What Makes Someone a Grognard?

[Tequila Sunrise]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?

I prefer 2e saves, and how brilliant some classes were in certain areas, and absolutely abysmal in others.

Aren't the fort, ref, and will progressions part of what makes modern classes brilliant/abysmal in various areas?

[Scythia]

Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I blame music and TV shows.

You forgot 'video games'. These damn kids with their Fourth Edition and their World of Warhammercraft and their Pac-Man....

I'll tell you what video game ruined gaming: Centipede. Suddenly everyone was all like "I want to be an elf with a magic wand". Then a strange halfling called ET becomes so powerful he makes an entire industry disappear. Next thing you know, Gauntlet comes along and teaches Wizards to shoot food. After that it was a war just to stay relevant against the mighty wizard forces. Sadly, that war ended in failure when wizards learned how to create blocks from potions, in Solstice.

[GM Tribute]

I REALLY liked S2 Whiteplume Mountain. Talk about three cool weapons.

One reviewer said the hardest part of S2 was convincing the DM to let you keep one of the weapons, typically the favored Black Razor, which he wasn't supposed to let you do.

Then there was the amazing slaver series A1-4 which started as tournament modules. Have a bunch of characters have to start without any weapons or spellbooks today like one of the A modules, and you would have a revolt on your hands.

After going through Ravenloft, I remember looking at the Ravenloft maps for I6 and the gothic story and realizing that a new level of awesomeness had been reached. Then Tracy Hickman wrote Dragonlance and the first Dragon Lance module was amazing. Owning little of his own writing for TSR, poor Tracy should have made so much more $$$.

[Bill Dunn]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thaco had NO reason to exist

Sure it did. It was a way to replace a lookup table without making other significant changes. And it did its job reasonably well.

[Sissyl]

A grognard would helpfully point out that it's spelled THAC0.

[WormysQueue]

Normally I go with the "older than me in terms of gaming years" definition. But if I think about the grumbling part I sometimes that it suffices to have been here before the start of the Pathfinder RPG Open Beta to be a grognard myself. Because since then a lot has happened which makes me grumpy.

But in the end the term ha no meaning for me whatsoever. I like the red box as a vehicle to get my kids into roleplaying without overwhelming them with too much rules, but apart from that, I don't feel the need to play it again. I would absolutely love to play AD&D 2nd edition again, I don't think for one second that Pathfinder RPG is an improvement over 3E/3.5 (it was necessary for other reasons, but not because the rules sucked), don't intend to ever play 4E but could be easily convinced to play a 5E game.

So for me it's not "new" vs. "old" and not even "good" vs. "bad" (because I don't think that 4E is a bad system). To me it's just a matter of preferences and those can change over time.

[memorax]

What makes someone a Grognard

Going into long unwanted dissertations on how much better things were before rpg xyz came along. I can respect older members of the hobby liking a older version of a rpg. Unless I or others ask I'm in no mood to hear how things were better in the "good old days" .

Considers new younger members to the hobby a threat. Simply because they like to do things differently. Or like other stuff like mmos and newer rpgs. The irony here is that those members were they themselves treated the same way when rpgs threatened to replace board games. This hobby needs more members. A select few expect new members to essential be clones of themeselves. If they are not they are unwelcome.

A good sign. When they start a conversation by going "It's not that I'm against change". Then proceed to show everyone and anyone that yes they really don't like any change.

Their favored rpg is the best. No flaws whatsoever usually. With the company who publishes it above reproach. Rpgs they don't like they see flaws where their usually are none. The companies that publish them the spawn of the devil. A good example is some on this forum accusing Wotc of being greedy and wanting to make money. Last time I checked Paizo is not a non-profit. Who starts a business not wanting to make money.

[thejeff]

memorax wrote:

Their favored rpg is the best. No flaws whatsoever usually. With the company who publishes it above reproach. Rpgs they don't like they see flaws where their usually are none. The companies that publish them the spawn of the devil. A good example is some on this forum accusing Wotc of being greedy and wanting to make money. Last time I checked Paizo is not a non-profit. Who starts a business not wanting to make money.

That's a slight distortion of the usual accusation. Usually it's "just wanting to make money".

Obviously all businesses want to make money. At least enough to keep going. Some, particularly some smaller privately-owned businesses, are in the field they're in because the owners actually like it. In Paizo's case, the owners are not only actively involved in running the company, but, IIRC, also play the flagship game. While they certainly want to make money, they're also invested in the game as a game and a hobby.

That's a very different approach than WotC, which is owned by another company and responsible to them. Even within WotC, D&D isn't their main product line. I'm sure the main team working on D&D does play and care about the game, but they work for people who don't.

[Set]

houstonderek wrote:

I started playing in '79, both Moldvay basic and AD&D, and the only guys I consider "grognards" are the dudes with the painted minis, tape measures, and a sand box. Seriously, only the old school war gamers that were around before the three brown books probably actually merit the honor. Everyone else is a n00b, frankly. ;-)

Back when Origins was the 'wargamer convention' and GenCon was the 'roleplayer convention,' it felt like there was a divide, and people who played strategic wargames and Star Fleet Battles and whatnot looked askance at all these newfangled AD&D players and their 'role-playing' (which, IMO, barely even existed before Vampire the Masquerade, since earlier editions of D&D, Gamma World, etc. didn't exactly encourage actual role-playing, from what I recall of those days). Since I much preferred Origins, for various reasons, I tended to feel a bit out of place, being less of a board/wargamer and more of a fantasy/superhero roleplayer.

It's got flung around a lot during the edition wars, along with 'fatbeard' and whatever, but it's not really much of an insult, because if you like something (be it '80s music or My Little Pony or pro wrestling or whatever), how is it an insult to be called a fan?

IMO, being a fan of a particular style or tone or genre, and sticking to that, seems at least as valid a choice as constantly jumping ship to become a fan of the new shiny fad every couple of years.

[memorax]

In the ned even if Paizo is more involved in the hobby. They still are a business that wants to make a profit. Maybe not profit oriented as Wotc. Yet I doubt the people working for the company are losing sleep because they are making a profit. If anything their involvement in the hobby is good PR that makes them more money. They of course do it because they like the hobby. They also know how to run a business as well.

Even if wotc was more involved in the hobby. Some would still accuse them of being greedy. Which goes back to the favored rpg and company can do no wrong.

Another sign. Automatically assumes a rpg is garbage unplayable without having played. Let alone read the rules. While hiding behind years of experience in the hobby. I don't care if you have 20,30 or even 50 years of experience in rpgs. If you never read a rpg then you really should not be judging the rules let alone crticizing them. Which happened alot when both 3E and 4E was released. Even more with 4E. Gamers were making opinions based on second or third hand information. As someone who read and played the rules I'm supposed to take your uninformed opinion seriously. Yeah...no.

[thejeff]

memorax wrote:

In the ned even if Paizo is more involved in the hobby. They still are a business that wants to make a profit. Maybe not profit oriented as Wotc. Yet I doubt the people working for the company are losing sleep because they are making a profit. If anything their involvement in the hobby is good PR that makes them more money. They of course do it because they like the hobby. They also know how to run a business as well.

Even if wotc was more involved in the hobby. Some would still accuse them of being greedy. Which goes back to the favored rpg and company can do no wrong.

Perhaps. Any accusations aren't going to be thrown at favored companies and they'll be defended, but that's basic human nature.

There's still a chunk of truth behind that one. If nothing else it helps determine which accusations are effective. Do we see lots of accusations from D&D/WotC fans that "Paizo's just in it for the money"? Even on other boards?

Or from Grognards here, for that matter. Since for many of them, PF is just one of those new-fangled threats to their favored game.

[memorax]

To be honest I never have seen anyone on the Wotc accuse Paizo of being in it for the money. If anything it's someone accusing Wotc of doing the same.

To me criticizing a company for doing what a company should be doing. Which is make a profit and offer most fans what they want. Is dumb imo. i know it's human nature but it does not make it any less dumb. It's like accusing Mcdonalds of making junk food. Unless it's a non-profit which many companies are not. Employees/bills need to be paid. The new books we get in print form are payed by profits that Paizo make. Fans fault them, Wotc or some other rpg company for being greedy or too profit oriented. I sometimes wonder if people are either too naive or have no clue on who business works.

To give a good example at one point the Canadian dollar was strong. Consumers assumed that the price of certain products would change overnight. Working in a bookstore people coming in thinking that suddenly books were the american price. Economics simply does not work that way. Say I buy 100 core PF books at 60$ I'm not going to sell them for 40-45$ no matter how strong the Canadian dollar was. Sorry but the company I worked for was not going to take a major loss in profit no matter how strong the currency was.

I don't see why PF would be considered a threat though. If some in the hobby want to stick with a certain edition of a rpg they can. If it happens that they either have a lack of player or DMs because everyone switiched over to the new edition. That's not the fault of the fans of the new edition or the company. Either adapt by learning the new edition or suffer in silence. I had a player who I kicked out of my current game. Who if I refused to play 2E or any Palladium rpgs was the stereotypical lump player from the GMG. At first I tried to work with him. Encourage him to participate. Eventually with other reasons I asked him to no longer come to the game. As a dM i'm in charge of more than one player. I can't help someone who won't help himself.

[thejeff]

memorax wrote:

To be honest I never have seen anyone on the Wotc accuse Paizo of being in it for the money. If anything it's someone accusing Wotc of doing the same.

To me criticizing a company for doing what a company should be doing. Which is make a profit and offer most fans what they want. Is dumb imo. i know it's human nature but it does not make it any less dumb. It's like accusing Mcdonalds of making junk food. Unless it's a non-profit which many companies are not. Employees/bills need to be paid. The new books we get in print form are payed by profits that Paizo make. Fans fault them, Wotc or some other rpg company for being greedy or too profit oriented. I sometimes wonder if people are either too naive or have no clue on who business works.

To give a good example at one point the Canadian dollar was strong. Consumers assumed that the price of certain products would change overnight. Working in a bookstore people coming in thinking that suddenly books were the american price. Economics simply does not work that way. Say I buy 100 core PF books at 60$ I'm not going to sell them for 40-45$ no matter how strong the Canadian dollar was. Sorry but the company I worked for was not going to take a major loss in profit no matter how strong the currency was.

And we're back to ignoring the distinction between being in it for the money and just being in it for the money. Yes, they have to make enough money to pay the bills and make a living. Reasonable profits and reasonable practices to make them aren't a problem.

Some companies go beyond that. Is there no level of greed or approaches to making profit that go too far? Especially when it comes to creative works, like RPGs?
Often one thing that's meant is seeking short-term profit over long-term stability. An example might be a company with a really good reputation for quality products lowering its standards to cut costs while producing even more material, boosting revenue with lower costs and thus higher profits - for awhile. Until the quality of the new product damages the reputation enough that sales drop. Often, by this point the new management has earned their bonus, made a reputation for boosting profits and moved on to another company. :)

Note: "new books we get in print form" are not paid for by profits. They're paid for by revenue and hopefully will generate profits. Any revenue invested back into paying for new products isn't profit.

[BigNorseWolf]

Beard.

Rick grimes +5 points
Duck dynasty +10 points

Rulebook

has duct tape +5
is entirely duct tape +10 points
that could double as a satanic heavy metal cover album +15 points
Rulebooks that could double as a satanic heavy metal cover album and duct tape -10 points. You don't treat collectors items like that.

Miniatures:

Metal +5 points
Lead +10 points
Were banned in china for lead content +15 points
Painted +5
Prepainted plastic -30

Size

Pudgy +5
Husky +10
Roughly the size of a barge +15

Geek bag

Stuffed backpack +5 points
Cart +10 points
Legally requires a beeper to back up +15 points.

Started playing in..

80s +5 (but only if you were there for the dark dungeons days)
70s +10
60s +15

Dice:

Dice bag legally qualifies as a sap +5
Edges are worn down so it it keeps rolling +10
Paint in your own numbers+15

Back i my day death was so common we...

-Showed up with 5 characters easy and still had to leave early +5
-Kept bonfire going for the all the dead characters. +10
-If I'd meant Characters I would have SAID characters +25

[I, GROGNARD]

Alas the true Grognards passed from this life before this newfangled "internets" was readily available to the masses of plebes and common folk.

Now that being said, all you 2nd Generation Grognards and those who come after you who brandish the torch of curmudgeon grumbling and the pitchfork of surly ill bellyaching, I charge you with this grand and noble task

Spoiler:

YOU ALL CAN GEET OFF MY LAWN!!

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

That's very much true. Not only were house rules common, but it was common not to even realize they were house rules.

Having gamed in those days, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that No one cared. There was not this big set of gaming conventions written in stone (or on the non-existent Internet). It was the NORM that GM's would pretty much do their own thing with different degrees of variance from the ruleset. In all the GMs I played with, not a single one of them held just or used all of the rules in the DMG or Player's Handbook. RAW wasn't even a term in those days.

[memorax]

Ha I not only get on your lawn. I seed it with pesticide resistant weeds.

LazarX wrote:

Having gamed in those days, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that No one cared. There was not this big set of gaming conventions written in stone (or on the non-existent Internet). It was the NORM that GM's would pretty much do their own thing with different degrees of variance from the ruleset. In all the GMs I played with, not a single one of them held just or used all of the rules in the DMG or Player's Handbook. RAW wasn't even a term in those days.

Seconded

Having gamed with 1E then 2E. RAW was not a term in those days. OR RAI. If it was I never saw it until 3E.

[LazarX]

memorax wrote:

Ha I not only get on your lawn. I seed it with pesticide resistant weeds.

LazarX wrote:

Having gamed in those days, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that No one cared. There was not this big set of gaming conventions written in stone (or on the non-existent Internet). It was the NORM that GM's would pretty much do their own thing with different degrees of variance from the ruleset. In all the GMs I played with, not a single one of them held just or used all of the rules in the DMG or Player's Handbook. RAW wasn't even a term in those days.

Seconded

Having gamed with 1E then 2E. RAW was not a term in those days. OR RAI. If it was I never saw it until 3E.

I never saw it myself until people started adopting a herd mentality in online venues such as this one. What I do see is a growing unwillingness to experiment without some mass expression of prior approval. Without a willingness to embrace the prospect of failure, innovation grinds to a halt.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

That's very much true. Not only were house rules common, but it was common not to even realize they were house rules.

Having gamed in those days, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that No one cared. There was not this big set of gaming conventions written in stone (or on the non-existent Internet). It was the NORM that GM's would pretty much do their own thing with different degrees of variance from the ruleset. In all the GMs I played with, not a single one of them held just or used all of the rules in the DMG or Player's Handbook. RAW wasn't even a term in those days.

No, but it did lead to some confusion when you played with different people. They'd explain the house rules they thought of as house rules, you'd put aside the ones you thought of as house rules, then you'd hit assumption clash on things you did differently, but neither thought of as house rules.

[Aranna]

I had a random thought, Maybe the grumpy grognards just need a hug and someone who will listen.

[BigDTBone]

LazarX wrote:

memorax wrote:

Ha I not only get on your lawn. I seed it with pesticide resistant weeds.

LazarX wrote:

Having gamed in those days, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that No one cared. There was not this big set of gaming conventions written in stone (or on the non-existent Internet). It was the NORM that GM's would pretty much do their own thing with different degrees of variance from the ruleset. In all the GMs I played with, not a single one of them held just or used all of the rules in the DMG or Player's Handbook. RAW wasn't even a term in those days.

Seconded

Having gamed with 1E then 2E. RAW was not a term in those days. OR RAI. If it was I never saw it until 3E.

I never saw it myself until people started adopting a herd mentality in online venues such as this one. What I do see is a growing unwillingness to experiment without some mass expression of prior approval. Without a willingness to embrace the prospect of failure, innovation grinds to a halt.

It all depends on your venue. In the Rules forum you are correct, no one want to hear about or cares about your houserules. In the houserules/suggestions forum innovation is alive and well.

[memorax]

The guy I kicked out of my game. While I did not give a hug. Did everything in my power to motivate to get into the game. It went nowhere. Sometimes one has to just walk away from a losing and soul sucking battle. Some people will not change and despite your best efforts and being friends or family the solution is to walk away. Life is too short.

[DM Under The Bridge]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Beard.

Rick grimes +5 points
Duck dynasty +10 points

Rulebook

has duct tape +5
is entirely duct tape +10 points
that could double as a satanic heavy metal cover album +15 points
Rulebooks that could double as a satanic heavy metal cover album and duct tape -10 points. You don't treat collectors items like that.

Miniatures:

Metal +5 points
Lead +10 points
Were banned in china for lead content +15 points
Painted +5
Prepainted plastic -30

Size

Pudgy +5
Husky +10
Roughly the size of a barge +15

Geek bag

Stuffed backpack +5 points
Cart +10 points
Legally requires a beeper to back up +15 points.

Started playing in..

80s +5 (but only if you were there for the dark dungeons days)
70s +10
60s +15

Dice:

Dice bag legally qualifies as a sap +5
Edges are worn down so it it keeps rolling +10
Paint in your own numbers+15

Back i my day death was so common we...

-Showed up with 5 characters easy and still had to leave early +5
-Kept bonfire going for the all the dead characters. +10
-If I'd meant Characters I would have SAID characters +25

65. I actually put some fresh numbers on a dice yesterday. I miss some of my old worn dice I've lost over the years.

[Aranna]

memorax wrote:

The guy I kicked out of my game. While I did not give a hug. Did everything in my power to motivate to get into the game. It went nowhere. Sometimes one has to just walk away from a losing and soul sucking battle. Some people will not change and despite your best efforts and being friends or family the solution is to walk away. Life is too short.

I wasn't there, so take this with a grain of salt. But I once had a player who just sat there and never seemed to be excited about my game, I did everything I could think of to involve him. But week after week nothing... Eventually I had a long conversation about his participation and I will never forget what he said, he said he didn't want any special attention in the game, he was happy just to be one of the players, he didn't want to be the big hero he want to be with his friends, his goal was to support his buddies. I no longer saw him as uninvolved, I saw him as just what the others needed a helping hand who made everything go smoother. And now I smile when he gets to play. Sometimes we are so caught up in our own perspective that we don't get to understand that other person. We don't ask the right questions or we assume something negative. What's done is done with him but hopefully this story will be on people's minds if they run into difficult players.

[GM Tribute]

+5 points if the dice bag says crown royal on it.
+5 points if the dice bag has an actual 30 sided die (I have seen them)

[memorax]

Aranna wrote:

I wasn't there, so take this with a grain of salt. But I once had a player who just sat there and never seemed to be excited about my game, I did everything I could think of to involve him. But week after week nothing... Eventually I had a long conversation about his participation and I will never forget what he said, he said he didn't want any special attention in the game, he was happy just to be one of the players, he didn't want to be the big hero he want to be with his friends, his goal was to support his buddies. I no longer saw him as uninvolved, I saw him as just what the others needed a helping hand who made everything go smoother. And now I smile when he gets to play. Sometimes we are so caught up in our own perspective that we don't get to understand that other person. We don't ask the right questions or we assume something negative. What's done is done with him but hopefully this story will be on people's minds if they run into difficult players.

It's hard to describe my ex-player. Suffice to say it was like watching a person socially devolve. Never gave a care about anything but himself and his brother. Withdrew too much into mmos and online gaming because life threw him a few curve balls. I admit I did too once. But one can't hide from real life from withdrawing from it.

My player complained that my games lacked roleplaying. Yet had to be forced sometimes to interact with npcs. He lost a love interest because he refused to interact with the npc. Then wondered why another player had the love interest. Barely said anything at the table. Refused to show up to one of my games because he could not get a lift to the game. Thi is a guy who travels alot when it suits him. Refused to do game notes for "reasons" aka too lazy. If it was not a favored rpg refused to learn the rules. Had others make his character for him.

I wish it was your player. At least he had a reason for not engaging in game. My player simply does not give a truck about anything anymore. It's sad because you think that after alienating everyone around them it would be a walk up call to try and help themselves. Nothing. I don't even know if the player or his brother are still alive. It felt like being friends with them was like working a full time job.

[Kthulhu]

If WotC were only in it for the money, they wouldn't bother with a tabletop RPG to begin with.

[Haladir]

I've been playing since 1981, when I was 12. I started with a group playing an OD&D/AD&D home brew hybrid, then I had a falling-out with them and bought the 1983 Red Book Basic Set. We played Basic/Expert until '85, when we switched to AD&D (1e).

AD&D allowed more flexibility than 3.x in many ways, but at the same time fostered more arguments. You had to trust your DM more back then; so much of the game was decided by DM fiat. Using the old rules would make organized play a very different thing, if it would even be possible. Tourneys back then almost always used pregens, with the exception of "Bring Your Own Character" events. As the game became more codified, we traded one set of problems for another.

I joke about being a grognard, but I certainly prefer modern rules to the older sets.

[thejeff]

Haladir wrote:

AD&D allowed more flexibility than 3.x in many ways, but at the same time fostered more arguments. You had to trust your DM more back then; so much of the game was decided by DM fiat. Using the old rules would make organized play a very different thing, if it would even be possible. Tourneys back then almost always used pregens, with the exception of "Bring Your Own Character" events. As the game became more codified, we traded one set of problems for another.

Though I never played in them until later, and don't know much about the early years, organized play started back in 2E (or maybe the end of 1st). "Living City" ran through the 90s until 3.0 came out.

[Vincent Takeda]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?

Ah, for the same reason I like palladiums skills really... In palladium a skill like driving started out with a huge percentage because driving is pretty easy in the grand scheme of things and it doesnt take much effort to become really great at driving.

On the other hand a skill like safe cracking or streetwise starts off hard and crawls slowly because even when you're good, incrimental improvements are tiny at best, and you'll probably never hit 98% in streetwise no matter how long you work at it.

So the skill has a personality of either being easy or hard at the get go, also has a peronality of being easy or hard to get better at, and also has a personality of how good you're really ever going to get at it...

A 2e warrior starts out horrible against breath weapons, but ends up being the most resistant to them... because he starts out less educated than a mage or a priest or a thief probably would be about the nature of them... but they learn fast and they learn the hard way and by the time they cap out, they have a better ability to not let that horrible thing happen to them than any other class.

Rogues start out pretty good against poisons and paralysis because sure... They probably use a lot of it... But they dont every get much better at it over time because you're resistance to poison is more of a 'better at avoiding it' kind of way where a warrior starts out worse at it but at the end of the day is way better at resisting it because he's a badass and has more body control and just fights through it by physical superiority...

So every thing you could save against has its own 'personality'. I think the unified fort/ref/will save trick loses that just a little. Its a lot more streamlined and but , but it loses a little bit of its soul in the process. I don't require 'simple' as much as I enjoy 'systems that seem to follow their own wierd logic' when that logic seems to have been thought out and given a personality of its own.

I know the The warrior being the 'big dumb lunk' who never cracked a book does start out worse than every other guy and thats not a fun trope for some players, but by the time he levels up he's handily the best at every save there is with the exception of priests and death magic... Imagine if a pathfinder warrior went from 3 bad saves to 3 better saves than everyone else. I'd prefer it. Even if it required some wierd custom mechanic to make it happen.

Sure a great deal of thought was put into how 2e handles saves, and probably a great deal of thought was put into how later editions handle saves, but when the 2e guys were thinking of how to handle it, they built it for each category to have a unique curve or flavor and custom tailored them for each class. The mindset of the later saving throw mechanics was how do we make it simple... I like unique soulful personality in my mechanics over simplicity.

[Vincent Takeda]

Sorry bout the typos up there. had Easter activity happen at the house and had to hit send and walk away without a chance to finish my editing... Hope it was at least clear enough....

For me I like that the saving throws, though not conveniently unified and linear and simple, in their complexity, seemed to have meaning and life to them... There was a method to the madness. You could, based on the math, glean from them the sort of fluffy nuance of why they were the kinds of wierd that they were.

Sure pathfinder still has a little bit of that, and at the end of the day there are a lot of folks who see the colorful nuanced difference in a few points here and there probably being not worth the effort... At the end of the day its an issue of granularity vs payoff... For a lot of folks the payoff isnt worth the annoyance ...... For me it totally is. Its not even annoying to me. For me its a feature instead of a flaw.

As an example you could take the mechanic one step further and say that instead of having fort, ref and will, three separate saves that are good or bad as a function of class, but every class is required to be either good or bad at each of them... instead every class has a single saving throw that it uses to determine how it resists everything... every single save against poison, breath weapons, magic... whatever.... every single save you make is based off of your chosen one resistance method... A reflex character will use the one save he gets... jumping out of the way... a fort character will use the one save he gets... he will try to tough it out. A will character will make only will saves... he will try to grit his teeth and bear it.

And each one is equally good at their own method, so theres only one saving throw for each class and its the same number for everyone... I mean... It's simpler... and its still 'colorful and thematic' to an extent. But that new layer of simplicity does remove a little nuance... is such a thing worth the tradeoff or are we better still having every character have a fort, ref and will, and each character suck at one or two things?

Sure at the end of the day its 'micromanaging a swing in points' and the player's choices can either have a large or small contribution to the results of those swings... Thats kinda what feats and traits are... Giving the player the agency to swing a few points here and there in a custom direction for flavor's sake.

But then we go and make it so saving throws have less unique swing and flavor?

[thejeff]

It's the mechanical aspect that bothers me. Saves actually got easier to make in AD&D. More so for some saves and less for others, but better overall.

In PF, your save numbers go up, but so does the DC. For casters, it's usually easier to stack the DC higher than for the target to boost their saves, especially the bad ones. The difference between good and bad saves grows as you level making you generally more vulnerable to something than you were at low level. That just didn't happen in AD&D.

[Vincent Takeda]

Very much agree

[Kthulhu]

thejeff wrote:

It's the mechanical aspect that bothers me. Saves actually got easier to make in AD&D. More so for some saves and less for others, but better overall.

In PF, your save numbers go up, but so does the DC. For casters, it's usually easier to stack the DC higher than for the target to boost their saves, especially the bad ones. The difference between good and bad saves grows as you level making you generally more vulnerable to something than you were at low level. That just didn't happen in AD&D.

Which is one of the main reasons that the balance shifted so dramatically towards casters in 3.0 and it's derivative systems. A high level wizard in 0e/1e/Basic/2e might have godlike powers, but the high level fighter is gonna shrug them off unless he rolls a natural 1.

In 3.0/3.5/PFRPG, the wizard just pumps his DC high enough that he can keep Orcus on a leash.

[The 8th Dwarf]

Vincent you have been living my RPG History.... Except RoleMaster 2 is my favourite.

[GM Tribute]

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Vincent you have been living my RPG History.... Except RoleMaster 2 is my favourite.

I met the ICE guys at Prez con in Charlottesville, VA. They are quite nice and UVA graduates.

Rolemaster was great, but combat took quite a long time and was quite dangerous. They owned the license for most of the Middle Earth stuff, and we played through almost everything they made for Middle Earth.

Rolemaster pioneered the linear versus logarithmic experience chart pathfinder uses today!! Rolemaster gave you a detailed table for every weapon!!

And let us not forget Runequest.

[Scythia]

Aranna wrote:

memorax wrote:

The guy I kicked out of my game. While I did not give a hug. Did everything in my power to motivate to get into the game. It went nowhere. Sometimes one has to just walk away from a losing and soul sucking battle. Some people will not change and despite your best efforts and being friends or family the solution is to walk away. Life is too short.

I wasn't there, so take this with a grain of salt. But I once had a player who just sat there and never seemed to be excited about my game, I did everything I could think of to involve him. But week after week nothing... Eventually I had a long conversation about his participation and I will never forget what he said, he said he didn't want any special attention in the game, he was happy just to be one of the players, he didn't want to be the big hero he want to be with his friends, his goal was to support his buddies. I no longer saw him as uninvolved, I saw him as just what the others needed a helping hand who made everything go smoother. And now I smile when he gets to play. Sometimes we are so caught up in our own perspective that we don't get to understand that other person. We don't ask the right questions or we assume something negative. What's done is done with him but hopefully this story will be on people's minds if they run into difficult players.

I had a player once that was just there, and didn't do much of anything. I was getting a little frustrated by the fourth game. I accidentally found his activation requirement though. The party got split, and his character was the only one who received essential information. Suddenly it was like he was a different person, he became engaged and active, until the issue was dealt with. Basically, he liked being the only one who knows, and as long as I made sure his character got some kind of important secret (knowledge or object) that could make a difference, he would step up to use it.

Players are people, there are all sorts of different reasons they do (or don't do) anything.

[Xexyz]

Vanilla WoW was the best version of WoW!

Wait, what are we talking about here?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Back i my day death was so common we...

My first GM would take your character sheet and write the date and cause of death on it with a red marker.

He'd then tape it up on the wall over his desk. He eventually had the whole wall covered.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Vincent Takeda wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?

A 2e warrior starts out horrible against breath weapons, but ends up being the most resistant to them... because he starts out less educated than a mage or a priest or a thief probably would be about the nature of them... but they learn fast and they learn the hard way and by the time they cap out, they have a better ability to not let that horrible thing happen to them than any other class.

Rogues start out pretty good against poisons and paralysis because sure... They probably use a lot of it... But they dont every get much better at it over time because you're resistance to poison is more of a 'better at avoiding it' kind of way where a warrior starts out worse at it but at the end of the day is way better at resisting it because he's a badass and has more body control and just fights through it by physical superiority...

So every thing you could save against has its own 'personality'...

Wow, you gleaned all of that from a bunch of numbers in a game book? People really do think about things fundamentally differently!

Thank you for your thoughts. :)

[Oceanshieldwolf]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Beard.

Rick grimes +5 points
Duck dynasty +10 points

Rulebook
has duct tape +5
is entirely duct tape +10 points
that could double as a satanic heavy metal cover album +15 points
Rulebooks that could double as a satanic heavy metal cover album and duct tape -10 points. You don't treat collectors items like that.

Miniatures:
Metal +5 points
Lead +10 points
Were banned in china for lead content +15 points
Painted +5
Prepainted plastic -30

Size
Pudgy +5
Husky +10
Roughly the size of a barge +15

Geek bag
Stuffed backpack +5 points
Cart +10 points
Legally requires a beeper to back up +15 points.

Started playing in..
80s +5 (but only if you were there for the dark dungeons days)
70s +10
60s +15

Dice:
Dice bag legally qualifies as a sap +5
Edges are worn down so it it keeps rolling +10
Paint in your own numbers+15

Back i my day death was so common we...
-Showed up with 5 characters easy and still had to leave early +5
-Kept bonfire going for the all the dead characters. +10
-If I'd meant Characters I would have SAID characters +25

GM Tribute wrote:

+5 points if the dice bag says crown royal on it.

+5 points if the dice bag has an actual 30 sided die (I have seen them)

Phew. With the d30 I make 50 points. But I could have added some more to the list.

See I HAD the beard, but it was in between my RPG periods. Go figure.

Nor do I think Size is a true prereq for Grognard. My body type will always be whippet thin, no matter my age. Not much I can do about that.

I think we need a new thread where we argue over the prereqs and the relative points for each. ;)

[Oceanshieldwolf]

GM Tribute wrote:

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Vincent you have been living my RPG History.... Except RoleMaster 2 is my favourite.

I met the ICE guys at Prez con in Charlottesville, VA. They are quite nice and UVA graduates.

Rolemaster was great, but combat took quite a long time and was quite dangerous. They owned the license for most of the Middle Earth stuff, and we played through almost everything they made for Middle Earth.

Rolemaster pioneered the linear versus logarithmic experience chart pathfinder uses today!! Rolemaster gave you a detailed table for every weapon!!

And let us not forget Runequest.

Yep, still love MERP and everything ICE. Lots of RPG folks passed through their company - Monte Cook even…

I always liked Runequest for ducks, dark trolls that seemed quite playable, the disease spreading Broo, Rumble at the Tin Inn (and for ADnD) and every White Dwarf article for RQ.

[Aranna]

I LOVE quizzes!

But... being an athletic girl means I can't score very high.
And starting in the 90's probably doesn't help much either.

BUT I do get 15 points!
- I had a backpack of books with all kinds of buttons and patches, it was a 90's thing.
- I use metal minis. Yay! Sorry I hear lead was outlawed or something. I would claim painted... but I only painted a few and gave it up. The guy who got me into painting them killed himself and I never regained any real interest in painting them again.
- I own a lot of dice enough to make a sap if I wanted. I collect all manner of the cute little things. I even have some metal ones which would come in handy for that sap. I even had a thing where I matched my dice colors with my outfit... but only for a few years really, I really am not as girly as that makes me sound.

PS: I could up that to 20 by adding my d30 to my dice case... except it doesn't fit and has no real uses...

I bet I own a die none of you own however! I have a d14 made for fun and given to me by a guy in shop class.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

@Aranna - this may be a dumb question - does the d14 have 14 sides or seven with 2 numbers/side?

I think there are professionally produced die of all manner of numbers/sides….

[Aranna]

14 sides with some rounded areas to make it all even.

[houstonderek]

LazarX wrote:

memorax wrote:

Ha I not only get on your lawn. I seed it with pesticide resistant weeds.

LazarX wrote:

Having gamed in those days, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that No one cared. There was not this big set of gaming conventions written in stone (or on the non-existent Internet). It was the NORM that GM's would pretty much do their own thing with different degrees of variance from the ruleset. In all the GMs I played with, not a single one of them held just or used all of the rules in the DMG or Player's Handbook. RAW wasn't even a term in those days.

Seconded

Having gamed with 1E then 2E. RAW was not a term in those days. OR RAI. If it was I never saw it until 3E.

I never saw it myself until people started adopting a herd mentality in online venues such as this one. What I do see is a growing unwillingness to experiment without some mass expression of prior approval. Without a willingness to embrace the prospect of failure, innovation grinds to a halt.

I will say that the seeds for the whole "RAW/RAI" thing were sewn in the pages of Dragon back in the mid-Eighties, when the Forum and Sage Advice sections gained traction. The only difference was the contrarian replies were spaced months apart, and the moderation was brutally strict. ;-)

[John Woodford]

GM Tribute wrote:

Have a bunch of characters have to start without any weapons or spellbooks today like one of the A modules, and you would have a revolt on your hands.

Like, oh, Skull & Shackles ;-)?

[TriOmegaZero]

Playing a storm druid in S&S is pretty awesome. Especially multiclassing monk.

[Sissyl]

What if my dice bag needs to beep beep beep when it backs up?

[Triphoppenskip]

Kthulhu wrote:

Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I blame music and TV shows.

You forgot 'video games'. These damn kids with their Fourth Edition and their World of Warhammercraft and their Pac-Man....

I'd submit that if you think the Tomb of Horrors it the apex of adventure design... you might be a Grognard.

What if, like me, you consider RETURN to the Tomb of Horrors the apex of adventure design?

Hipster