Recapturing the Essence of AD&D in Pathfinder

[Adjule]

Auxmaulous wrote:

Adjule wrote:

And Auxmaulous: People have been using minis for decades, not just since 3rd edition. There was a huge miniatures business during the AD&D era (Reaper Minis being the more widely known).

Gimme a break, I've been playing since 79 - miniatures didn't start having their own hard-coded rules (as in, part of the core game - spare me the "but teh chainmail!" responses) since they were pushed in 3rd ed.

LOL@reaper miniatures comment, they didn't start making fantasy gaming minis till the mid 90's. Think Ral Partha and Grenadier minis, they were the default mini vendors and the precursor to Reaper by decades.

The point I was making (which was lost on you) is that 3rd ed hard-coded map/board maneuvering into the system - if you want to use miniatures, peanut shells or even just markings on a sheet of graph paper it doesn't matter - spacing, moving past foes, AoO all do matter. That is big the change.

They changed the game from you can use miniatures if you like to you really should use miniatures because all of our rules heavily depend upon it.
Oh, did we mention that we also are selling miniatures?

-----------------------
I remember trying to explain the game to other people in the early days:

AD&D/D&D
"It's a game? So..... where's the board?"

"Well, it's not like other games. You do use dice for actions but the game is mostly in your imagination as you interact with the world and other players."

-

3rd ed/PF
"It's a game? So..... where's the board?"

"Oh, let me get out the battlemat and set up the minis"
-----------------------

But I will agree with you about one aspect you mentioned Adjule - "not caring about the numbers" isn't the solution but it's part of it. Maybe a game that cares less about numbers (player choices out of the game) and more about player choices in the game would be the ground to look for.

Well aren't you just special? Did I say Reaper was the first? No, no where did that ever show up in my comments that they were there first. I said "the more widely known". And if you paid attention, you would have seen that I started playing in 1998, which guess what? That was during the time period Reaper was around. All I ever saw in game stores that sold tabletop was Reaper for minis.

And as many people have said elsewhere, you don't need minis now just like you didn't need minis back then. I found them to provide consistency back then, just like I do now. Not everyone sees the same thing when you describe something (as shown in Mark Hoover's example of his experience, which has also happened to me), so having a map and minis helps with the consistency problem. Also, thanks to the so-called dependance on this, I have never heard arguments over who is going to be the party mapper.

And it only really became "hard-coded" into the game rules when they got closer to the revision of the 3rd edition rules. Is it hard-coded into Pathfinder? Only as much as it was in 3.5, but less so, since there is no facing rules in Pathfinder so it doesn't really matter. Don't like using maps+minis? Take out the AoO and everything dealing with it and there goes the reliance on the grid.

[Arnwolf]

My real opinion is that their needs to be two versions of the game. One with miniatures and one without miniature. A good pathfinder ruleset without mini's is the holy grail for me at the moment.

[thejeff]

There's a long difference between having a sketch map so everyone has the same idea what the area looks like and playing all combats with minis on a grid.

Also, Mark's example was out of combat, so it wouldn't necessarily be addressed by maps and minis anyway.

[Matt Thomason]

Mark Hoover wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: play YOUR game and make it your own.

This really cannot be said enough times. Out of all the people in the world, no matter what their experience or qualifications, the only ones that know the best way to use the rulebook are the ones sitting around the table.

Even if that means the only thing you're using the rulebook for is to prop up that wobbly table leg.

[Deadmanwalking]

Arnwolf wrote:

My real opinion is that their needs to be two versions of the game. One with miniatures and one without miniature. A good pathfinder ruleset without mini's is the holy grail for me at the moment.

I'll repeat: I run the game with no map and the current rules. Never had a major problem or argument. Works fine. I've played with other GMs who do this, too.

[mephnick]

Eh, I like the minis for combat. The rest of the game is all done through imagination, so I'm all right with combat being a bit of a change of pace. You can only BS so much flavor into combat in the first place, I find it more interesting as a tactical board game.

Still get to use my imagination to solve literally everything in a dungeon, town or wilderness aside from combat.

[Arnwolf]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arnwolf wrote:

My real opinion is that their needs to be two versions of the game. One with miniatures and one without miniature. A good pathfinder ruleset without mini's is the holy grail for me at the moment.

I'll repeat: I run the game with no map and the current rules. Never had a major problem or argument. Works fine. I've played with other GMs who do this, too.

I respect your opinion and your ability to play PF without mini's. Although I like playing PF with mini's, because sometimes I like a wargamey experience, I find PF impossible to play without miniatures. The rules, like AOO and 5 foot steps and casting defensively make it too difficult (for me) to adjudicate. Just my opinion based on my experience. Not saying you are wrong, you are just far more intellectually superior and wise than me.

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

We've covered a lot of ground in this thread. We've gone over differences between AD&D and 3E/PF, different playstyles in both, the influence of videogames and MMOs, the influence of the internet and optimized builds, houserules (which used to affect approx. 80% of gameplay), and minis.

I think the younger generation is influenced greatly by videogames and MMOs. You need optimized builds and leveling up to handle challenges in both videogame RPGs and MMOs, so this is a big part of PF. Paizo does a great job making PF accessible to older gamers (some of us would spent a year or more between leveling up in 1E/2E) and younger gamers. The success of Pathfinder contributes to comic and gaming shops being able to carry game lines from other companies, PF is kind of the flagship product line of tabletop RPGs.

I think we've had some fun discussion of what are our favorite elements of AD&D. For me these include nostalgia (in junior high playing AD&D was a lot of fun, a lot more fun than homework and chores and SNES), a sense of wonder (there was less fantasy literature available and fewer scifi/fantasy shows and movies), teamwork, character development (with limited new class abilities at each level my group focused on PC personality and combat style), how kewl magic items were because they were random and rare.

A lot of these things have changed as a result of good design by Paizo. Paizo makes money with APs and PFS adventures rather than by releasing a new edition every four or five years. The rules are pretty comprehensive and well-done, WBL makes for a more uniform game experience and makes the AP and module business plan work, the feats and new class features make the game fun for the younger generation, leveling up more frequently makes the APs more fun, and getting feats and magic items more frequently helps sell Inner Sea sourcebooks.

One thing I miss about AD&D is the settings- Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, and others. Forgotten Realms sums up AD&D for me- there was a lot of stuff, and you had to pick and choose what to include and leave out, then add houserules to make everything work. Greyhawk was better designed from a mechanical standpoint (it made more sense as a setting if you take out adventuring and had fewer game-altering overpowered options). None of the settings were perfect, all required deciding what elements to include and leave out and house rules. Golarion is brilliantly designed, it has the variety of Forgotten Realms without contradictions that make your head hurt (Forgotten Realms had at least a dozen world and/or reality threatening menaces going on at any given moment). Golarion has a lot of gods without unnecessary conflict (one of my favorite things about Forgotten Realms is the LG god of honor and the LN god of duty didn't get along because their portfolios overlapped). Golarion has races and nations that mostly get along, there is only conflict for story purposes (one of the upsides to Forgotten Realms from a PC standpoint is with 20 or settings and 8 or 9 pantheons worth of gods there was interesting conflict and adventuring opportunities occuring constantly). But looking through the lens of nostalgia, 14 year old me had more fun in Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance than 39 year old me does in Golarion.

We all need houserules to play the game we want to, whether it's the paladin's code or how prismatic sphere and reverse gravity work together or rules for underwater combat that don't result in TPKs. We could start a thread for discussing houserules- it might devolve into arguing over playing style. We can also discuss the merit of reintroducing AD&D elements and playing style. The action system makes the game work better with minis as a tactical combat system (move, standard, and full round actions make tactical combat playable). But the timed initiative of AD&D placed emphasis on the merit of a particular action rather than the emphasis on action economy. The action mechanics lend themselves to maximizing the use of your move and standard action or full round action. In AD&D a good use of Web could win an encounter, nowadays encounter design lends itself to getting into position and maximizing DPR. Modern encounter design (APL + or - 3) is better, but the randomness of AD&D encounters could add to the fun.

One suggestion is to have one more official setting for Pathfinder. I think PF needs a Forgotten Realms to the Greyhawk of Golarion. There could be a continent on the FR world that is designed to be more AD&D (I would suggest MonteArneGyrax as a working title for the continent, but it's probably a bad idea to even make a joke about that). My understanding is the Paizo staff is very busy and they release a lot of kewl stuff, but they could probably find freelance writers to contribute to PDR world and the MAG continent.

[Deadmanwalking]

Arnwolf wrote:

I respect your opinion and your ability to play PF without mini's.

Thanks.

Arnwolf wrote:

Although I like playing PF with mini's, because sometimes I like a wargamey experience,

I have no objection to doing so, either. It doesn't mesh well with my personal GMing style is all. I've played in as many PF games that did minis as didn't. All were fun.

Arnwolf wrote:

I find PF impossible to play without miniatures.

Like I said, I haven't found this to be true.

Arnwolf wrote:

The rules, like AOO and 5 foot steps and casting defensively make it too difficult (for me) to adjudicate. Just my opinion based on my experience.

You have to be willing to wing it a little, but it's very doable. Almost all of these rules involve one of three things:

1. Is person A within reach of person B? Can he 5-foot step into or out of it?
2. Can person A get to person B with a Move action? What about a double move?
3. Can person A flank person B with person C? What about with a 5-foot step?

If you can answer those (and get the party to say what order they're walking in), a map is basically not needed. In my experience, they're usually pretty easily answered, too...but YMMV, I suppose.

Arnwolf wrote:

Not saying you are wrong, you are just far more intellectually superior and wise than me.

I think the only thing this requires, intellectually, is a good sense of spatial relationships...which isn't really intellect or wisdom per se, so I doubt that's true.

[LazarX]

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

One thing I miss about AD&D is the settings- Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, and others. Forgotten Realms sums up AD&D for me- there was a lot of stuff, and you had to pick and choose what to include and leave out, then add houserules to make everything work. Greyhawk was better designed from a mechanical standpoint (it made more sense as a setting if you take out adventuring and had fewer game-altering overpowered options). None of the settings were perfect, all required deciding what elements to include and leave out and house rules. Golarion is brilliantly designed, it has the variety of Forgotten Realms without contradictions that make your head hurt (Forgotten Realms had at least a dozen world and/or reality threatening menaces going on at any given moment). Golarion has a lot of gods without unnecessary conflict (one of my favorite things about Forgotten Realms is the LG god of honor and the LN god of duty didn't get along because their portfolios overlapped). Golarion has races and nations that mostly get along, there is only conflict for story purposes (one of the upsides to Forgotten Realms from a PC standpoint is with 20 or settings and 8 or 9 pantheons worth of gods there was interesting conflict and adventuring opportunities occuring constantly). But looking through the lens of nostalgia, 14 year old me had more fun in Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance than 39 year old me does in Golarion.

Having all those settings though may have been a large part of what brought TSR to it's knees. (internal power struggles and mismanagement being the rest). To a large part, they fractured the fan base in to groups that would play one setting and piss off the rest of them. They made a haphazard effort to glue them all together with Spelljammer, but that move proved worse than the disease with the inbred comedy of this overarching setting.

[Arnwolf]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arnwolf wrote:

I respect your opinion and your ability to play PF without mini's.

Thanks.

Arnwolf wrote:

Although I like playing PF with mini's, because sometimes I like a wargamey experience,

I have no objection to doing so, either. It doesn't mesh well with my personal GMing style is all. I've played in as many PF games that did minis as didn't. All were fun.

Arnwolf wrote:

I find PF impossible to play without miniatures.

Like I said, I haven't found this to be true.

Arnwolf wrote:

The rules, like AOO and 5 foot steps and casting defensively make it too difficult (for me) to adjudicate. Just my opinion based on my experience.

You have to be willing to wing it a little, but it's very doable. Almost all of these rules involve one of three things:

1. Is person A within reach of person B? Can he 5-foot step into or out of it?
2. Can person A get to person B with a Move action? What about a double move?
3. Can person A flank person B with person C? What about with a 5-foot step?

If you can answer those (and get the party to say what order they're walking in), a map is basically not needed. In my experience, they're usually pretty easily answered, too...but YMMV, I suppose.

Arnwolf wrote:

Not saying you are wrong, you are just far more intellectually superior and wise than me.

I think the only thing this requires, intellectually, is a good sense of spatial relationships...which isn't really intellect or wisdom per se, so I doubt that's true.

Number 3, I have never been able to do.

Area of Effect spells I can wing, but I don't feel I can wing it fairly and consistently in a manner I like.