Old School Gaming ?


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Too late. no respect I tell ya!

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
2/3's of the posts seem like people trying to portray their own favorite style in a way that makes them seem superior to others.

Which is a damn shame because I believe there are decent conversations to be had about new/old school playstyles. However, 2/3 of folks just want to lay claim on rightgoodfun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totes McScrotes wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
2/3's of the posts seem like people trying to portray their own favorite style in a way that makes them seem superior to others.
Isn't that how these things always break down? Everyone's either an entitled whiner who just doesn't like change, or an easily amused man/woman-child ruined by smartphones and World of Warcraft.

Funny you should mention WoW. Just the other week, the UA column over at the WotC site introduced a new version of the Ranger, lacking spell casting or an animal companion, but with (among other things) a Spirit Companion ability.

Now, I like D&D 5e with its old school ethic, but I had to come to terms with my feelings in a hurry. My main on WoW is a BM hunter, who has collected all the spirit beast models, if not all the individual spirits beasts, just 'cause they look SO good. Looking good is what WoW is there for, after all.

So you think would love a 5e version of the ranger with a spirit beast ability, but instead I felt like ranting about for a half hour, because THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT WHEN I PLAY D&D!!11!

. . .

I guess I'm saying that I enjoy both old school and new school, and the line between the two is a moving target. Just, woe betide you should you confuse the two.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chainmail wrote:
I remember starting in a setting called Dragonlance. The story begins where clerics do not get to have any spells at start until the Disks are found in the adventure. I do not think this would fly today.

I can tell you now it totally would fly today.

The key thing is that the GM would be expected to announce before people made characters that clerics would start without spellcasting and it would have to be earned mid-game.

This might mean that none of your players choose to take clerics and that's ok.

Lots!!!! of fun, if you consider resting for days after every little combat= "fun".

Keep in mind that the heroes did start out with an artifact blue crystal staff which sort of made up for the lack of healing.

Dark Archive

The old is constantly moving forward, for what is new today is old tomorrow.


From a good thing
You can linger too long
In your dreams
Say goodbye to the
Oldies but goodies
Cause the good ole days weren't always good
and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems


I thought this was an opinion thread about how you personally see or understand the difference between the concepts "old" and "new" school. Obviously no correct or universal answer exists as to what is old or new or even what the differences of these subjective categories might be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm Home Schooled.

Sovereign Court

Sometimes I like to whip out BECMI and play a round or two of Tomb of Horrors.

Mostly though I prefer modern systems.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Tammy loves The Tomb of Horrors.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
You know, this might just be me as well, but if your encountering Beholders before 9th+ level then you might want to try a different GM.

not within the old school paradigm.

In that style of play you might well find a beholder at low level. The challenge is realising it is not an encounter that can be overcome easily or perhaps at all by combat(depending on edition)

Old school players say...don't know what that thing is but it is huge and floats and has lots of eyes, lets:

- Find a different way forwards.
- go back upto the underground river, and divert it flow here with dam at the edge of the abyss. All the door ways on this level are those weird air lock things so we should be able to direct the flow. We can just drown it. Best bit we can use that weird goblet with the gate in it to drain the water onto another plane when it is dead.
- go back to the room directly above this and turn of the levetation device holding up the hundred ton sphere of metal. Because if I have mapped this place correctly there is only maybe 10' of stone between the two rooms. It might well fall through into this room and kill this thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No my brother was a dick about it, we were almost always cornered.. literally at 3-6th levels.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
You know, this might just be me as well, but if your encountering Beholders before 9th+ level then you might want to try a different GM.

not within the old school paradigm.

In that style of play you might well find a beholder at low level. The challenge is realising it is not an encounter that can be overcome easily or perhaps at all by combat(depending on edition)

Old school players say...don't know what that thing is but it is huge and floats and has lots of eyes, lets:

- Find a different way forwards.
- go back upto the underground river, and divert it flow here with dam at the edge of the abyss. All the door ways on this level are those weird air lock things so we should be able to direct the flow. We can just drown it. Best bit we can use that weird goblet with the gate in it to drain the water onto another plane when it is dead.
- go back to the room directly above this and turn of the levetation device holding up the hundred ton sphere of metal. Because if I have mapped this place correctly there is only maybe 10' of stone between the two rooms. It might well fall through into this room and kill this thing.

To quote one of the cartoons in the 1E DMG - "I thought you said this was a first level dungeon?"

Really, this kind of thing wasn't any more common back then than it is now. It didn't appear in any modules I can think of. The various random tables and advice for building dungeons didn't talk about it. It was suggested if you ventured out into the scary wilderness, but then it was much more just random encounters you should run or hide from, then encounters you had to find the carefully designed way to kill anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never claimed it did happen that way morebin the seventies and early 80s. I wasn't there. However, it is exactly the kind of thing the old school movement hold up as being old school, and since they aee the group who describe their play style as old school, I do think they have some legitimate claim as to expertise on what they mean by old school.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the things older gamers think of as old-school may actually be a consequence of having your eleven-year-old brother with a shaky sense of game balance as GM.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In my opinion it is a style of play and a philosophy of play. To me old school was harder on the characters, fighting was out right was tough, healing took a long time and was expensive. So you tried not to get in to a fight because it hurt. There was plenty of fighting but there were also plenty of long rests. Think of the Tolkien books vs the movies, in the books they have a adventure or two and then rest for several weeks, in the movie it was pretty much non-stop.

Balance was not something we worried about because running away was definitely something you need to do. Not every thing was balanced, there were encounters you could not win and standing toe to toe in a fight could be disastrous. It is a different style of play, today there is philosophy that you should be able to win every encounter, people expect to win. That was not always the case

There was min/maxing in the old game but was not built into the system like it is now. You either cheated (faked you die roles) or the GM allowed it with some rules (giving you the 18(00) str). Characters were much simpler and you did not need a stat or feat to a defined class to make you character. The class of fighter could be just about anything you that was a melee character, a viking, a pirate, a gladiator or soldier. You used flavor text and imagination not stats, class, archetypes or feats to define who or what you were. Once again I go way back, that started to change drastically around 2nd edition I believe (I never played second).

I know people say E5 is moving towards the old school gaming style, but I do not see it. They simplified the system but the play is still the same, lots of healing and lots of combats I have played a fair amount of E5 and it is a good gmae but it is much more like today's games in my opinion. If you do not want to hit the old AD&D books or the red box but want current game that captures the old school feel with a simplified system I would recommend "Castles and Crusades".

I may sound a little old and crotchety (Get off my lawn you damn kids!!!) but I like all sorts of games, old school, new school(?), rules light, rules heavy...my philosophy is just play and have fun...in the end that is what games are all about


Zombieneighbours wrote:

- go back upto the underground river, and divert it flow here with dam at the edge of the abyss. All the door ways on this level are those weird air lock things so we should be able to direct the flow. We can just drown it. Best bit we can use that weird goblet with the gate in it to drain the water onto another plane when it is dead.

- go back to the room directly above this and turn of the levetation device holding up the hundred ton sphere of metal. Because if I have mapped this place correctly there is only maybe 10' of stone between the two rooms. It might well fall through into this room and kill this thing.

Funny you should mention this sort of non-combat resolution. I've seen posters on these very boards this past week or two decry that as 'not playing the game.'


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Shrugs* I enjoy my wrong bad fun much more than maximising my DPR, what can I say. ;)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

- go back upto the underground river, and divert it flow here with dam at the edge of the abyss. All the door ways on this level are those weird air lock things so we should be able to direct the flow. We can just drown it. Best bit we can use that weird goblet with the gate in it to drain the water onto another plane when it is dead.

- go back to the room directly above this and turn of the levetation device holding up the hundred ton sphere of metal. Because if I have mapped this place correctly there is only maybe 10' of stone between the two rooms. It might well fall through into this room and kill this thing.
Funny you should mention this sort of non-combat resolution. I've seen posters on these very boards this past week or two decry that as 'not playing the game.'

I don't have a theoretical problem with it. It's cool, it's fun. When it works. OTOH, it takes a lot of GM setup and risks a TPK if anything goes wrong.

It's basically a GM fiat kill, especially if you have to do the kill to proceed.

I'd also be wary about giving full experience (or treasure) for such a set up. Giving a low level group high level xp & loot may not be good for the game.


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

- go back upto the underground river, and divert it flow here with dam at the edge of the abyss. All the door ways on this level are those weird air lock things so we should be able to direct the flow. We can just drown it. Best bit we can use that weird goblet with the gate in it to drain the water onto another plane when it is dead.

- go back to the room directly above this and turn of the levetation device holding up the hundred ton sphere of metal. Because if I have mapped this place correctly there is only maybe 10' of stone between the two rooms. It might well fall through into this room and kill this thing.
Funny you should mention this sort of non-combat resolution. I've seen posters on these very boards this past week or two decry that as 'not playing the game.'

I don't have a theoretical problem with it. It's cool, it's fun. When it works. OTOH, it takes a lot of GM setup and risks a TPK if anything goes wrong.

It's basically a GM fiat kill, especially if you have to do the kill to proceed.

I'd also be wary about giving full experience (or treasure) for such a set up. Giving a low level group high level xp & loot may not be good for the game.

In my own case I wouldn't actually be pitting the party against something way above their level, they'd just be dealing with it in a more efficient manner [conservation of resources.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Zombieneighbors - Here's this thing that'll instantly kill you if it notices you (and by all rights, if you can see it, it should notice you, but some reason it doesn't), but if you jump through a bunch of hoops, you can kill it through a plot event -

That sounds more like it's out of a Sierra game than it sounds like Old School table top adventuring =P

(Mainly because if you actually ran that scenario in a table top environment, the beholder would notice the low level party and kill them. The only way the party even survives that situation is GM fiat. (And I would consider playing the beholder super stupidly to be GM fiat.))


Zhangar wrote:

@ Zombieneighbors - Here's this thing that'll instantly kill you if it notices you (and by all rights, if you can see it, it should notice you, but some reason it doesn't), but if you jump through a bunch of hoops, you can kill it through a plot event -

That sounds more like it's out of a Sierra game than it sounds like Old School table top adventuring =P

(Mainly because if you actually ran that scenario in a table top environment, the beholder would notice the low level party and kill them. The only way the party even survives that situation is GM fiat. (And I would consider playing the beholder super stupidly to be GM fiat.))

Because the chances of entity A seeing a group at elevation relative to it in both heavy shadow and cover when it is busy engaged in study are exactly as good as the chances of the group of adreniline fueled adventurers and highly focused, looking down on it from high above wherenit sits in bright light out in the open. Especially when one group is actively hiding and the other has no reason to suspect intruders.

Neither of those are nessisserially plot events though both could be set up as possible solutions, and one is very much more likely to have been done so.


Ah, sudden monsters outside of your range reminds me of the old Wizardry game. We offended the AI somehow and Werdna was on the first level once. Another time, we opened a door on one of the first few levels and there were like 3 Vampire Lords. It was horrible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Re: Beholders as low-level encounters.

Yes, "old school" gaming would somewhat frequently set up situations where starting a fight would mean a TPK. This was part of presenting an atmosphere of "adventuring is dangerous, you should use your brain [as a player] and not expect the GM to only use 'level appropriate' choices when designing the world." Generally, unless the GM was a "killer" (insert another derogatory term, if desired), you normally had warning or could run away rather than fight; these encounters would either be foreshadowing or methods of "layering" an adventure with chained quests (or just "steering" the party away from challenges they aren't ready to face, yet). It also made the world a bit more of a "sandbox," in that the party could get themselves in a bad situation if they got "too full of themselves."

Case in point: Shackled City.

Spoiler:
At the end of the first adventure, the party encounters a beholder. If they try to fight, they'll likely all die. However, the beholder has other goals than simply killing the PCs.


I have often used Beholders with low level parties - Beholders are not stupid, and understand when something is a threat to them or not, and more often that not, the Beholder I use is more than happy to talk with a low level party, even ask them to take care some pesky vampires, or gith-fiends that are moving in on his or her territory


Yeah, I think the "Everything you meet is CR appropriate and thus can (and probably should) be immediately attacked" is a parody of New School practice.


"Powerful monster that just wants to talk to you, so be please so kind as to not commit suicide by attacking it" is a bit a different from "here's this powerful monster, please kill it through a plot device to advance" =P

(Aside: I, Tyrant is always going to have an influence on how I view beholders - a beholder with a poorly lit lair that's lacking in well-placed mirrors is doing it wrong =P)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blah. I learned what I need to know about beholders from Dungeons & Dragons: the movie. They are about as smart as a dog, and you can easily distract them by throwing a rock the other way.


old school gaming = Senet

everything else = new school


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well loads of good stuff thanks ladies and Gent's
To me old school is a style of play where you could be a bit fast and lose with the rules you don't need perfect scale maps and minis (although it is nice sometimes) games tended to be a bit faster paced especially in combat there was no players measuring how far they where from the bad guys so the mage could drop a fireball on them or spending ages working out there characters route to a bad guy so he can get flanking bonus and avoid aoo .
Players where more interested in a good story than how to advance there character ability, now I know some of this is down to how the game system has advanced over the years and I think most of the changes are for the good but I can't help but feel that something has been lost along the way.
And I know some of you will say I've got my rose tinted glasses on, and there is of course a bit of that in the mix as well and I know that most people who play have a great time (which is the most important thing)
I just think that maybe we've all become a bit to worried about "how the game is played" when what's important is "how we play the game"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

To me, Old School refers to both a play style and a design philosophy.

As a design philosophy, Old School gaming leaves the rules deliberately vague and open to interpretation. The GM is supposed to know and trust her players, and her players know and trust her. In Old School gaming, the GM is encouraged and expected to make on-the-fly table rulings when PCs try things that aren't specifically covered by the rules. The nature of the rulings in similar situations might change in different circumstances, and that's also expected.

As a play style, Old School relies more on storytelling than rules mastery. That's because the rules are deliberately vague. There's a sense that anything is possible-- there aren't rules written for many circumstances, so you as a player get to make it up as you go along. Try stuff. See what happens.

Old School gaming has a strong appeal to some and no appeal to others. I certainty see benefits to stronger rules codification and "crunchiness" of OGL gaming, but as time goes on, I feel like something has been lost. Complex rules can be a constraint to creativity, and tactical positioning can make combat feel like a board game.

That said, im not ready to trade in my Pathfinder stuff for Swords and Wizardry. But I am seeing the appeal of D&D 5e. I think they may have struck a good balance for now.


For what it's worth guys, the crunchy rules-heavy nature of 3.P does absolutely nothing to prevent a story-focused game that doesn't even use a battlemap.

It's how I always ran it as a GM, pure battlefield of the mind style.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
I feel like something has been lost. Complex rules can be a constraint to creativity, and tactical positioning can make combat feel like a board game.

It hasn't. People are just lazy. I never, ever felt constrained in my creativity of either creating characters or creating a campaign.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Haladir wrote:
I feel like something has been lost. Complex rules can be a constraint to creativity, and tactical positioning can make combat feel like a board game.
It hasn't. People are just lazy. I never, ever felt constrained in my creativity of either creating characters or creating a campaign.

No, it has.

See the thread about the GM who is afraid to modify a creatures DR because it isn't currently in the rule set as an option. This is the typical mindset of RAW GM or Player, something that was fostered by the 3.X/d20/OGL movement.

The more codification and expectation that "there needs to be a rule for that" the less wiggle room you have as both a player or GM to create something that comes from your imagination - it has to comply with the current gaming toolset.

This is an aspect/side-effect of hypercodification/MtG of the D&D rules that occurred in 2000 and 2003 and onward with every other 3.X clone (PF included). Aka "you need a rule for that" or "is it in the rulebook"? This is also the primary reason why a "Build Your Own Monster" book using a codified, game-legal toolkit has not been made in 15 years. Even the game's creators and those that followed can't figure out how to codify such wide ranging and subjective data - so they don't/can't put it out because it would cause the hypercod gaming community to go into apoplectic seizures.

Liberty's Edge

Auxmaulous wrote:

The more codification and expectation that "there needs to be a rule for that" the less wiggle room you have as both a player or GM to create something that comes from your imagination - it has to comply with the current gaming toolset.

This is an aspect/side-effect of hypercodification/MtG of the D&D rules that occurred in 2000 and 2003 and onward with every other 3.X clone (PF included). Aka "you need a rule for that" or "is it in the rulebook"? This is also the primary reason why a "Build Your Own Monster" book using a codified, game-legal toolkit has not been made in 15 years. Even the game's creators and those that followed can't figure out how to codify such wide ranging and subjective data - so they don't/can't put it out because it would cause the hypercod gaming community to go into apoplectic seizures.

* Looks at his Fantasy Craft books and notes.

Careful of those absolutes...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've generally found the "everything MUST be exactly by RAW" crowd to be kind of baffling, as changing the rules as you see fit is actually part of the RAW =P

The PRD wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

(Emphasis added.)

The rules are only a straitjacket if you want them to be.

And I guess there's people that do, but in the end that's their discretion.

(Aside: Though odder still goes to the folks that insist that everything be by RAW, and then try to interpret the RAW as unreasonably as possible, or always err in favor on whatever interpretation would get a more ridiculous or abusive result =P)

Community Manager

Removed a post and its response. Just because you didn't like a thing doesn't mean it wasn't successful or fun for those that did like it.


Liz Courts wrote:
Removed a post and its response. Just because you didn't like a thing doesn't mean it wasn't successful or fun for those that did like it.

+5 Holy Vorpal Avenger!

Dark Archive

Krensky wrote:

* Looks at his Fantasy Craft books and notes.

Careful of those absolutes...

The monsters in FC are not compatible with 3/X games without heavy revision or reference. Even though FC is d20 based, it isn't 3/X based.

That isn't moving goalposts, that's just the truth.

FC Bugbear:

Bugbear (Medium Folk Walker — 49 XP):
Str 14, Dex 10,Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 9;
SZ M (1×1, Reach 1); Spd 30 ft.ground;
Init III; Atk IV; Def II; Res IV; Health IV; Comp II;
Skills:
Athletics III, Notice III, Survival III; Qualities: Damage reduction
I, darkvision I, feat (Ambush Basics, Club Basics, Pathfinder
Basics (mountains)), improved sense (hearing), swarm, veteran I
Attacks/Weapons: Mace (dmg 1d8+2 lethal; threat 20; qualities: AP 4), hide shield (dmg 1d3+2 subdual; threat 20; qualities: guard +2), Net (dmg —; threat —; range 10 ft. × 3;qualities: cord, trip)
Gear: Partial leather armor with light fittings (DR 2; Resist Fire 3; DP –1; ACP –1; Spd —; Disguise –4)
Treasure: 1A, 1G

Yup, looks like an 3/X creature, just drop and play...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Everything I need to run that monster in Pathfinder is there, so I don't think I can agree with your complaint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Hama wrote:
Haladir wrote:
I feel like something has been lost. Complex rules can be a constraint to creativity, and tactical positioning can make combat feel like a board game.
It hasn't. People are just lazy. I never, ever felt constrained in my creativity of either creating characters or creating a campaign.

No, it has.

See the thread about the GM who is afraid to modify a creatures DR because it isn't currently in the rule set as an option. This is the typical mindset of RAW GM or Player, something that was fostered by the 3.X/d20/OGL movement.

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

I agree that there is a bigger crowd of those folks visible these days that in the past, partly thanks to the hypercodification introduced by some systems (d20 being only one of them) but partly due to increased communication between gamers and greater visibility of different individual approaches in the age of internet.

Quote:
This is an aspect/side-effect of hypercodification/MtG of the D&D rules that occurred in 2000 and 2003 and onward with every other 3.X clone (PF included). Aka "you need a rule for that" or "is it in the rulebook"? This is also the primary reason why a "Build Your Own Monster" book using a codified, game-legal toolkit has not been made in 15 years. Even the game's creators and those that followed can't figure out how to codify such wide ranging and subjective data - so they don't/can't put it out because it would cause the hypercod gaming community to go into apoplectic seizures.

*makes a note about that*

Last year I made a lecture about creating monsters on a local gaming convention. Maybe I should write about that and publish? *grins*

Dark Archive

Drejk wrote:

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

I agree that there is a bigger crowd of those folks visible these days that in the past, partly thanks to the hypercodification introduced by some systems (d20 being only one of them) but partly due to increased communication between gamers and greater visibility of different individual approaches in the age of internet.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. This hypercodification is primarily an aspect of 3/X gaming. 3/X games are not open to interpretation systems - they are finely detailed, with a rule/feat for everything. If one doesn't exist, it soon will. Even 5e has backed off of this approach as part of its design consideration so I don't soley attribute this to the increased communication gamers have now vs the 70's - 90's or modern game design. This is an aspect tied mostly to the 3/X ruleset.

Drejk wrote:

*makes a note about that*

Last year I made a lecture about creating monsters on a local gaming convention. Maybe I should write about that and publish? *grins*

Hey, I never said it couldn't be done, I said why it wouldn't be done.

Anyone can make a monster builder system - but monsters (as presented in 3.5's MM or PF's Bestiary) have uneven and somewhat subjective abilities and powers that don't code evenly and neatly. I don't have a problem with it. The RAW crowd would tear it to pieces because the monster abilities wouldn't box correctly.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Drejk wrote:

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

I agree that there is a bigger crowd of those folks visible these days that in the past, partly thanks to the hypercodification introduced by some systems (d20 being only one of them) but partly due to increased communication between gamers and greater visibility of different individual approaches in the age of internet.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. This hypercodification is primarily an aspect of 3/X gaming. 3/X games are not open to interpretation systems - they are finely detailed, with a rule/feat for everything. If one doesn't exist, it soon will. Even 5e has backed off of this approach as part of its design consideration so I don't soley attribute this to the increased communication gamers have now vs the 70's - 90's or modern game design. This is an aspect tied mostly to the 3/X ruleset.

To name a few: Rolemaster. GURPS. Polish system Kryształy Czasu ("Crystals Of Time"). Mythic Journeys from what I browsed seemed to be very strongly codified too. All of those had their peak in nineties.

Hypercodification is part of D&D 3rd edition, that's true, but a) there were other hypercodified rulesets in the past, and b) there were always people insisting on playing "by the book" and rejecting tweaking, changes, or improvisation.

Liberty's Edge

Auxmaulous wrote:
Krensky wrote:

* Looks at his Fantasy Craft books and notes.

Careful of those absolutes...

The monsters in FC are not compatible with 3/X games without heavy revision or reference. Even though FC is d20 based, it isn't 3/X based.

That isn't moving goalposts, that's just the truth.

FC Bugbear:

Bugbear (Medium Folk Walker — 49 XP):
Str 14, Dex 10,Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 9;
SZ M (1×1, Reach 1); Spd 30 ft.ground;
Init III; Atk IV; Def II; Res IV; Health IV; Comp II;
Skills:
Athletics III, Notice III, Survival III; Qualities: Damage reduction
I, darkvision I, feat (Ambush Basics, Club Basics, Pathfinder
Basics (mountains)), improved sense (hearing), swarm, veteran I
Attacks/Weapons: Mace (dmg 1d8+2 lethal; threat 20; qualities: AP 4), hide shield (dmg 1d3+2 subdual; threat 20; qualities: guard +2), Net (dmg —; threat —; range 10 ft. × 3;qualities: cord, trip)
Gear: Partial leather armor with light fittings (DR 2; Resist Fire 3; DP –1; ACP –1; Spd —; Disguise –4)
Treasure: 1A, 1G

Yup, looks like an 3/X creature, just drop and play...

If you insist on using a FC NPC in some other system, of course some numbers don't line up. But at least present it as it would be as used at the table in FC.

Bugbear (Medium Folk Walker — 46 XP): TL: 2
Str: 14/+2; Dex: 10/+0; Con: 12/+1; Int: 10/+0; Wis: 10/+0; Cha: 9/-1;
Init: +1=1+0(dex) Melee: +4=2+2(str) Fort: +3=2+1(con)
Health: +3=2+1(con) ~ 40/12 Ranged: +2=2+0(dex) Ref: +2=2+0(dex)
Def: 11=10+1+0(dex) Comp: +1 Will: +2=2+0(wis)
Size: Medium (1×1); Reach: 1; Speed: 30 ft. ground;
Skills: Athletics III (Str) +7 = 5+2; Notice III (Wis) +5 = 5+0; Survival III (Wis) +5 = 5+0
Qualities: damage reduction I, darkvision I, feat (Ambush Basics, Club Basics, Pathfinder Basics (mountains)), improved sense (hearing), swarm, veteran I.
Attacks: Mace (dmg 1d8+2 lethal; threat 20; qualities: AP 4), hide shield (dmg 1d3+2 subdual; threat 20; qualities: guard +2), Net (dmg —; threat —; range 10 ft. × 3;qualities: cord, trip)
Gear: Partial leather armor with light fittings (DR 2; Resist Fire 3; DP –1; ACP –1; Spd —; Disguise –4)
Treasure: 1A, 1G


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

Do not play with those people. Treat them like you would any other group of people screaming at you about things they don't like that you've changed in your game, your life, your clothing or anything else.

Unless you are forced to GM PFS at gun point, there is no reason to stand for someone screaming at you about rules, and even then I'd be hard pressed to put up with that sort of nonsense. Tell people at the beginning of your house rules and that you might *gasp* be creative ith creatures that don't exist in their books or that you might make a ruling that doesn't always line up with the exact words in the book.

If they freak out about that, find more people to play with. Life is too short.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

Do not play with those people. Treat them like you would any other group of people screaming at you about things they don't like that you've changed in your game, your life, your clothing or anything else.

Unless you are forced to GM PFS at gun point, there is no reason to stand for someone screaming at you about rules, and even then I'd be hard pressed to put up with that sort of nonsense. Tell people at the beginning of your house rules and that you might *gasp* be creative ith creatures that don't exist in their books or that you might make a ruling that doesn't always line up with the exact words in the book.

If they freak out about that, find more people to play with. Life is too short.

I'm in absolute agreement here. And was going to pretty much say the same thing except less elegantly. I used to have a lot of tolerance for my fellow gamer and this kind of obsessive behavior. Now I find it the opposite of fun and try to find decent PEOPLE to play with. You can pretty much teach people what they need to know about gaming but you cant teach or foster decency and / or civility in people past a certain age.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Drejk wrote:

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

I agree that there is a bigger crowd of those folks visible these days that in the past, partly thanks to the hypercodification introduced by some systems (d20 being only one of them) but partly due to increased communication between gamers and greater visibility of different individual approaches in the age of internet.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. This hypercodification is primarily an aspect of 3/X gaming. 3/X games are not open to interpretation systems - they are finely detailed, with a rule/feat for everything. If one doesn't exist, it soon will. Even 5e has backed off of this approach as part of its design consideration so I don't soley attribute this to the increased communication gamers have now vs the 70's - 90's or modern game design. This is an aspect tied mostly to the 3/X ruleset.

To name a few: Rolemaster. GURPS. Polish system Kryształy Czasu ("Crystals Of Time"). Mythic Journeys from what I browsed seemed to be very strongly codified too. All of those had their peak in nineties.

Hypercodification is part of D&D 3rd edition, that's true, but a) there were other hypercodified rulesets in the past, and b) there were always people insisting on playing "by the book" and rejecting tweaking, changes, or improvisation.

You could add Chivalry and Sorcery, and that was around before the whole of AD&D 1e was published. That era was full of games trying to do "D&D but more Realistic!", which mostly meant adding more rules to cover things that weren't in the D&D rules. And of course E Gary Gygax expressed an opinion on modifying the AD&D rules a time or two.

251 to 300 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Old School Gaming ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.