was like being in the presence of some mythical creature.
Anyway doc, we owe you, and other creators of your vision a real debt for your lovely creations. I truly appreciate every effort you ever poured into the game. Moreso I thank you for instilling a sense in the game of ownership; this idea that if I as the DM didn't like something I could change it and make the game my own.
It's in my profile. D.Daniel Wagner, Author of the now completely outmoded and rather badly done OD&D supplement Manual of Aurania , put out in 1977. This was the first Non TSR D&D supplement, and yes, for that reason it's a little important historically, as it was the first 3PP. Oh, and I (along with much help from my friends) invented the Thief class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one other rule to implement if doing this as per AD&D. There is no concentration skill. IF the caster gets hit before they cast their spell...they lose the spell.No. WHILE they are casting a spell. Spells took 1-10 segments(except the one that took rounds or minutes). (Usually, one segment per level, but there were many exceptions). So, everyone rolled Init.
My Wizard rolled a 5, and has a 3 segment spell. He starts in 5, it goes off in 8. (actually, they counted down, but lets not confuse things). Your warrior had to get an init between 5 and 8 and hit the wizard during that period- if he hits the wizard before or after, no problem.
You're right, I was just going for simplicity of statement. but you are right on a technicality.
AKA...basically that's what I meant. Makes a big difference on many spells...others not so much. Some of the party killers in PF, probably would not be so deadly if their casting time and the chance to interrupt were the same as AD&D though.
Well, almost. Skills were around, at least with the Thief class back in OD&D days, long before AD&D. And non-weapon proficiencies were in AD&D and in the end, so were Skills are we know them today, almost, along with proto-feats. This was "Skills & Powers".So, few want to bring back that OD&D feel, they wanted AD&D, and skills, at least to some extent were part of it.
Hated Skills and Powers [as in the 2e book aka....players Option series]. Some see that as the beginning of the end (or the end of the end, depending on the cast).
Also just wanted to add
Oh definitely. IRL table-top games are far disconnected from Theorycrafting. This is why when the Optimizers and theorycrafters scream loudly about (say for example) Martial/caster disparity! and 'fighters are teh suxxor' , but IRL you see games where rogue & fighter are very popular choices and even the star of the team. Then I agree with JJ in that the rules don't really need to "fix' the martial/caster disparity" because IRL, in normal tables where games rarely get to high level and players play as a TEAM instead of a set of PvP stats for a DPR comparo- then he's right, the disparity is mostly a myth.
I agree with you 100%, but most times I try to bring this up that this is also my experience IRL, people on the boards tell me that I just have a limited view and I am bad/wrong on this idea.
But I agree, almost EVERY group and EVERY player matches what you are saying in what I've seen and experienced.
It's in my profile. D.Daniel Wagner, Author of the now completely outmoded and rather badly done OD&D supplement Manual of Aurania , put out in 1977. This was the first Non TSR D&D supplement, and yes, for that reason it's a little important historically, as it was the first 3PP. Oh, and I (along with much help from my friends) invented the Thief class.So you're the one to blame for all the "Rogues suck" threads. Thanks a lot. :)
Yep. ;-) But to be fair, the Thief had two things going for it that the Rogue doesn't.
1. He needed the least eps to level, thus a party might well have a 10th level Thief and a 8th level wizard.
2. He, and only he could do his niche- and back in the days of deadly Gygaxian traps, that niche was very important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm wondering is why so many people are complaining about Pathfinder's 'rulesy' nature and how modern RPGs are badwrongfun for taking aspects that they enjoyed from their older games, while posting on a modern RPG's forum and supposedly play that modern game. I have no problem with other people having different opinions about their games, however, those games still exist, tweak them to your liking or play pathfinder the way you want to; I don't see the reason to make snide offhand comments against attitudes you don't like, be it 'MMORPG terminology, optimization, having more defined rules, etc...'
I happen to prefer having a stronger rules set, I like to know that I'm playing within a certain set of rules and that everyone is on the same playing field. I've been burned too many times by GMs that basically require you to convince them for anything you get, so whoever was the better talker/manipulator got what he/she wanted. That really bugs me, I assume that I am working from a certain framework and expect the GM and players to work within that framework, if that framework is being broken I really feel like I should be told something about what to expect instead of being forced to figure things out on my own.
(I'm not accusing anyone who prefers a more open playstyle of these attitudes, simply what I've experienced from some of them.)
Okay, for the third time on this thread I'm going to say it. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a rulebook that is a. huge b. growing. c. requires 'system mastery' to play several of the available classes (although to improv something you really need to understand it well it's like an artist who doesn't learn the rules of anatomy before trying to draw the human figure or a musician who only knows how to 'air-guitar').
No one is forcing you to play, discuss, or enjoy roleplaying the way it used to be. If uncertainty about rules makes you uncomfortable no one will push you into the pool. If you are afraid of GMs who are not fair, it is perfectly understandable that you'd want a rule system that limited what improvisation, differences of opinion, and sometimes personality used to do.
The reason we keep coming back to what makes Pathfinder different (mechanical, min-maxing, ever-expanding into strange permutations, lack of improv, RAW fetishization etc) is because the title of the thread is, "Recapturing the Essence of D&D in Pathfinder". It is the same reason we are examining the roots of the hobby, what makes the old school revival a growing force, how DMs used to run games and create fun, and how we can return that type of game play to the Pathfinder system/community).
If you take these comments as 'snide' or 'off hand' you couldn't be more wrong. Nobody is denigrating any of the hobbies/activities that have shaped Pathfinder in the last thirty plus years. We are pointing out that certain facets of the game and certain expectations of the players (and this has been amply illustrated by posters just like yourself) have been shaped by other experiences and parts of the hobby culture.
The main thrust of this is not 'Why is Pathfinder bad' but 'what can we do to recapture the feel of D&D'. The very fact that you are taking this as an adversarial position says quite a bit. Pathfinder isn't bad, it is different we want to regain something Pathfinder has lost not take away any of the fun you are currently enjoying.
Oh definitely. IRL table-top games are far disconnected from Theorycrafting. This is why when the Optimizers and theorycrafters scream loudly about (say for example) Martial/caster disparity! and 'fighters are teh suxxor' , but IRL you see games where rogue & fighter are very popular choices and even the star of the team. Then I agree with JJI agree with you 100%, but most times I try to bring this up that this is also my experience IRL, people on the boards tell me that I just have a limited view and I am bad/wrong on this idea.
But I agree, almost EVERY group and EVERY player matches what you are saying in what I've seen and experienced.
Yes, but since I haven't seen them play, maybe they actually play that way. I do agree that they are VERY vocal and tend to scream down any opposition, including saying that you just don't know how to play. Heck, they tell *ME* that all the time, too, tho so don't feel singled out. If you disagree with them, you are playing the game badly and wrong- OBVIOUSLY!!!!! ;-)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main thrust of this is not 'Why is Pathfinder bad' but 'what can we do to recapture the feel of D&D'. The very fact that you are taking this as an adversarial position says quite a bit. Pathfinder isn't bad, it is different we want to regain something Pathfinder has lost not take away any of the fun you are currently enjoying.
And, i think it is very possible to regain some of the feel of Old School D&D and still play PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been over this and over this.
If you see no disparity, you're obviously playing the "right" way.
From what people have explained to me and from my own experience, this involves a large amount of DM fiat, gentleman's agreements, and/or houserules, so all the "evil optimizer theorycrafters," if they play using straight RAW, are clearly the ones playing the WRONG way, because they do end up with a disparity.
It's a shame that everything you need to know to play the right way isn't spelled out out in the core rulebook, but c'est la vie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been over this and over this.
If you see no disparity, you're obviously playing the "right" way.From what people have explained to me and from my own experience, this involves a large amount of DM fiat, gentleman's agreements, and/or houserules, so all the "evil optimizer theorycrafters," if they play using straight RAW, are clearly the ones playing the WRONG way, because they do end up with a disparity.
It's a shame that everything you need to know to play the right way isn't spellout out in the core rulebook, but c'est la vie.
Absolutely, If you and your friends are having fun playing any game you are doing it right.
We've been over this and over this.
If you see no disparity, you're obviously playing the "right" way.From what people have explained to me and from my own experience, this involves a large amount of DM fiat, gentleman's agreements, and/or houserules, so all the "evil optimizer theorycrafters," if they play using straight RAW, are clearly the ones playing the WRONG way, because they do end up with a disparity.
It's a shame that everything you need to know to play the right way isn't spellout out in the core rulebook, but c'est la vie.
We use some very minor houserules, less than a page. That's less than most games do, and they don't limit Optimization much. And yes, there's a little gentleman's agreements in that we want everyone to have fun. Neither of these are unusual and they really don't change the game that much. In fact I'd say that the games where there is a "gentleman's agreement" where the players have an unspoken rule to make sure everyone has fun- is the standard way of playing. Thus, I don't think they Devs need to make radical changes to PF to make sure people who don't play that way are still having fun. The game doesn't disallow PvP, but most groups do so by agreement. The fact that one can ruin everyone else fun by doing a PvP character that kills everyone in their sleep every nite an steal all their stuff isn't a weakness of the Rules. It's a weakness of playing with a jerk. The rules don't need to be written in such a way that that jerk can't do that. That doesn't need to be spelled out in the CRB as you are complaining about.
And I doubt if the "evil optimizer theorycrafters," are playing using straight RAW.
Nor did i say they are 'evil". As long as they are having fun, they are playing the game the right way- for them.
This issue come when they DEMAND in LOUD voices here on the MB that the Devs change the rules to account for their unusual playstyle, and castigate the devs for being incompetent as they haven't 'fix' the game to account for their strange playstyle- which- and this is important- they don;t even likely play that way IRL.
Kirth- YOU don't play that way IRL. In fact, you play "Kirthfinder" not Pathfinder. How come then you know how PF is played, IRL, since you don't?
IRL, at real tables, with real players- those outre' strange problems the optimizer theorycrafters continually use as an examples of why PF is broken, broken- BROKEN- just don't happen. I have never seen a table (for example) where Simulacrum is allowed to give the PC's unlimited free wishes. But the optimizer theorycrafters insist that 'teh game is teh broekn" as they claim the RAW clearly allows this (which it doesn't btw).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How come then you know how PF is played, IRL, since you don't?
Right now I'm not drinking any scotch. So how could I possibly know what scotch tastes like?
How does any of the last page or so of comments address the original post, 'How do we recapture the Essence of AD&D in Pathfinder'? I know on-topic can be difficult when we head down the rabbit hole but can we get back to concrete ideas and suggestions, please?
No sarcasm or blame intended. I just want to talk about what we were originally working towards.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way to capture the feel of 1e in Pathfinder is to play with guys that cut their teeth on 1e, for the most part. Otherwise, you'll never really know if you're doing it "old school". Or just go into it like you have no idea what you're doing, because the hobby only exists because a whole lot of us did just that back in the '70s and early '80s (before the internet and instant "how to" info) and LOVED it. ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if you start with a Chevy, adjust the idle and reset the timer, re-pack the breaks, replace some old parts, give it an oil change and change out the transmission fluid, and then drive it? Do you forget how it used to handle?
Dude, what you did was completely overhaul the engine, replace the drive train, stiffened the suspension, and replaced 93 Octane with jet fuel.
Oil change my ass. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'How do we recapture the Essence of AD&D in Pathfinder'? I know on-topic can be difficult when we head down the rabbit hole but can we get back to concrete ideas and suggestions, please?
Only Semi-Sarcastic Suggestion: Cut up the core rules with a pair of scissors, throw away half of what you've got, and re-glue the remaining pieces in random order. Then appoint someone Sole Arbiter, and don't even let the players read half of the rules you're left with.
Bingo! You're back to 1e.
I absolutely LOVED 1e. Dunno how many zillion hours we played it. But, really, 90% of it boiled down to "Mother, May I?"
The way to capture the feel of 1e in Pathfinder is to play with guys that cut their teeth on 1e, for the most part. Otherwise, you'll never really know if you're doing it "old school". Or just go into it like you have no idea what you're doing, because the hobby only exists because a whole lot of us did just that back in the '70s and early '80s (before the internet and instant "how to" info) and LOVED it. ;-)
Yes, that is a good suggestion. However, not everyone has that opportunity. I know when a game is old school. I have an 11 year old grandson and started playing when Ford was in office. Some of us think, 'Third Party, Pathfinder will never get there' and others think, 'Pathfinder can do it with a little tweak here and there'. Personally, I think it is possible with pathfinder but more work than just downloading OSRIC or one of the other 'retroclones'.