I just called it the big boy game as short for the actual game. I seriously think that it was totally projecting to feel slighted by my terminology, as I meant no offense at all.And then you did it again by calling it "the actual game." It's no more actual than the less-heavy rules version. Let go of the idea that more rules is in any way objectively superior, and you've got it.
I'm not, you're projecting some characterizations onto me that I never made. I'm not arguing with you, I'm not attacking your position or stance, I'm not relegating you're wishes as childish, I never said the actual game was objectively superior; you are mischaracterizing my statements. The reason I called it the actual game is because it is in fact the actual game; a rules-light game isn't less than it, but the actual game as is isn't rules-light, is it? I really can't believe you have that big a deal with my terminology, I already said I'm not intending to offend you or anyone; and placing your problems with my wording at my feet isn't cool.
TL;DR I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, quit projecting.
I just called it the big boy game as short for the actual game. I seriously think that it was totally projecting to feel slighted by my terminology, as I meant no offense at all.And then you did it again by calling it "the actual game." It's no more actual than the less-heavy rules version. Let go of the idea that more rules is in any way objectively superior, and you've got it.I'm not, you're projecting some characterizations onto me that I never made. I'm not arguing with you, I'm not attacking your position or stance, I'm not relegating you're wishes as childish, I never said the actual game was objectively superior; you are mischaracterizing my statements. The reason I called it the actual game is because it is in fact the actual game; a rules-light game isn't less than it, but the actual game as is isn't rules-light, is it? I really can't believe you have that big a deal with my terminology, I already said I'm not intending to offend you or anyone; and placing your problems with my wording at my feet isn't cool.
TL;DR I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, quit projecting.
I'm very clearly an advocate of lighter weight games here. :)
Yeah, it's easy to read your words as "well, that's a nice *starter* system, but wait until you play the actual game..."
I think Pathfinder has gotten to the splatbook explosion state of its publication cycle. When 3.0 and later 3.5 got to this stage, they came out with new editions.
The economics of publishing say that a book with more character customization options sells 4x to 6x as many copies as a bestiary or adventure path, for about 50-60% more work in-house.
I don't begrudge Paizo a viable economic model, but in terms of what this has done for the game, Pathfinder has become less "Hey, let's play Pathfinder" and more "OK, Fred, what broketastic rules loophole have you brought THIS time?" when I play it at the store.
...quit projecting.The rules-light version is just as much "the actual game" as the rules-heavy version. That's the point that you're refusing to see. Since actual means "existing in fact," both versions are "actual" games, and the one you prefer is not one iota more actual.
And I didn't project for an instant; you were saying it. You just didn't intend to and didn't think you were, because your word choice was poor. Start using the language with greater precision, and you won't be called out on it.
Actually, The beginners box doesn't work past 1st level and an actual rules-light doesn't exist; so the game we have, as in now, is the actual game in fact. Look I'm not here to be petty, if you still take slight at my terminology after I tried to mend fences then so be it; I was not trying to offend but am not taking responsibility for people being over-sensitive. I'll just chalk it up to collateral damage, btw check's in the mail.
It's funny too, because I'm also advocating a rules-light as we've been calling it; I even got my friend to run a game like that because he's kinda fuzzy on some rules (aren't we all?). It was an immense amount of fun with A FIRST TIME GM! I just don't want two completely separate games; if it says Pathfinder then I should be able to show up at the game confident that I'll be playing a Pathfinder game.
It's funny too, because I'm also advocating a rules-light as we've been calling it; I even got my friend to run a game like that because he's kinda fuzzy on some rules (aren't we all?).
Why should we assume that everyone's fuzzy on all the rules in the RPG?
If the RPG rules are simple enough, it's possible to explain ALL of the rules in about 30 minutes while five people are building their first characters.
See, just a miscommunication :)
Nice mediating, thejeff!
By the way, thejeff, did the description of DW combat help you, or was it gibberish?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, this thread is rather old and when I joined in about a week ago, it was talking about ways to make a PF game feel old school. I can understand now why people thought I was saying "mine is better than yours"; I'm not. I said way back that I think it's possible have an old school approach in PF, but new school players might feel adrift. I've played games that had that old school feel, and try to quantify what it is exactly, it wasn't the rules. I feel it was the GM and players approach to the game. Now most games are purely narrative driven, whereas in the older games it was driven by.... Idk, exploration? The GM's of yesterday made worlds, and let the PC's act on them as they will; not all GM's but in my estimation the majority. The GM could be as creative as he wished during world/dungeon building, but the carryover from wargaming was the trust that the GM was an impartial referee. It left the players in control at the table creatively, and the GM with the pride of the PC's interacting with a "realistic" world.
Nowadays everything comes down to plot, GM's fudge, Deus Ex Machina, Patrons are the GM in disguise; older GM's would probably bristle at this.
The old school GM I have been referring to sat in and watched one of my games and we talked about our differing approaches, both are valid, but aren't in the same ballpark of game.
|
Actually, The beginners box doesn't work past 1st level and an actual rules-light doesn't exist; so the game we have, as in now, is the actual game in fact. Look I'm not here to be petty, if you still take slight at my terminology after I tried to mend fences then so be it; I was not trying to offend but am not taking responsibility for people being over-sensitive. I'll just chalk it up to collateral damage, btw check's in the mail....quit projecting.The rules-light version is just as much "the actual game" as the rules-heavy version. That's the point that you're refusing to see. Since actual means "existing in fact," both versions are "actual" games, and the one you prefer is not one iota more actual.
And I didn't project for an instant; you were saying it. You just didn't intend to and didn't think you were, because your word choice was poor. Start using the language with greater precision, and you won't be called out on it.
The Beginner Box isn't the Alpha and Omega of rules-light games. For example, Dungeon World has been.mentioned.extensively in this discussion. It isn't Pathfinder Jr edition, it is its own complete game system.
My personal favorite is Swords & Wizardry....again, its own complete game, not a primer for Pathfinder.
Edit: not as relevent after the last few posts before this one.
Gygax wasn't a Killer DM, either.I think most of that reputation comes from Tomb of Horrors. Which, from what I've heard, he mainly wrote as a response to criticism that some of his stuff was too easy.
Sorta. A couple of his players were bragging they were unstoppable, i.e. PC hubris. So he did ToH and then re-put it out for a Con game, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, a lot of people who dislike simpler systems dislike them because of that feature. When making a game breaking monster is trivial, there's no challenge in doing it...and that means that, well, gasp, they have to actually care about what other players are doing with their characters.
This is so full of condescension (and barely hidden Stormwind Fallacy) that I now know there is nothing for me here.
Enjoy your games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people are bringing up this DW stuff...to tell the truth...I'm on a Paizo board and mostly about Pathfinder.
Why aren't we talking about PF here?
Beyond the point that I think it IS possible to recapture the essence of AD&D in pathfinder, I think that if you want a simpler ruleset, the answer was also already given.
Instead of the CRB rules, get the BB and play the BB rules. You can extend the classes (though some will need some heavy modification perhaps, like the Monk) up through level 20, but keep the basic rules and such from the BB.
Use that as the base ruleset without ever having to go learn a new ruleset (DW).
PS: I admit, I know NOTHING about DW. It may be a system I enjoy, I have no idea, but the current system I'm playing in is PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD&D Feel is hard/nigh impossible to get in Pathfinder because of a wide range of design assumptions built into the game.
There is no "single failed save, you're dead" trap in Pathfinder, because the amount of work needed to make a Pathfinder character is such that this would be horribly unpopular. In AD&D, you're going to lose party members due to dumb-ass bad luck. Pathfinder assumes regular access to essential (and to me, somewhat boring) magic items. In AD&D, magic items tend to only be found in story-important locations. The two are directly incompatible.
Because the AD&D rules were both voluminous, and, well, full of holes, logical inconsistencies, and flat out badly written, a lot of AD&D games relied on "player figures out the puzzle/problem/talks their way past..." which encourages a looser, more fluid style of play, and a bit more back-and-forth between GM and players.
I pointed out Dungeon World as a system that does get AD&D "feel" in a simpler game that, while not directly compatible with Pathfinder, is similar enough that the transition isn't that hard. It makes that back-and-forth dialog between GM and players as a fundamental expectation for how the rules work.
We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."
Some people asked for more information, I provided it.
Indeed, a lot of people who dislike simpler systems dislike them because of that feature. When making a game breaking monster is trivial, there's no challenge in doing it...and that means that, well, gasp, they have to actually care about what other players are doing with their characters.This is so full of condescension (and barely hidden Stormwind Fallacy) that I now know there is nothing for me here.
Enjoy your games.
And you enjoy yours. No condescension was meant.
At today's game at the game store, I saw a 6th level Orc Bloodline Admixture Wizard Arcanist show up with a 10d6+11 Fireball spell. Utterly wrecked the PFS scenario we were playing. The player was really looking forward to 8th level, when his Wayang Spell Hunter would let him Empower that puppy as a 4th level spell slot.
As I get older, I have less and less desire to play with people whose creative outlet is centered on character builds. The difference between Pun-Pun and an optimized summoner is only one of degree, not kind.
To paraphrase Roy Batty...
I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe... heavens oracles Prismatic Spraying demon lords to sleep. I watched hordes of giants shredded by pouncing eidolons under Haste. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like...tears... in... rain. Time... to die...
I consider "get five people through character creation and the adventure started in 30 minutes" to be a desirable feature. I've never seen this in Pathfinder, even the Beginner Box.
If you want to play AD&D, why not play AD&D? PF is for PF. It's not like AD&D stopped existing, the rules are still out there and very easy to find.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people are bringing up this DW stuff...to tell the truth...I'm on a Paizo board and mostly about Pathfinder.
Why aren't we talking about PF here?
Beyond the point that I think it IS possible to recapture the essence of AD&D in pathfinder, I think that if you want a simpler ruleset, the answer was also already given.
Instead of the CRB rules, get the BB and play the BB rules. You can extend the classes (though some will need some heavy modification perhaps, like the Monk) up through level 20, but keep the basic rules and such from the BB.
Use that as the base ruleset without ever having to go learn a new ruleset (DW).
PS: I admit, I know NOTHING about DW. It may be a system I enjoy, I have no idea, but the current system I'm playing in is PF.
Why is there less talk about pathfinder? Because people are suggesting other systems to get the old feel back again. For some simpler systems is the answer, and not pathfinder.
However, I will say that playing with some other beginners with a new pathfinder dm does feel a bit old school of late (really enjoying it too). A major difference being the time it takes to make mid level characters. Urrrrrrgh. Especially when approaching a class you haven't made a char for in a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine some would like to create an amalgam of the two, an alloy combining what they consider are the best features of both. Nothing wrong with that.If you want to play AD&D, why not play AD&D? PF is for PF. It's not like AD&D stopped existing, the rules are still out there and very easy to find.
Alloy systems are wonderful, but some people consider it tantamount to heresy.
I really like how you used alloy here (and I have been very happy with the alloys I have come across and the one and its variants I made). Yes, it is about mixing the best amalgam, and making it exactly what you want. Which can feel great.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play AD&D, why not play AD&D? PF is for PF. It's not like AD&D stopped existing, the rules are still out there and very easy to find.
Still have my 2E books and modules, albeit a bit beaten up. But no desire to go back, and I generally admire the quality of Paizo writers. The alloy comparison is fitting; I'm still working on the mixture.
At today's game at the game store, I saw a 6th level Orc Bloodline Admixture Wizard Arcanist show up with a 10d6+11 Fireball spell. Utterly wrecked the PFS scenario we were playing. The player was really looking forward to 8th level, when his Wayang Spell Hunter would let him Empower that puppy as a 4th level spell slot.
As I get older, I have less and less desire to play with people whose creative outlet is centered on character builds. The difference between Pun-Pun and an optimized summoner is only one of degree, not kind.
At some point in the past some folks simply played an "elf." What one did with the actions and decisions of the elf made that elf unique and special, and barring some dip into options, one elf rogue was largely the same as the next elf rogue. Heroes were made by choices in the game, not by mechanical design. One looked at their fellow players and DM when making decisions, less so at the character sheet. I still love what Pathfinder has done, but it's progressing into something foreign to imagination. Guess there's a market for bad wine as much as good wine, and I don't want the winery to forget its reputation comes from the good wine.
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".
<snip>
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.
I should have clarified. You can't write a rulebook for widespread public sale that is "just right" - it might be just right for some people, but it's not going to be for others. I didn't mean it wouldn't be "just right" for anyone at all :)
AD&D Feel is hard/nigh impossible to get in Pathfinder because of a wide range of design assumptions built into the game.
There is no "single failed save, you're dead" trap in Pathfinder, because the amount of work needed to make a Pathfinder character is such that this would be horribly unpopular. In AD&D, you're going to lose party members due to dumb-ass bad luck. Pathfinder assumes regular access to essential (and to me, somewhat boring) magic items. In AD&D, magic items tend to only be found in story-important locations. The two are directly incompatible..
Oh gosh darn no. There are modules where the guards have +1 or +2 weapons and armor, just routinely.
There were LOTS of low level boring magic items around. But the point kinda was- what could you do with them? I mean, once you have a +1 longsword and +2 mace and +1 glaive-guisarme and +1/=2 dagger, what would you do with the rest?The big difference was in the powerful items. Designing a character that was built on the idea of getting Mitral full plate & a +5 scimitar was to laff. In fact, you often went the other way- you found that Dwarven thrower hammer, and began rebuilding your concept around it.
And, really, the KIA rate in AD&D was not much higher than in PF. Yes, there were a few save or die spells, etc. Still are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play AD&D, why not play AD&D? PF is for PF. It's not like AD&D stopped existing, the rules are still out there and very easy to find.
That's not what this thread is about. It's about getting some of that old school flavor in Pathfinder, which is certainly possible. I do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can do it, but in my opinion it's generally more effort than it's worth. Instead of trying to pound the square peg into a round hole, you might want to try a round peg. It's not like there are a shortage...I can name dozens of retro-clones. I don't think there's a pre-d20 edition that doesn't have a retro-clone available. And that's ignoring the fact that you can also get copies of genuine pre-d20 Dungeons & Dragons products for fairly cheap, if you so prefer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play AD&D, why not play AD&D? PF is for PF. It's not like AD&D stopped existing, the rules are still out there and very easy to find.
You can do it, but in my opinion it's generally more effort than it's worth. Instead of trying to pound the square peg into a round hole, you might want to try a round peg. It's not like there are a shortage...I can name dozens of retro-clones. I don't think there's a pre-d20 edition that doesn't have a retro-clone available. And that's ignoring the fact that you can also get copies of genuine pre-d20 Dungeons & Dragons products for fairly cheap, if you so prefer.
Between AD&D and Pathfinder, a ton of complexity got added, but there were also some nice refinements too. More importantly, there's a lot of current material for Pathfinder, most importantly (IMO) the APs. The fact they sold so well that Paizo released their own rulebook to support their AP line when 3.5 was pulled, when anywhere else adventures get released to support rulebooks, speaks volumes.
Now, some people may enjoy older systems so much they don't want to switch, and find it easier to convert the APs to that system if they want to play them. Personally, I find it far easier (and preferable) to just play Pathfinder in a far less rules-strict environment. I get most of the feel I want from the mindset I go into it with than from the rulebook. All I need is a game that's vaguely based around the general genre I want to play, and I can do the rest through tweaking it (or in some cases, giving up on tweaks and taking a flamethrower to it.)
If I wanted to play a superhero game, then I'd probably choose a different set of rules. I find I can work with Pathfinder for fantasy with no real issues.
The essence of Pathfinder, or any d20-based game, is how to perform a skill check and how to make an attack roll. When I want an old school feel to the game, I just treat everything else as "optional rules in that big ol' set of encyclopedias up on the shelf."
As others have mentioned above though, the real essence of old school is being able to trust the other players around the table to the point where you don't need to rely on and quote from a rulebook to keep things fair. When the players find their GM is giving them fair and fun results, and the GM feels their players are keeping within fair boundaries of what is and isn't possible, you can let creativity roam free and forget about where the rules say "no". Without that level of trust though, opening up like that is likely a disaster waiting to happen and keeping to the rules becomes far more important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, really, the KIA rate in AD&D was not much higher than in PF. Yes, there were a few save or die spells, etc. Still are.
This has been one of the big surprises of this thread. In my experience an absolutely defining element of gaming "back then" was the fragility of low-level characters. "Save vs poison or die" was a common phrase in the modules we ran - predominantly low level ones, meaning a less than 50% survival rate.
I'm really surprised to hear people say that they died just as much in AD&D as they do in Pathfinder. We generally die once we reach sixth-eighth level in pathfinder, but it's because we dont optimise very well and just play modules as written (so at that level it's only a matter of time until we run into something pretty much immune to our attacks). It's pretty rare for us to die pre-fifth level though whereas reaching 5th level in AD&D was a rare achievement.
We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."
Not cool, AAG. Dial the condescension back from 11 to maybe 5 or 6 and we can still talk.
Also, the whole world is not as obsessed with DungeonWorld as you are; the thread was originally talking about AD&D, if you'll recall.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."Not cool, AAG. Dial the condescension back from 11 to maybe 5 or 6 and we can still talk.
Also, the whole world is not as obsessed with DungeonWorld as you are; the thread was originally talking about AD&D, if you'll recall.Maybe the condescension is the result of so many posts dismissing his preferred style as "Mother May I" and similar things.
That would have been my first thought...
I find the term itself to be indicative of a rather arrogant and condescending attitude of its own.
And, really, the KIA rate in AD&D was not much higher than in PF. Yes, there were a few save or die spells, etc. Still are.This has been one of the big surprises of this thread. In my experience an absolutely defining element of gaming "back then" was the fragility of low-level characters. "Save vs poison or die" was a common phrase in the modules we ran - predominantly low level ones, meaning a less than 50% survival rate.
I'm really surprised to hear people say that they died just as much in AD&D as they do in Pathfinder. We generally die once we reach sixth-eighth level in pathfinder, but it's because we dont optimise very well and just play modules as written (so at that level it's only a matter of time until we run into something pretty much immune to our attacks). It's pretty rare for us to die pre-fifth level though whereas reaching 5th level in AD&D was a rare achievement.
I have lost more low level PF characters than I did AD&D characters over the same number of game hours. I have several AD&D characters that most would consider to be Epic or Mythic, including a 20th something level Necromancer/wizard and a demi-god.
Mind you, one of my PC's that was very fun was Saradoc Nimbletoes, one of the first Thieves ever, a henchman of said Necromancer, who died quite a few times but was brought back. OTOH, he was super-foolhardy.
In one PF game, we're just 13th and he's my third PC, lost the last one around level 6 or so, and the first about lvl 2.
I've voiced my opinion that lot of what has been lost from AD&D is due to improvements in PF mechanics and design and a younger generation who have grown up with console RPGs and MMOs. WBL makes the game more consistent and more player friendly, but takes the 'sense of magic and wonder' out of magic items. In 1E/2E I played characters who reached 8th level before getting a magic item.
The well-defined set of rules is a good thing most of the time, but inhibits the loose and fluid play AAG mentioned earlier. The first time I played PF was at a PFS night at a gaming store. The party got wiped out almost entirely by a basilisk (the GM didn't really adjust for 1st level PCs instead of the recommended 4-5th level party). My sorcerer was behind a table for cover and to avoid the gaze, and there war bars between my PC and the basilisk. I needed to kill the basilisk to get blood to turn the party back from statues. My only spell left was unlimited 0-level acid splash. I explained how I could fire blind without risking the gaze attack, and explained statistically how long it would take to kill the basilisk. The GM wouldn't allow it because the rules never spell out how to average attack rolls and miss chance. I said I could fire acid splash at the ceiling above the basilisk until it collapsed and killed the basilisk. The GM said there was no rule for that and it wouldn't work. The GM didn't allow for creative solutions to work...
We usually had some nice pelf by 8th, but honestly it was often widely disparate and not in any way optimized like a Girdle of Giant Str for my Bard.
Here, of course, the DM started out by not following the rules, so that was the problem to start.
I have a story about the bard, we were in a really high powered end battle my Bard was out of his power level, he was along as the "fifth wheel" (actually PC #6, but I digress). It was a party of four PCs plus many mooks, very dangerous, one was a fellow bard (but undead) 4 levels higher. I knew I couldn't take him. So, I jumped out in front of him and played the first few notes from "Dueling Banjoes" and challenged him to a musical duel while the battle raged around us. For round after round I kept him busy and out of the fight while the rest of my party, being more powerful than I wiped up the opposition.
So, no, my bard couldn't do much other than die in conventional combat there, but instead due to "rules lite" he "took out" one BBEG until the battle was over. I had to let him leave with honor, of course. But we won.
This was how AD&D played- at times.
Sorta. A couple of his players were bragging they were unstoppable, i.e. PC hubris. So he did ToH and then re-put it out for a Con game, etc.
I remember an AD&D 1e game in college where we (4th - 5th level) started calling goblins "walking jokes". The next session, the DM threw one at us with CLASS LEVELS! Man, talk about some shocked PCs.
I have lost more low level PF characters than I did AD&D characters over the same number of game hours.And, really, the KIA rate in AD&D was not much higher than in PF. Yes, there were a few save or die spells, etc. Still are.This has been one of the big surprises of this thread. In my experience an absolutely defining element of gaming "back then" was the fragility of low-level characters. "Save vs poison or die" was a common phrase in the modules we ran - predominantly low level ones, meaning a less than 50% survival rate.
I'm really surprised to hear people say that they died just as much in AD&D as they do in Pathfinder. We generally die once we reach sixth-eighth level in pathfinder, but it's because we dont optimise very well and just play modules as written (so at that level it's only a matter of time until we run into something pretty much immune to our attacks). It's pretty rare for us to die pre-fifth level though whereas reaching 5th level in AD&D was a rare achievement.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. I'm very surprised to hear it.
We must just play very differently - I'd find it unusual to see a 1st level Pathfinder character die. For us, there's just so much healing available to low level PF characters. What did a typical party of 1st level PCs get in AD&D? 2-3 CLW per day? Compare that with the channels and CLWs pathfinder parties get at first level. Plus all the 'save vs poison or die' rolls the AD&D characters have to make. I'm tempted to say most of our 1st level characters died (though I suspect that's an overestimation).
I've voiced my opinion that lot of what has been lost from AD&D is due to improvements in PF mechanics and design and a younger generation who have grown up with console RPGs and MMOs. WBL makes the game more consistent and more player friendly, but takes the 'sense of magic and wonder' out of magic items. In 1E/2E I played characters who reached 8th level before getting a magic item.
The well-defined set of rules is a good thing most of the time, but inhibits the loose and fluid play AAG mentioned earlier. The first time I played PF was at a PFS night at a gaming store. The party got wiped out almost entirely by a basilisk (the GM didn't really adjust for 1st level PCs instead of the recommended 4-5th level party). My sorcerer was behind a table for cover and to avoid the gaze, and there war bars between my PC and the basilisk. I needed to kill the basilisk to get blood to turn the party back from statues. My only spell left was unlimited 0-level acid splash. I explained how I could fire blind without risking the gaze attack, and explained statistically how long it would take to kill the basilisk. The GM wouldn't allow it because the rules never spell out how to average attack rolls and miss chance. I said I could fire acid splash at the ceiling above the basilisk until it collapsed and killed the basilisk. The GM said there was no rule for that and it wouldn't work. The GM didn't allow for creative solutions to work...We usually had some nice pelf by 8th, but honestly it was often widely disparate and not in any way optimized like a Girdle of Giant Str for my Bard.
Here, of course, the DM started out by not following the rules, so that was the problem to start.
I have a story about the bard, we were in a really high powered end battle my Bard was out of his power level, he was along as the "fifth wheel" (actually PC #6, but I digress). It was a party of four PCs plus many mooks, very dangerous, one was a fellow bard (but undead) 4 levels...
"I had a Bard," see right there, I've spotted the problem. :>) Actually, bards were the oddest duck in AD&D. So many fictions, modules etc talked about them but they were hard to get to and play in 1st e. at least for me.
A legendary music battle with another bard? Too cool. That was one hell of a memory for you. And a great way for a game to be played.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. I'm very surprised to hear it.We must just play very differently - I'd find it unusual to see a 1st level Pathfinder character die. For us, there's just so much healing available to low level PF characters. What did a typical party of 1st level PCs get in AD&D? 2-3 CLW per day? Compare that with the channels and CLWs pathfinder parties get at first level. Plus all the 'save vs poison or die' rolls the AD&D characters have to make. I'm tempted to say most of our 1st level characters died (though I suspect that's an overestimation).
Well, out of three PF games, I have had 3 PCs die (and not get raised)*. One game is 8, the other 9, the last is 13th.
Mind you, memories do fade, and it quite possible I had a number of 1st level PC's die before I got attached to them, and of course henchmen died fairly often.
The save or die poisons weren't really that much of an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it depends. Many of the modules are of a different type than what many may have played in AD&D, BUT it's just as easy in PF to play like you did in AD&D.
IMO (as if it needed to be said).
The DIFFERENCE, if there is one, isn't really whether you can or can't (especially if you play by BB rules, which IMO are actually just as light if not lighter than 2e core rules), but the approach that the GM and players take today.
If one really wanted to, they could play a LOW MAGIC game where you don't get your first magic weapon until level 8, and the spells are harder to find for a wizard than many others. It would take work from the GM to tailor the monsters so that they match the new power levels, but overall, it shouldn't be too difficult.
The difference isn't really if PF rules allow it or not, but whether the GM and players approach it in that way, and whether they WANT to play it in that fashion.
I think many of the things done in AD&D are possible in PF, but it is entirely dependent on how the GM and players want to play.
With the entitlement that some players indicate they have on these boards it WOULD BE nigh impossible to play PF with an AD&D style.
However, luckily, I find that there are plenty IRL that would play with a style, that are accepting of GM preferences as well as player preferences, and play with a playstyle that allows for playing PF in a fashion that could recreate an AD&D style.
And even with that, there was no real AD&D style, there were many different styles and many different ways. AD&D had those who were hard nosed to the rules (believe it or not, AD&D had a lot of rules, and you did NOT have to make things up in many games like some here are inferring, at least not anymore than you would in PF). AD&D also had those that were freewheeling in their style. So, I definitely think it's possible to play in way that recaptures the feel of AD&D but using PF rules, but it's reliant on having PLAYERS that would actually play in that fashion more than it's a relic of rules.
|
Oooh, I thought of another way to make Pathfinder feel more like AD&D...
Multiply all adjustments to base 10 AC (Dexterity, armour, shield, Dodge, etc.) by -1. Create detailed charts for each character class by level (or monsters by Hit Dice) showing number needed to hit each Armour Class. Make sure you keep the print size small, so you can fit as many charts as possible onto the GM Screen.
It's ridiculous how cumbersome and counter-intuitive this system was. People forget that even THACO was a massive improvement.
So, what to do about it? I'm certainly not going back to AD&D; I like the Pathfinder core classes, the fixes. Nor am I buying the beginner box. My thoughts: simplify the game again as much as possible.
Re-write the DM screen, changing what you like, borrowing from other sources. Warning: lots of math involved (took me forever, but I'm glad I did).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."Not cool, AAG. Dial the condescension back from 11 to maybe 5 or 6 and we can still talk.
Also, the whole world is not as obsessed with DungeonWorld as you are; the thread was originally talking about AD&D, if you'll recall.
How dare he show even a tenth of the amount of condescention you routinely show when you regularly relegate the entire history of D&D prior to the d20 system as being nothing more than "Mother May I?" Everyone knows that only you are allowed to express condescension of that level!