| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
While it may not be your fault, it is an emergent behavior obstacle that hinders the enjoyment of the games you run. I.e., it is your problem.
Where the distinction between "rules light" systems and the "Mother, May I" complaint lies is this: Rules light systems try to use (and re-use) the fewest number of rules necessary to get the job done. To accomplish this, this is "GM rule zero" of lightweight RPGs:
"Unless something interesting happens from the action failing, let the characters succeed. Only roll dice if there's an interesting outcome from failure."
The GM's job is to describe the world, present hazards and risks, and make sure that there are interesting outcomes for failure.
Dungeon World has, for the vast majority of game play, four 'moves' (response to threat/outcome determinations): Hack & Slash, Volley Fire, Defend Something, Defy Danger.
All of them use the same resolution mechanic:
1) Describe the outcome you want. Be evocative, and be sure to name the PC you're trying to aid in your description.
2) Roll 2d6 + STAT.
On a 10+, you get the desired outcome; in a few cases, you get the desired outcome, and a choice to take damage to do additional damage.
On a 7-9, you get the outcome you want, but the GM has a consequence back to you. This may be "You get your hit, but you can choose between losing your shield, or having the monster do his damage back to you" for a melee attack, or "You get your damage, but you get to choose between using up one of your units of ammunition, or being forced to move to get your shot and you'll need to Defy Danger next round to avoid getting smashed." for Volley Fire.
On a 6 or less, your desired outcome didn't happen, the GM usually has damage done to you AND something else for you to worry about. The good news is you get an XP point to level up with.
3) Your "damage" is defined by your character class as a die. Your weapon will have special attributes for doing more damage, getting through heavy armor, or giving you bonuses in other circumstances. Some of your level-up abilities translate into extra damage dice for certain classes.
For me - and other people's mileage may vary - this is faster, easier, and paints MUCH more memorable combats than:
"OK, I move here..." "Here's the AoO." (dice roll) "Does a 21 hit you?" "Nope." "OK, you get past the AoO." "Then I move here, and attack." (Dice roll) "One hit, one miss." "OK, I roll 1d8+9 damage." "OK, he's still up."
The thing I dislike about "Build options" for customization is that your combat style should largely be a fashion accessory. The game works best if your hit chances are fitting into a particular range, and your damage does a given percentage of damage to an NPC's hit points with a single hit.
Instead, we have a game where two-weapon fighting is so inferior to whacking things with a two-handed weapon, and where moving in combat is such a bad idea past level 8+ that we get AM BARBARIAN's rage-louse-pants build.
| 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.
Why wait for Paizo to reinvent Dungeon World when Dungeon World already exists, and can run in Golarion if you like Golarion's flavor?
I've not seen the Beginner's Box rulebook, but I suspect that "print play books, pass them around, ask questions, start game" is about as fast as setting up a Beginner's Box game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The game you get is the overlap of a Venn diagram of rewards.
The circles are:
What the GM rewards (which is something that you do, and then feel that other GMs who do it are metagaming)
What the other players reward (usually this is socialization or "That was awesome."
What the game system rewards.
I prefer to move certain types of rewards to different circles. It's a preference pattern.
I vastly prefer that character advancement come from roleplaying rather than murder-hobo'ing.
I vastly prefer that combat prowess reflect what you describe in the battle scene rather than what you did window-shopping in Hero Lab. (Don't get me wrong, I know the call of making a cool build that nobody's seen before...but I'd rather that description and play at the game table matter more than four hours of spreadsheet fiddling.)
You wrote:
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 Mother May I and GM bribery. It's a function of what the GM rewards, rather than what the system rewards.
Rules light RPGs still have systemic rewards - they just tend to be tied to player interaction rather than solo character building.
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.
Why wait for Paizo to reinvent Dungeon World when Dungeon World already exists, and can run in Golarion if you like Golarion's flavor?
I've not seen the Beginner's Box rulebook, but I suspect that "print play books, pass them around, ask questions, start game" is about as fast as setting up a Beginner's Box game.
I think part of it is that I enjoy the community here and want to see the hobby return to its roots. Another big part is I am hoping Devs will read posts like this and actually improve their product.
That said, If I can get a group together in my tiny town I am playing DW asap. The whole system is what Holmes edition should have been. I am making a 'monk' class though. It just doesn't feel like roleplaying without it. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a "monk" playbook (called The Initiate) in one of the bundles for the game on RPGNow. That bundle also has non-Vancian versions of the Wizard and Cleric.
I may run a DW game online with MapTools in May.
There is a "monk" playbook (called The Initiate) in one of the bundles for the game on RPGNow. That bundle also has non-Vancian versions of the Wizard and Cleric.
I may run a DW game online with MapTools in May.
If you do please consider me as a player. You know how to find me.
I don't find the AD&D thief's starting skills poor. Trying to pass d100 checks in the Lovecraft system is harder.
Also don't forget, a thief could easily level faster than the party, and once you levelled a bit, some of those checks were easy (but you could always fail).
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.The game you get is the overlap of a Venn diagram of rewards.
The circles are:
What the GM rewards (which is something that you do, and then feel that other GMs who do it are metagaming)
What the other players reward (usually this is socialization or "That was awesome."
What the game system rewards.I prefer to move certain types of rewards to different circles. It's a preference pattern.
I vastly prefer that character advancement come from roleplaying rather than murder-hobo'ing.
I vastly prefer that combat prowess reflect what you describe in the battle scene rather than what you did window-shopping in Hero Lab. (Don't get me wrong, I know the call of making a cool build that nobody's seen before...but I'd rather that description and play at the game table matter more than four hours of spreadsheet fiddling.)
You wrote:
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 Mother May I and GM bribery. It's a function of what the GM rewards, rather than what the system rewards.
Rules light RPGs still have systemic rewards - they just tend to be tied to player interaction rather than solo character building.
I'm sorry AdAstraGames, but I don't quite get you, here specifically: What the GM rewards (which is something that you do, and then feel that other GMs who do it are metagaming)
What the other players reward (usually this is socialization or "That was awesome."What the game system rewards.
maybe I'm just reading it wrong or something, but it's not processing. I was saying that characters actions, if they are meant to appease a GM, us a sort of metagame. Characters don't understand the concept of GM, players do, but character actions like that are incongruous. I thought the metaphor of rain-dancing was apt.
Idk, I was saying GM bribery was forgoing player agency, that's all I guess; do you disagree?
I'm also not saying that I never reward players for ingenuity, just never answer direct intervention appeals. I try to give players as much "agency" as possible; meaning they can do as they wish. I try not to intercede so I don't give off Deux Ex Machina vibes. I try to be creative well in advance, in preparation, and show up at the table and let the characters do there thing; and just sit back and watch.
I want players to be creative, but I guess I'm not showing how I reward that. I might have a PC interested in thassilonian history find a thassilonian puzzle that can lead to a buried archive; a rogue might get a chance to join "the guild" etcetra; in-game rewards as opposed to rewards from on high. Character development, maybe that's the same thing you're talking about and I'm just confused.
I do think it's not cool that everyone gets the rogues schtick in these games, it's like the carbon molecule, always getting passed around at parties.
|
'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 agree strongly with this - that was what 2nd ed felt like too. When 3.0 came out I was amazed at how reasonable, rational and sane everything seemed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dungeon World looks very fun; I may have to check that out. Besides that though I've yet to find another game system I want to play besides PF. My personal experience (yours will be different):
1e: try whatever you like but I, as DM, will decide everything so make me happy or I'll kill you.
2e: as 1e, but maybe you get a kit to build your character in.
3e: oh, you're the player? Hang on, let give you these 50 books of increasing power creep. Go make your GM cry
4e: (in best SpongeBob/normal voice) hey, how you doin; nice weather we're havin. I'm normal (goes from pock-marked sponge to smooth, shiny completely homogenous yellow dude...)
Rune Quest: ... what?
Palladium: roll ALL the percentiles...
White Wolf: yeah, it's dice-light, and no rules man, c'mon inside. Sure it's dark; we play by candlelight and listen to NIN while wearing all black. Now have some red wine...
GURPs: ...but it's a Tuesday and the moon's full so roll these 3 d6's and hope
Marvel Super Heroes: these rules all contradict one another and there's tons of gray area. Want to just read some comics instead?
Now again, your experience will vary. That last one though, Marvel; that was the closest I ever got to what Dungeon World is doing now. I'm talking about the old 1980's version of the game.
Basically you were a hero (either a comic book guy or one you generated) and you fought villains. Their combat rules were supposed to be cinematic and based on percentile rolls. There's a chart with varying levels of success and then villains have health points and such.
Anyway, the rules get confusing, there's gray areas and things you see in the comics don't directly translate. After a while I was only making my players roll for stuff when they had to do something really critical. Inadvertently I was also doing the DW thing where if success was the only way to advance the game but the dice showed no success, I'd handwave things.
One time there were a bunch of heroes fighting a villain on a rooftop and they were trying to keep said villain from escaping. One of the players had a staff she could make a thunderclap with to stun a victim with. Well the player rolled and didn't succeed but I wanted them to take the guy down, so basically I said that she swings wild and THOOM! The villain goes down, the other players go down, and the thunderclap has also done sonic damage to the roof...that's about to collapse. Now the player has to decide to fly away with her 2 companions or the villain; there's not time for both.
So for me I don't know that I really liked 1e all that much. What I did like was making stuff up with my friends. Since I can do that in PF now I don't know that I'd want to backpedal.
The game you get is the overlap of a Venn diagram of rewards.The circles are:
What the GM rewards (which is something that you do, and then feel that other GMs who do it are metagaming)
What the other players reward (usually this is socialization or "That was awesome."
What the game system rewards.I'm also not saying that I never reward players for ingenuity, just never answer direct intervention appeals. I try to give players as much "agency" as possible; meaning they can do as they wish. I try not to intercede so I don't give off Deux Ex Machina vibes. I try to be creative well in advance, in preparation, and show up at the table and let the characters do there thing; and just sit back and watch.
I want players to be creative, but I guess I'm not showing how I reward that. I might have a PC interested in thassilonian history find a thassilonian puzzle that can lead to a buried archive; a rogue might get a chance to join "the guild" etcetra; in-game rewards as opposed to rewards from on high. Character development, maybe that's the same thing you're talking about and I'm just confused.
The argument I'm working against - and that you explicitly sided with - is that all rules light systems devolve down to "Mother May I." and specialized pleading, combined with the player with the highest real world Charisma modifier getting what they want and building a torturous set of "house rule" patches.
They don't.
The cardinal precept of rules light roleplaying games is: "Allow it unless there's an interesting result from them failing. If there is, make them roll."
The "I bought you pizza/gave you blowjobs/tacked on crawling out of the Dungeons of Oziap between sessions" is an example of bad GM rewards; the implicit link made - and called an explicit link in the posts you agreed with - is that rules light RPGs rely on GM rewards more than systemic rewards.
They don't.
What they absolutely do is tie some of the systemic rewards to player interaction, in some cases. For example, in Dungeon World, one of your sources of XP is resolving bonds or acting according to your alignment. This is done at the end of the session and each player describes how an action in the game either resolved a bond between their character and another character, or how they performed and action which fulfilled one of the tenets of their moral code, and this requires doing so in front of other players, and with their tacit approval.
It's as far from "Mother May I" as you get, because you aren't pleading to the GM, you're invoking the memories of what went on in the game.
Mark, my experience is almost diametrically opposed to yours in playing games. I believe it comes down to the group of people you are with and of course you. Since only you are able to interpret what you were feeling while you played.
That said, I quit playing AD&D before the second edition rules and never, ever, had any of the unpleasant experiences you did. Perhaps I was lucky in the groups and players I ran across.
The only rule system I used that did not work at all was Lore Master. It was the most tables intensive system I have yet to see. I do know people who swear by it and a modified form Middle Earth Role Playing was quite playable.
I will be playing Pathfinder but sometime soon I am hitting Dungeon World. If I can keep the feeling of old school with Pathfinder great. If I get more immersion with DW well that's the path I'll probably go down.
|
|
1e: try whatever you like but I, as DM, will decide everything so make me happy or I'll kill you.
2e: as 1e, but maybe you get a kit to build your character in.
To me it was more like as a DM going "what? 4th level characters can't deal with a Will-'o-Wisp? How was I supposed to know?"
I like CR as a tool for GMs to figure out of the party can probably handle monsters. No more than that really, but it's pretty convenient.
4e: (in best SpongeBob/normal voice) hey, how you doin; nice weather we're havin. I'm normal (goes from pock-marked sponge to smooth, shiny completely homogenous yellow dude...)
I thought it was a fun board game, but a bit fuzzy outside combat.
White Wolf: yeah, it's dice-light, and no rules man, c'mon inside. Sure it's dark; we play by candlelight and listen to NIN while wearing all black. Now have some red wine...
I like this one. Actually the part about red wine is mostly true. Oh, and candlelight is a lot nicer than fluorescent light, fair enough. With enough candles you can actually see what you're doing pretty well. The "no rules" part has a lot to do with WW being really bad at writing balanced rules, so using them RAW rarely works. But the core of the system is very nicely lightweight, that's true.
1e: try whatever you like but I, as DM, will decide everything so make me happy or I'll kill you.
2e: as 1e, but maybe you get a kit to build your character in.
To me it was more like as a DM going "what? 4th level characters can't deal with a Will-'o-Wisp? How was I supposed to know?"
I like CR as a tool for GMs to figure out of the party can probably handle monsters. No more than that really, but it's pretty convenient.
That I do like, though sometimes it seems more like a straightjacket than a guideline.
Or some GMs who see it as a challenge: Can I kill the party with a technically doable CR encounter?
But having some guidelines beyond gut feel is a good thing.
This is where something like Dungeon World is so revolutionary. Encounters are not a chance to TPK but a way to interact. A failed roll isn't just a challenge but an opportunity. It is harder for the GM and players to improvise but the rewards and fluidity are immense.
This is where something like Dungeon World is so revolutionary. Encounters are not a chance to TPK but a way to interact. A failed roll isn't just a challenge but an opportunity. It is harder for the GM and players to improvise but the rewards and fluidity are immense.1e: try whatever you like but I, as DM, will decide everything so make me happy or I'll kill you.
2e: as 1e, but maybe you get a kit to build your character in.
To me it was more like as a DM going "what? 4th level characters can't deal with a Will-'o-Wisp? How was I supposed to know?"
I like CR as a tool for GMs to figure out of the party can probably handle monsters. No more than that really, but it's pretty convenient.
That I do like, though sometimes it seems more like a straightjacket than a guideline.
Or some GMs who see it as a challenge: Can I kill the party with a technically doable CR encounter?
But having some guidelines beyond gut feel is a good thing.
I'll have to look at it more closely.
There's got to be some level of difference to the challenge, right? It matters whether the same group is fighting a single wolf or an huge dragon, doesn't it?
Some things should still be too risky and some too easy to bother with.
Yes there are degrees of difficulty. Others have posted the links to the game in this thread. I am not very linky but you can also google it. It is so simple you can learn the rules in less than an hour but it covers everything from goblins to purple worms.
The way you adjust encounter risk in Dungeon World isn't to slap penalties onto the die roll, making failure more likely.
It's to make the consequences of failure more dangerous.
If you roll a 7-9 when attacking a wolf, you do your damage, the wolf probably does 4 damage, minus the DR of your armor.
If you roll a 7-9 when attacking a dragon the size of a small house, you do your damage minus the dragon's DR, the dragon does about 18 damage, and his breath weapon may remove some of your gear as part of the process...plus, you'll have to make a Defy Danger check to get close enough to hit him, which is another chance to take his 18 damage before you get to attack.
(A fighter with an 18 Con has 28 HPs total. They don't go up by level. In plate armor, he's got DR 3. A pair of successful dragon hits will still have him bargaining with the God of the Dead.)
The lack of combinatorial ticky-tack bonuses and penalties (other than +1/-1 to specific stat rolls) is one of the things I really like about DW.
I am not a fan of 4 attacks per round, magic item marts, etc, etc. I found when I ran a high level game I had to spend entire sessions helping my lazy players level up their PCs and "shopping" for magic items (long story). Combat took forever past level 12. I also ran a 15th level AD&D adventure and things weren't quite so bad. I prefer the feat system and customization of 3.5, but dislike the high level play of 3.5. So.. it's not AD&D, granted. Only AD&D is AD&D. I like prefer story and fast combat. E8 would give me story, fast combat and easy GMing...Bah. E6 would be going in the opposite way from AD&D. AD&D had VERY powerful characters (I have one demi-god and two Immortal heroes, for example). Sure, D20 has 'rule bloat" but E6 does nothing to trim RULES, it trims PC power, and allows the DM to run a game without thinking too much.
So I've been looking for ways to mitigate that.Two solutions I've been playing with should I GM again are this.
A) run a E6 (or more likely E8) game. If you're not familiar with this variant, it's D&D/pathfinder played the same as always but players stop leveling once they hit a level cap the GM determines- level 6 typically though the GM could set it higher (I prefer 8). Advancement there after is only by a feat. So it stops rule bloat to a certain extent. You advance to level 8 or so, then every so many xp's the PCs earn feats.
Robert, you might consider looking at the Basic Fantasy RPG. I spent far too long trying to fine tune E8 Pathfinder into my own personal RPG ideal before realizing that all the work had been done for me by at least one person in the OSR. (Of course, I house-ruled a few things for BFRPG, but I'm compulsive like that.)
|
The argument I'm working against - and that you explicitly sided with - is that all rules light systems devolve down to "Mother May I." and specialized pleading, combined with the player with the highest real world Charisma modifier getting what they want and building a torturous set of "house rule" patches.They don't.
The cardinal precept of rules light roleplaying games is: "Allow it unless there's an interesting result from them failing. If there is, make them roll."
The "I bought you pizza/gave you blowjobs/tacked on crawling out of the Dungeons of Oziap between sessions" is an example of bad GM rewards; the implicit link made - and called an explicit link in the posts you agreed with - is that rules light RPGs rely on GM rewards more than systemic rewards.
They don't.
What they absolutely do is tie some of the systemic rewards to player interaction, in some cases. For example, in Dungeon World, one of your sources of XP is resolving bonds or acting according to your alignment. This is done at the end of the session and each player describes how an action in the game either resolved a bond between their character and another character, or how they performed and action which fulfilled one of the tenets of their moral code, and this requires doing so in front of other players, and with their tacit approval.
It's as far from "Mother May I" as you get, because you aren't pleading to the GM, you're invoking the memories of what went on in the game.
A crappy GM in a rules light game is still going to be a crappy GM no matter the system.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies. Part of the fun of AD&D was actually playing a game, and not creating a narrative. At its core, AD&D was a tactical "individual as a unit" cooperative war game/fantasy simulation. Failure and death were acceptable outcomes, and sometimes a character's untimely, completely random, death was entertaining or just really funny. It was, after all, just a game.
From reading these forums (and I get the PITA it is to make new characters in 3x/pf), character death is something that should be scripted, or just avoided all together. The game have evolved into more collective story telling with a game overlay from a game that you could overlay some story onto. Nothing wrong with that style, but it is the antithesis of what AD&D promoted as the standard style of play. So, the first barrier to overcome would be avoid the "character is special" thought that is the norm in modern D&D based fantasy gaming.
The second thing is almost as unpalatable to the modern role player (roll players still do it, and probably would get more out of AD&D than someone more into the narrative aspects of role playing) is that AD&D involved a lot of meta-gaming. It was more about what the player could figure out (an example is the "sea change" reference in the play example of the AD&D DMG) than what skills the character took.
If you can find a group that can get down with that kind of play, you could probably emulate some of the feel of the AD&D (at least 1e) days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's right, HD (it's cool, my initials are HD, too, man) if you want that AD&D feel, just show up to the table with several back up characters and don't play it safe. You'll have a blast! :)
Edit: Oops, I was the ninja this time (sort of) and the flow-of-conversation got totally weird.
|
|
Well, yeah, y'all were the engine that evolved the game. But most of the players I knew had a plot, and a story, etc, but they didn't stop playing it as a game. That is, the dice did what they did, and sometimes the plot had an unexpected death because Fate was cruel.
You just started using the concept as a vehicle for collective story telling with game elements earlier than some ;-)
Yeah death is pretty inevitable given the fragility of low level characters and the number of "save vs poison or die" effects around the place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies. Part of the fun of AD&D was actually playing a game, and not creating a narrative. At its core, AD&D was a tactical "individual as a unit" cooperative war game/fantasy simulation. Failure and death were acceptable outcomes, and sometimes a character's untimely, completely random, death was entertaining or just really funny. It was, after all, just a game.
From reading these forums (and I get the PITA it is to make new characters in 3x/pf), character death is something that should be scripted, or just avoided all together. The game have evolved into more collective story telling with a game overlay from a game that you could overlay some story onto. Nothing wrong with that style, but it is the antithesis of what AD&D promoted as the standard style of play. So, the first barrier to overcome would be avoid the "character is special" thought that is the norm in modern D&D based fantasy gaming.
I agree with this strongly. Also, I'm now playing a couple rather weak characters, and I find myself thinking that should I die, oh, too bad, chance for a better character. It's quite liberating to actually take heroic risks, because this character isn't the most precious ever. No perfectly rolled stats that must survive at the cost of being a coward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am enjoying this thread for his varied people's impressions of what the essence of AD&D is. Some people are talking about how it was a more rules light system that emphasized storytelling, while others are saying it was about combat and adventuring without telling a narrative. Almost as if the "essence" of AD&D is just nostalgia or something.
It's just like it will be when people fawn over thr good old days of D&D 3rd edition 10 years from now.
|
|
Robert, you might consider looking at the Basic Fantasy RPG. I spent far too long trying to fine tune E8 Pathfinder into my own personal RPG ideal before realizing that all the work had been done for me by at least one person in the OSR. (Of course, I house-ruled a few things for BFRPG, but I'm compulsive like that.)
I've been skimming this. It brings back a lot of nostalgia, although for the most part it seems less erratic than the real old stuff. But there are gems like this:
Make sure not to double-count corners on walls that are 5' thick or thicker - count the length of only one face. When determining wall length for round walls and towers, approximate pi by 3, since the inner face of the wall has a shorter circumference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know what I miss and want to recapture? Newness. Yeah, there were a lot of "dark" games when I played 1e and 2e. Heck, we played in a dude's basement primarily and the walls were cinderblock painted black and grey even! But those old games were fun 'cause we were kids and made stuff up all the time.
We didn't have an internet or even a lot of video games. Even though it was the 90's and some of that existed we didn't have it. So we played in a vacuum. To us it was a novel idea to add the Predator to a game, complete with a crashed space ship. It wasn't until later that I realized that folks had been mashing up their fave movies and D&D for years.
My point is, recapturing the essence of the old games, for me, would mean un-learning everything I've picked up over the past 30 years. Thinking that a magic sword is really cool instead of a weapon needed to get me through the next tier of monsters; making a land ruled by a vampire and finding that original instead of a trope.
But I can't do that can I?
No, innocence only goes away, it can't come back. So too with newness. Once you've lost a sense of wonder it's really hard to reclaim. And that was the upside of AD&D for me: wonder. I wonder if I'll survive this encounter; I wonder what this staff is; I wonder if there's a village priest to un-curse me. Now, no matter what the game system, I've learned enough to watch for answers both in the game and in the participants.
Aside from that, going back to older editions then just means: less rules, more areas of gray for debate, and math that goes down instead of up. Without wonder, they are just games; exercises in mechanics leading to one of 2 possible outcomes.
I'm not trying to be depressing. The point I'm trying to make is, for me, it really doesn't matter what system I'm using. I like PF just 'cause it fits my current gaming style, but honestly it could be ANY system. It's ME that needs to change.
I need to create my own sense of wonder. I am in charge of my own happiness, not a rules system. If I acknowledge and accept that as my reality, then everything else is just semantics.
So I choose to go on, to keep dreaming. I may never use most of the stuff in my notebooks and laptop, but I'll keep making stuff up. And if I'm just making up what's already been done, then maybe I'm in good company then.
What a great post.
Yeah, novelty and newness, it is why I as a dm try to hard to create something new and campaign unlike others, and it is why I am always looking for good, exciting and novel games - to go back in time.
:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't want my players coming to me with creativity in how they build their character. That's not real creativity. What I want is a more rules light system that limits the players build options. That way, their creativity is limited to finding creative ways to interact in the world that I at arbitrate as the DM.
I'd much rather have discussions with my players about their creativity when I control the rules, than when they can simply point to how a boom says their power works.
What I want is a more rules light system that limits the players build options. That way, their creativity is limited to finding creative ways to interact in the world that I at arbitrate as the DM.
I'd much rather have discussions with my players about their creativity when I control the rules, than when they can simply point to how a boom says their power works.
You, sir, have expressed the main reason why people get into Dungeon World.
You should check it out. Links to it are in earlier posts by me in this thread, including two free-to-use and totally legit online publications of the rules.
|
|
...The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies. Part of the fun of AD&D was actually playing a game, and not creating a narrative. At its core, AD&D was a tactical "individual as a unit" cooperative war game/fantasy simulation. Failure and death were acceptable outcomes, and sometimes a character's untimely, completely random, death was entertaining or just really funny. It was, after all, just a game.
From reading these forums (and I get the PITA it is to make new characters in 3x/pf), character death is something that should be scripted, or just avoided all together. The game have evolved into more collective story telling with a game overlay from a game that you could overlay some story onto. Nothing wrong with that style, but it is the antithesis of what AD&D promoted as the standard style of play. So, the first barrier to overcome would be avoid the "character is special" thought that is the norm in modern D&D based fantasy gaming.
The second thing is almost as unpalatable to the modern role player (roll players still do it, and probably would get more out of AD&D than someone more into the narrative aspects of role playing) is that AD&D involved a lot of meta-gaming. It was more about what the player could figure out (an example is the "sea change" reference in the play example of the AD&D DMG) than what skills the character took.
If you can find a group that can get down with that kind of play, you could probably emulate some of the feel of the AD&D (at least 1e) days.
Just for a counterpoint, though I know that's commonly considered part of the AD&D style, the groups I played with never played that way. It was always plot/character driven and as low on lethality as later versions.
So that's not part of the appeal for
Yeah. YMMV. But I'm pretty sure most of those with a different AD&D style probably started late in the 1e era or with 2e, after the evolution from game to collective story telling started. There were community theater type groups in the early days, sure, but (if meeting people at cons and playing various places in the area) personal experience lends me to believe that the majority in the late '70s/early '80s were kicking it what is generally considered "old school".
I've seen both actually, and (in my opinion) I think Gygax did both. I actually think he was a little soft on some of the regulars and especially the "kids" that he DM'd. On the otherhand, his soft...may be considered a Killer by some on these boards.
The more narrative approach definitely got the upperhand with 2e. If I had to put a place where a more narrative approach became more popular than a simple dungeon approach, I'd probably put it around the time when Dragonlance was coming out. I'd say you see a distinct shift in playstyles at that point.
But I'd also say it was there all along as well, but perhaps not as strongly as it came to be later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want is a more rules light system that limits the players build options. That way, their creativity is limited to finding creative ways to interact in the world that I at arbitrate as the DM.
I'd much rather have discussions with my players about their creativity when I control the rules, than when they can simply point to how a boom says their power works.
You, sir, have expressed the main reason why people get into Dungeon World.
You should check it out. Links to it are in earlier posts by me in this thread, including two free-to-use and totally legit online publications of the rules.
I was being sarcastic. I honestly find this pining for the worst part of Old School design, purposefully leaving rules to DM adjudication and control for the sake of "creativity", idiotic.