|
| 3 people 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.
Life was easier when you had no clue how anyone else played. All you had to do was ignore the "Forum" section in Dragon Magazine, a section that should have been sponsored by the Gallo Brothers (it was the original place for what is now internet whining about how others play).
'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?"
'Semi' as in 90% ;>)
|
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. ;-)
I think that's a lot of it.
One of my biggest pet peeves is players who constantly talk in game about how, "that's how we used to do it in x edition". And it's usually some stupid cheese build from 3.5. If a game/scenario is engaging enough for me, I really don't want to be distracted by your tales of the '100 peasant rail gun'. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my biggest pet peeves is players who constantly talk in game about how, "that's how we used to do it in x edition". And it's usually some stupid cheese build from 3.5. If a game/scenario is engaging enough for me, I really don't want to be distracted by your tales of the '100 peasant rail gun'. :/
A group should be about having fun. Unfortunately, as in the example above somebody's idea of fun is to interrupt the suspension of disbelief (deliberately or not) it makes it much harder to play.
I love immersion. I want to feel like I'm slogging through the rain in a dark ghoul haunted forest or creeping down a dusty cavern with unnameable horrors just around the corner. But that's just me.
| 1 person 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. ;-)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'.
I personally think it's much easier than that. You play more with less a hard rules emphasis and more of a wing it on the fly personality.
Or even easier, you just play with players that are easy going and don't have a heart attack if you tell them you are in a different campaign world and these are the houserules (for example, core races only, no others...etc).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think in all actuality there's anything we need to do TO Pathfinder to make the game play more like old AD&D; we just need a table full of players who played more like the old way. I basically tell any new players when they join my game "number one rule here is for everyone to have fun. we don't lecture each other on the rules, no one tells other people how to make their characters, and no one corrects me on a ruling or tactics. I'm here to have fun too, and this is not supposed to be a chore for me, nor do I need to feel like it's a job I need to get "right" at the expense of my own fun."
If the new player has a problem with this, it's better they don't join our group, because they won't enjoy it. It's not that they're wrong; I just know what I enjoy and what I don't, and I'm not willing to waste my time running a game people don't like. If everyone is honest about what they expect from a table, I think just about any play style can thrive using PF rules.
One of my biggest pet peeves is players who constantly talk in game about how, "that's how we used to do it in x edition". And it's usually some stupid cheese build from 3.5. If a game/scenario is engaging enough for me, I really don't want to be distracted by your tales of the '100 peasant rail gun'. :/A group should be about having fun. Unfortunately, as in the example above somebody's idea of fun is to interrupt the suspension of disbelief (deliberately or not) it makes it much harder to play.
I love immersion. I want to feel like I'm slogging through the rain in a dark ghoul haunted forest or creeping down a dusty cavern with unnameable horrors just around the corner. But that's just me.
The immersion is the best part for me as well.
The immersion is the best part for me as well.
One of my biggest pet peeves is players who constantly talk in game about how, "that's how we used to do it in x edition". And it's usually some stupid cheese build from 3.5. If a game/scenario is engaging enough for me, I really don't want to be distracted by your tales of the '100 peasant rail gun'. :/A group should be about having fun. Unfortunately, as in the example above somebody's idea of fun is to interrupt the suspension of disbelief (deliberately or not) it makes it much harder to play.
I love immersion. I want to feel like I'm slogging through the rain in a dark ghoul haunted forest or creeping down a dusty cavern with unnameable horrors just around the corner. But that's just me.
Immersion is the essence of AD&D. If you aren't getting that you aren't doing it right. At least as far as I'm concerned. I want to follow those tracks to the old tomb in 'The Valley of the Dead' in the dark of night with the wind whipping the torches light down to nothing and the clerics clutching their beads and mumbling prayers. I need to feel the thrill as I jump the gap in the broken wall of the lost city and pray the cannibals don't catch me (or feast on the paste I'll leave if I miss). To me, too many rules can get in the way of that.
I firmly believe that we can get a kick-behind old school feel out of Pathfinder. Me? I'd like to see if I can do it like some of the other posters suggested. Keep the expectations straight from the beginning. A good group can make the game fun. Trim some of the extras I'd keep it to the CRB especially in the beginning. I don't have the beginners box but if it streamlines the rules that's a step towards this goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Immersion is the essence of AD&D. To me, too many rules can get in the way of that.
They can help it along, too. I remember too well having our wonderfully-immersive experience of In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords grind to a halt because there were no actual swimming rules, and the module itself printed a page of guidelines just to get you through that part. Given 3.X-style Swim rules, the module could simply have listed some DCs and conditions, and (assuming we're minimally conversant with the rules) the DM would have known how everything worked, and we would have known what to do to keep the game moving, and no one would have to break immersion to stop in the middle and learn a new sub-system.
And, yes, the module totally could have said "It's the DM's decision if anyone drowns or whatever; just make it up." But the whole thrust of that module was to present challanges to be solved, not just stories to be made up on the spot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think in all actuality there's anything we need to do TO Pathfinder to make the game play more like old AD&D; we just need a table full of players who played more like the old way. I basically tell any new players when they join my game "number one rule here is for everyone to have fun. we don't lecture each other on the rules, no one tells other people how to make their characters, and no one corrects me on a ruling or tactics. I'm here to have fun too, and this is not supposed to be a chore for me, nor do I need to feel like it's a job I need to get "right" at the expense of my own fun."
If the new player has a problem with this, it's better they don't join our group, because they won't enjoy it. It's not that they're wrong; I just know what I enjoy and what I don't, and I'm not willing to waste my time running a game people don't like. If everyone is honest about what they expect from a table, I think just about any play style can thrive using PF rules.
Honestly, this. The book itself contains all the things needed to play it any number of ways, including the most important statements that tell people to play it the way they want to.
It's not a set mechanical change you make to the game, because how I run "Old-School-style Pathfinder" is likely different to the way someone else does. For me it's an attitude to go in and say that there's a bunch of basic guidelines here called a rulebook, that we're going to sit down now and somehow try to hang a game around it, and that nobody is going to start waving printed rules in anyone else's face and claiming "but it says here..." It's deciding on a shared reality everyone is comfortable with, getting to the point where things "just work" in everyone's head, and leaning on the rulebook just for basic things rather than for everything. Most of all though it's trust, trusting everyone in the group (players and GM) to be fair to one another, trusting them not to just do whatever is to their own advantage at the cost of anyone else - really just standard improv techniques.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Immersion is the essence of AD&D. To me, too many rules can get in the way of that.They can help it along, too. I remember too well having our wonderfully-immersive experience of In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords grind to a halt because there were no actual swimming rules, and the module itself printed a page of guidelines just to get you through that part. Given 3.X-style Swim rules, the module could simply have listed some DCs and conditions, and (assuming we're minimally conversant with the rules) the DM would have known how everything worked, and we would have known what to do to keep the game moving, and no one would have to break immersion to stop in the middle and learn a new sub-system.
And, yes, the module totally could have said "It's the DM's decision if anyone drowns or whatever; just make it up." But the whole thrust of that module was to present challanges to be solved, not just stories to be made up on the spot.
I think this illustrates one of the most important things about RPGs:
Getting the rules complexity "just right" isn't possible, because everyone has their own preferences. I think mostly we're all in the grey mid area, but at different points within it, while there's a few outliers in the realms of "just give me hit points" and "a ten-volume encyclopedia, please".
I'm actually an advocate of having tons of rules printed, but picking and choosing the ones you're going to bring to the table. It's easier to prune too many down to the point you really want, than to not have enough and have to work them out for yourself whether you want to or not.
On the other hand, I also like the idea of trimming the core down to a more managable midpoint between the current complexity and that of 2e (moving the removed parts to a second player's handbook), to give a starting point where people can start to diverge from - if for no other reason than to make it clear that divergence happens between tables, and that there's no need to feel you have to use the entire thing just because it's there.
'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?"
I played a dab of 1e and a lot more 2nd ed (and reading articles on the differences between the differences and how Gygax's players rolled their eyes that 2nd ed was a new edition was very entertaining and informative). As a player of a thief I knew what I could do. There was no mother may I, it was, okay I use one of my many niche skills to solve that problem. It is a break-in, okay, ask for info, check skills, declare what I do and roll.
I found it frightfully easy (until I got minced up later), but didn't run into much of mother may I.
Immersion is the essence of AD&D. To me, too many rules can get in the way of that.They can help it along, too. I remember too well having our wonderfully-immersive experience of In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords grind to a halt because there were no actual swimming rules, and the module itself printed a page of guidelines just to get you through that part. Given 3.X-style Swim rules, the module could simply have listed some DCs and conditions, and (assuming we're minimally conversant with the rules) the DM would have known how everything worked, and we would have known what to do to keep the game moving, and no one would have to break immersion to stop in the middle and learn a new sub-system.
And, yes, the module totally could have said "It's the DM's decision if anyone drowns or whatever; just make it up." But the whole thrust of that module was to present challanges to be solved, not just stories to be made up on the spot.
I think this illustrates one of the most important things about RPGs:
Getting the rules complexity "just right" isn't possible, because everyone has their own preferences. I think mostly we're all in the grey mid area, but at different points within it, while there's a few outliers in the realms of "just give me hit points" and "a ten-volume encyclopedia, please".
I'm actually an advocate of having tons of rules printed, but picking and choosing the ones you're going to bring to the table. It's easier to prune too many down to the point you really want, than to not have enough and have to work them out for yourself whether you want to or not.
On the other hand, I also like the idea of trimming the core down to a more managable midpoint between the current complexity and that of 2e (moving the removed parts to a second player's handbook), to give a starting point where people can start to diverge from - if for no other reason than to make it clear that divergence happens between tables, and that...
I cannot agree.
I play with a group that all work, and don't have a high amount of free time. So I made my own rules system informed by two other rulesets but quite simple, straight-forward and easy to understand. A lot of opposed dice and very low mods (because I found they weren't necessary).
I got the rules complexity just right for my group. When I playtested with other friends they also liked it and learned it quick smart. Simplicity was the basis of my design decisions. If it isn't, you will fall into trouble eventually, especially if a lot is restricted behind build walls (you must have this build to enter or do this).
Now other long time dming friends have made their rules and changes, but the problem is bloat and complexity. Some want it "realistic" and a round takes 30 minutes. Some bad decisions there, but they weren't trying to make it as simple and clear as possible. I dispensed with rounds near entirely to focus on 1 second blocks (it changes a lot I tell you).
Just right is possible. For some pathfinder in all its bloated glory is just right; but others prefer it streamlined or in its beta form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the real distinguishing feature between the way "new" games are intended to be played and the way "older" ones are is the concept of RAW - an oldschool flavored game is going to pretty much deny the relevance of RAW. Even the earliest games acknowledged there were gaps in the rules, happily breezing past that with the assumption that this would be solved by the DM. The more modern style is going to favor the certainty and "fair playing field" approach that clear and complete rules give - everyone goes in knowing what's what and how things will progress.
I find that every game I play is "like AD&D" whether that be one of the OSRIC games, Pathfinder, 4E, GURPS, Rolemaster or the others we've tried. In my view the feel of a game is really more about the approach of the players than the way the rules are written. We treat everything in the book as guidelines or suggestions for how to handle things. Sometimes we'll go with a rule we think is silly, other times we'll change it (and sometimes we'll have an inconsistent approach).
When something comes up in game, the DM may well invent a subsystem on the spot to resolve climbing a wall or may flick to the relevant section (which we havent read very well) and misapply what's written there.
Given our style, the older systems fit a little better (since they implicitly assume you're going to make stuff up to fill the gaps) but I dont find it difficult to run a 4E/PF game using the same approach - there's just times where our resolution is very different from what the rules suggest, but we treat rule zero as capitalised, underlined, bolded and in much larger font.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to prefer more rules and "cutting off" those I dislike. It's easier for me. I quite like pathfinder as it is, though I acknowledge it inst something that is easy to get into.
There probably is some way, with enough effort, to get the rules "just right" for your group, but I simply dont have the time/energy to find that point. It's compounded by the fact that I dont have a "regular" group to which I can rely on; I have several, each with some rotation of players, meaning player composition inst consistent, etc.
Still, I would rather the player know all the rules beforehand. If they want to be good at something, they should have the chance to do so without me having to pull something out of my ass. I'm slowly collecting a document of houserules, though they are far from comprehensive.
I also dislike inventing too many rules on the spot, if only because I know I will forget them quickly and it will lead to inconsistency, which can be very unpleasant for a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue of multiple or everchanging groups is a strong argument in favor of using more complete, objective rule systems, in my opinion (I've basically been playing with the same people for thirty years, so it's a nonissue for us). I suspect that would help reduce the incidence of mismatched expectations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember my very first roleplaying experiences.
Most of it amounted to:
Player: "I want to do this thing."
GM: "Uh...? Roll a d20?"
Player rolls.
GM looks at the die and uses it as a factor in the player's persuasion of the GM to whether a thing works or fails.
Things were less concrete. In fact, they were utterly fluid. The rolls were rarely against DCs. They were just a way to persuade the GM that their described action should succeed. Sometimes, a description would require only a low roll. Sometimes, if more implausible (by GM's reckoning), it would require a higher roll.
Stats? What stats?
I could not go back to those days. They might have worked for a twelve year old, but not for me now.
Edit:
I just remembered something important. We did have rules, of growing complexity. Basically, every time a described action succeeded, that set precedent. The player would try it again later, citing that they only needed a 4 to succeed on the same thing last time, so clearly it should be the same.
Years of accumulated precedent built a ruleset, a very awkward one.
Someone earlier mentioned D&D Next, and after finding the old playtest on my old PC I thought some of the stuff will be exactly what a lot of us are after; problem is that they lost so many people that many won't try it. I like the basic system working into the more complex stuff, I think the face appeal of that will keep the rules from turning off potential players, as the current generation seems to; I do have some doubts as to how the more complex rules will integrate "seamlessly", it just seems vestigial to steal some of the ship-jumpers back.
I will use the systems that are supplemented the best, and having an entire library of Pathfinder will ensure that I will only move if the system is far superior and fun; simplicity for simplicity's sake just doesn't appeal to me like it does to others. I like a robust system, although I admit that some of my players sometimes get lost in the mechanics and sometimes wind up not being able to pay attention; not my fault if they let the rules bog them down or get detatched from the action of combat into the abstraction of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5, Pathfinder, and Kirthfinder are akin to Chevy, Dodge, and Ford. Just because you drive one doesn't mean you don't know how the others work.What if you've driven all three?
What if you're driving all 3 right now. I probably shouldn't be typing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has mainly focused on the issue of rules complexity (AD&D == rules light while Pathfinder == rules heavy) and that is certainly one issue in the "feel" of a game but I find the power level to be an even bigger issue.
In AD&D, you rolled up stats and had to go with what the fates decreed. In Pathfinder, you point buy (usually stat dumping the "useless" stats for your class) to "build" your PC exactly the way you want him/her. While I like the equity of everyone having the same number of points to "build" their PC, it almost always leads to "cookie cutter" characters who are perfectly "optimized" to perform at peak efficiency. I find this to be rather boring and somewhat limiting to role play. The other issue with the power of AD&D vs. Pathfinder is that PF almost feels like a fantasy superhero game with players' achieving near demi-god status at pretty low levels and said levels are achieved extremely quickly compared to AD&D. Getting a PC up to 10th level was a real accomplishment in AD&D and took months of weekly play to achieve; in PF it seems you are expected to hit 10th level after about four adventures in an AP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Umbral: When I was a kid I had this older brother, Matt. My name actually is Mark. We were 2 years apart and best friends, even as brothers. My first gaming experiences were diceless out of necessity.
You see, our next older brother David owned all the books and the dice, so we didn't get to play true D&D without him around. Being 7 and 9 and David being 12 and cool, that meant we were without gear often.
So began: the Matches and Markles dungeons
Yes, we played diceless RPing off and on for about a decade under that cute moniker. Over the years we adapted diceless gaming to every system. Diceless Boot Hill; diceless Marvel Super Heroes; diceless Cyberpunk (pre CP 2020).
Now, I only mention all this backstory to then explain that it fell apart entirely when we invited others into our diceless games. Matt and I knew each other so well and trusted so completely that diceless, ruleless pure RPing was ok. With other friends it just became who can top the other guy.
My point is that as more people enter my gaming group and all our myriad experiences pool into our shared game we bring all that to bare in our own way. It's nice for me anyway to have the rules, cumbersome as they may be at times, in PF to set the framework we play from. As I have built trust with my current group I've messed with that framework from time to time.
That's a little trick 1e taught us all. As Morpheus put it so eloquently: some rules can be bent; others can be broken.
I know that nowadays there are systems out there for diceless RP. I like to think though that Matt and I, ours was the first. I don't play that way anymore. Matt passed away from testicular cancer when he was 20 years old.
But my big brother taught me a lot and he did it through roleplaying. I learned to share, to be a good sport, to enjoy and pretend and be creative and spontaneous. I'm grateful for the Matches and Markles campaigns and I look forward to playing them again someday.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the real distinguishing feature between the way "new" games are intended to be played and the way "older" ones are is the concept of RAW - an oldschool flavored game is going to pretty much deny the relevance of RAW. Even the earliest games acknowledged there were gaps in the rules, happily breezing past that with the assumption that this would be solved by the DM. The more modern style is going to favor the certainty and "fair playing field" approach that clear and complete rules give - everyone goes in knowing what's what and how things will progress.
I find that every game I play is "like AD&D" whether that be one of the OSRIC games, Pathfinder, 4E, GURPS, Rolemaster or the others we've tried. In my view the feel of a game is really more about the approach of the players than the way the rules are written. We treat everything in the book as guidelines or suggestions for how to handle things. Sometimes we'll go with a rule we think is silly, other times we'll change it (and sometimes we'll have an inconsistent approach).
When something comes up in game, the DM may well invent a subsystem on the spot to resolve climbing a wall or may flick to the relevant section (which we havent read very well) and misapply what's written there.
Given our style, the older systems fit a little better (since they implicitly assume you're going to make stuff up to fill the gaps) but I dont find it difficult to run a 4E/PF game using the same approach - there's just times where our resolution is very different from what the rules suggest, but we treat rule zero as capitalised, underlined, bolded and in much larger font.
I hope someday to play SOMETHING (I don't really care what) with this man.
This thread has mainly focused on the issue of rules complexity (AD&D == rules light while Pathfinder == rules heavy) and that is certainly one issue in the "feel" of a game but I find the power level to be an even bigger issue.
In AD&D, you rolled up stats and had to go with what the fates decreed. In Pathfinder, you point buy (usually stat dumping the "useless" stats for your class) to "build" your PC exactly the way you want him/her. While I like the equity of everyone having the same number of points to "build" their PC, it almost always leads to "cookie cutter" characters who are perfectly "optimized" to perform at peak efficiency. I find this to be rather boring and somewhat limiting to role play. The other issue with the power of AD&D vs. Pathfinder is that PF almost feels like a fantasy superhero game with players' achieving near demi-god status at pretty low levels and said levels are achieved extremely quickly compared to AD&D. Getting a PC up to 10th level was a real accomplishment in AD&D and took months of weekly play to achieve; in PF it seems you are expected to hit 10th level after about four adventures in an AP.
Certainly the expectation that you will have x wealth and be able to buy the necessary magical items is directly in opposition to the essence of D&D. It was directly and explicitly warned against by the developers.
It was assumed at some point that casters would outdo martials at least in raw power. That didn't mean that either of them needed a set of sniper's goggles, or cloak of displacement or any of that. Just that at higher levels a wizard could cast a fireball that could clear a room while a warrior had to use his skill, guts, and steel to do the same thing.
It's clear the current incarnation of Pathfinder assumes these metric loads of standardized and easily acquired magic items and what would be game breaking levels of wealth in AD&D. There would have to be some trimming to get Pathfinder back to the AD&D essence.
This thread has mainly focused on the issue of rules complexity (AD&D == rules light while Pathfinder == rules heavy) and that is certainly one issue in the "feel" of a game but I find the power level to be an even bigger issue.Not picking on you in particular, but AD&D was in no real sense "rules light". It had some huge gaps in rules coverage, as much due to the early stage of rpg design it came from and the personal tastes of the original developers as to any real desire for simplicity. In many ways it was even more complex and fiddly than PF. Weapon speeds, rounds broken into segments, chart after chart for everything under the sun. But with huge gaps.
Often because you really were supposed to be metagaming by today's standards.The character creation process was a lot simpler, so if you focus just on that as so many seem to these days, it might seem rules light, but it really isn't.
There are a lot of actual rules-light games out there. AD&D is nothing like them.
That is a fair point.
I forgot to mention that the group I played with NEVER used weapon speeds, segments, attack adjustment vs. Armor type, etc. so I was really thinking from the standpoint of my personal experience. Our game WAS rules light but if you played AD&D using every rule, I guess it would have been a little bit cumbersome. I would argue that Pathfinder is still "heavier" than 1st Edition AD&D which is all I played. 2nd edition AD&D saw the explosion of splat books that really expanded the rules to near modern standards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AdAstraGames is correct, I have been perusing Dungeon World and it does exactly what he says. Captures the old school feel with a simple and very robust rules system that deliberately includes everyone in collaboration and play. It also links players through in game bonds that means the characters have a backstory together.
If a Pathfinder 'Beginners Box' or Pathfinder light achieve what these guys did they would dominate the oldschool and newer market without trying.
This thread has mainly focused on the issue of rules complexity (AD&D == rules light while Pathfinder == rules heavy) and that is certainly one issue in the "feel" of a game but I find the power level to be an even bigger issue.Not picking on you in particular, but AD&D was in no real sense "rules light". It had some huge gaps in rules coverage, as much due to the early stage of rpg design it came from and the personal tastes of the original developers as to any real desire for simplicity. In many ways it was even more complex and fiddly than PF. Weapon speeds, rounds broken into segments, chart after chart for everything under the sun. But with huge gaps.
Often because you really were supposed to be metagaming by today's standards.The character creation process was a lot simpler, so if you focus just on that as so many seem to these days, it might seem rules light, but it really isn't.
There are a lot of actual rules-light games out there. AD&D is nothing like them.
That is a fair point.
I forgot to mention that the group I played with NEVER used weapon speeds, segments, attack adjustment vs. Armor type, etc. so I was really thinking from the standpoint of my personal experience. Our game WAS rules light but if you played AD&D using every rule, I guess it would have been a little bit cumbersome. I would argue that Pathfinder is still "heavier" than 1st Edition AD&D which is all I played. 2nd edition AD&D saw the explosion of splat books that really expanded the rules to near modern standards.
Every single group I played with skipped these fiddly rules. Pathfinder is way more rules heavy but it is also more complex trying to cover everything and has an ever expanding list of races/classes and rules for same. The expectation here seems to be you will not skip the fiddly rules.
I remember my very first roleplaying experiences.
Most of it amounted to:
Player: "I want to do this thing."
GM: "Uh...? Roll a d20?"
Player rolls.
GM looks at the die and uses it as a factor in the player's persuasion of the GM to whether a thing works or fails.
Things were less concrete. In fact, they were utterly fluid. The rolls were rarely against DCs. They were just a way to persuade the GM that their described action should succeed. Sometimes, a description would require only a low roll. Sometimes, if more implausible (by GM's reckoning), it would require a higher roll.
Stats? What stats?
I could not go back to those days. They might have worked for a twelve year old, but not for me now.
Edit:
I just remembered something important. We did have rules, of growing complexity. Basically, every time a described action succeeded, that set precedent. The player would try it again later, citing that they only needed a 4 to succeed on the same thing last time, so clearly it should be the same.
Years of accumulated precedent built a ruleset, a very awkward one.
I was saying just that awhile back, players relying on appeals to GM's sense of what is appropriate nowadays just seems inappropriate. The player is actually undermining his own agency by appealing to something that doesn't exist in the game; it reminds me of people doing rain dances for a change in weather, completely out of touch with reality, and forcing the GM to play actively for or against players.
TL;DR comepletely agree.
I remember my very first roleplaying experiences.
Most of it amounted to:
Player: "I want to do this thing."
GM: "Uh...? Roll a d20?"
Player rolls.
GM looks at the die and uses it as a factor in the player's persuasion of the GM to whether a thing works or fails.
Things were less concrete. In fact, they were utterly fluid. The rolls were rarely against DCs. They were just a way to persuade the GM that their described action should succeed. Sometimes, a description would require only a low roll. Sometimes, if more implausible (by GM's reckoning), it would require a higher roll.
Stats? What stats?
I could not go back to those days. They might have worked for a twelve year old, but not for me now.
Edit:
I just remembered something important. We did have rules, of growing complexity. Basically, every time a described action succeeded, that set precedent. The player would try it again later, citing that they only needed a 4 to succeed on the same thing last time, so clearly it should be the same.
Years of accumulated precedent built a ruleset, a very awkward one.
I was saying just that awhile back, players relying on appeals to GM's sense of what is appropriate nowadays just seems inappropriate. The player is actually undermining his own agency by appealing to something that doesn't exist in the game; it reminds me of people doing rain dances for a change in weather, completely out of touch with reality, and forcing the GM to play actively for or against players.
TL;DR comepletely agree.Because, as we all know, in PF the GM's sense of what's appropriate plays no part. It doesn't affect the encounters, the NPCs reactions, the monsters actions or anything else in the gameworld. It doesn't even affect the many cases where the GM still has to decide on rules issues.
A good GM can decide such questions based on how he thinks it should work, not on being for or against the players, just like he'll decide...
You make a valid point, but maybe you missed mine; that's understandable because I did not illustrate it well. I was saying that players should pretend to not notice the man behind the curtain, if you will; and when it bleeds into character actions it SEEMS (maybe I'm wrong admittedly) to ruin their own agency in the game. I am saying that a player appealing for GM intervention or using their tastes to effect the game is a sort of meta game device, and is used as a crutch. This really doesn't happen in my games, obviously, although I've seen players rely heavily upon it in other games. I try to award player brownie point with out of game rewards, and characters within the game, I try not to confound the two. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see players breaking immersion by appealing to a GM for some sort of fudge, at least to me.
Here's an example: a character playing a rogue that can flat-foot an opponent for no apparent mechanical reason because off screen he bought a pizza.A GM who loves players to do backstory stuff, giving a player dark-vision suddenly because "he was in a dark prison for years in his background (suddenly in his background for argument's sake).
Get what I'm driving at?
This is a link to what Dungeon World looks like played and what the old school feel is all about. Pathfinder could do this but it would require a lot of people to alter some of their expectations. How Dungeon World Ruined Things
This is a link to what Dungeon World looks like played and what the old school feel is all about. Pathfinder could do this but it would require a lot of people to alter some of their expectations. How Dungeon World Ruined Things
I think it looks like fun, but can say that I usually never have these problems (on a good day, we all have a bad game every once in a while).
I have my players regularly tell me that my encounters are better and more interesting than other GM's they play with, and they don't even really know why; but it's simple to make fights not boring (even to a cleric) in three simple ways:Preparation: prepare every encounter to be fun, not monotonous fluff fights. Use different stuff in encounters, variation helps highlight every encounter as important.
Pace: go as fast as you possibly can, force the players to think fast, discourage long turns, indecisive players get bumped back in initiative. Sometimes strategy on the fly gets messy but its more fun.
Description: I actually split my brain from narrator and referee, the narrator never describes mechanics and only controls NPC's and descriptions of fights; referee GM does everything mechanical and the PC's rarely hear from him. I even use different tones to differentiate the two, from " the goblin runs at you, wildly swinging his horsechopper" in boisterous tones and "does 15 hit?" in a subdued manner.
It works, players get agitated visibly before a fight, I can see adrenaline pumping in the midst of it. I rarely get bored players, because I try hard at GMing, doing a lot of prep work to make each encounter good; I miss on some but it's rare. I do sometimes see a mechanical disconnect with players who get bogged down. Recently, one of my best players got a new phone that has become a huge distraction to me, him and the others; I'm hoping it solves itself before I have to talk to him as he's my best friend, but usually my knowledge of mechanics is enough to get us through any rough spots (and I also have one friend who is an invaluable rules-lawyer I can just let handle the light lifting).
It sounds like the guy in that thread is just burned out on PF or plays with a boring GM. My players won't leave me alone about my game, I get E-mails, phone calls, facebooked; I rarely get people bared at the table, then again I do kick distractions and bad players so maybe that has a little to do with it.
Most of my players are not too worried about sticking to the rules or knowing every little thing about the mechanics of the game. In fact, for the most part, they ignore that stuff.
For me, some of the quaintness and simplicity of the original game is missing. But then, I'm not sure that is entirely the fault of 3.x/Pathfinder. Maybe partly. But I think it also was simply the fact that I grew older, wiser, more experienced, and my personal perspectives on things changed. My own mind became more filled up and complicated, and my feelings on the whole thing were changing long before the advent of 3.x.
One thing that does help bring back some of the old feeling, is viewing some of the old illustrations from the original PHB and DMG. Must of the appeal of the game for me came from the claustrophobic feeling of these little black-and-white illustrations of dark rooms filled with dangerous people.
So I try to sneak descriptions into every adventure that echo the feel of those illustrations.
I personally feel that people erroneously lay blame for changes in the feel of their games on rules sets. I think if you're allowing the rules to ruin it for you, you're probably concentrating on the wrong thing, and blaming the wrong element for it. The fact is, your tastes will change with time, and everything in your life is going to feel different to you at different times. Rules can be made to govern any type of game with any type of feel. But "glory days" are usually one-time-only events, regardless of the game rules.
I say, move on and try to create a new "feel" for your game that you are also happy with. You can't go back in time. Try to get good with the here and now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we can petition Paizo to make their next Dragon's Demand style mega-module something to appeal to the old-school 1E/2E players and introduce the younger generation to some of what we've discussed nostalgically. These might include:
1. Rolling for character creation, or at least somewhat random character creation. Something I've played with is having players roll 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange as desired, and if one player rolls particularly well that set of rolls becomes the array for everyone. Then each player replaces on stat with 15+1d3. This captures some of the 1E/2E character creation, where you might have one really good attribute that is not a prime attribute.
2. Greater range of encounters. My observation is that modern encounter design keeps EL within +3/-3 of APL. If that range is increased to +/-5 or 6 that changes how PCs approach encounters. It encourages conserving resources, and makes an easy encounter something of a relief. This might help the fighter shine, the fighter doesn't have many limitations on using abilities or feats a certain number of times per day.
3. Less optimization and customization for the first few levels. I'm a big fan of PF customization and optimization, it makes the game generally more fun and a lot more player friendly for the first few levels. But limiting spells known and spell selection for the first 3 levels forces players to be creative for a few levels, especially with use of spells.
I'm sure there are more (and probably better suggestions) for recapturing the feel of AD&D. I prefer PF to AD&D by a lot, but there were a lot of fun things about AD&D (I wouldn't go back to spheres of influences for cleric spells, rolling for spells known at 1st level, or not learning spells as a magic-user when leveling up).
I am a fan of pathfinder. I love aspects and dislike others. I know the game could have a more sontaneous and organic combat/opposed action system. I love some of the character creation options. The fact you must have standardized magic items and quickly doesn't sit well with me and I believe that is a symptom of the one of the challenges the developers must overcome. I completely understand that when some people hear others may find parts of the game they are comfortable with to be detrimental to the game and the hobby they will have a visceral reaction. We must remember our goal is a fun immersive game with an organic feel to the world. Goodnight and good gaming to all.