Old School vs. Modern Gaming (Swords & Wizardry vs. Pathfinder)


Other RPGs

251 to 270 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You're really dismissive of the powers system. Name a D&D 4E class that didn't have powers (or whatever that class called their special abilities). I didn't play a lot of 4E, so maybe there's a class I'm unaware of that didn't have at-will, encounter, daily abilities. I only own the PHB1, but every class in that book uses the power system.

You can't dismiss something so pervasive to the system. If you are allowed to dismiss it, that in counter, I'm allowed to dismiss ANY system I want in any other game when I talk about it.

I don't care about the GSL. It's not relevant, because the book I have in front of me is not GSL: The Game, it's D&D 4th Edition and it contains powers.

Liberty's Edge

For me it is rather simple. It comes down to the required integration of miniatures in play. While sort of set-up for it we never used miniatures other than for marching order in 1e. Then 2e was completely devoid of miniatures in play (brief mention in passing only). 1e/2e was the bulk of my D&D 24/7 days. Then 3e came along and made miniatures more in the spotlight, remembering WotC made miniatures and a had parallel game. The the deal was sealed with 3.5e and even more so in 4e. Either use miniatures or have a nightmare time. Yes you could play 4e without miniatures but with all the detailed movement in combat it meant many rules were unworkable. Then 5e, miniatures can go back in the cupboard.

So for me 5e "plays" like 2e because of TotM combats. Those who cut there D&D teeth on 3.5e and PF obviously will have a different experience.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I find that the rules don't mandate minis, the players do.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're going to compare old v new then we need to compare them RAW. In 3.5/PF/4e the battlemat is essential unless you only fight one enemy. Most of the rules require accurate positioning, distance and movement and would be impossible without it. In that respect 5e is very much a throwback to older versions.

Shadow Lodge

By that standard it's essential even with only one enemy. You have to track AoOs and reach and maneuvering distance and the like the same for a single enemy, especially with a party of multiple characters.

I still don't find the argument to hold any water, of course.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes that's true, but with one opponent you *might* get away without the battlemat. We always use it in Pathfinder regardless, just to avoid confusion.

The only games I've played of 5e dispensed with it completely and combat went really fast, although how it fares at high level remains to be seen. 4e at low level (1-3) wasn't bad at all, its how it scaled that let it down.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I find that the rules don't mandate minis, the players do.

I find I like some physical representation. For me personally, I don't translate speech to spatial relations very well. Keeping track of who is where and doing what is very confusing to me if I don't have a visual reminder.

Now, I don't need a tactical map, with accurate/precise measurements and spacing. I'm very happy with abstract distances and mini's being used just to give a feel of who is where and what is happening.

This is true whether I am a player or DM.

I run a game about thieves from time to time. I'll draw up a map, we usually don't use mini's though. Cause the players will often split up, I need the map as a reference for me to keep track of where the action is. It's also useful for the players to plan their ingress and course of action.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I find that the rules don't mandate minis, the players do.

We will have to agree to differ. The introduction on the codified 5'-step and different movement types as described in, for example, 4e powers make detailed movement tracking a requirement. Not impossible to still do TotM combat but you are not playing RAW or RAI.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

F$!& RAW.

Irontruth wrote:
I find I like some physical representation.

This is exactly what I was saying. Even attempting to go matless just leads to player complaints and requests for minis to be used.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
F%%% RAW.

To paraphrase Babylon 5, "We live for the RAW, we die for the RAW". ;)

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
F%%% RAW.

To paraphrase Babylon 5, "We live for the RAW, we die for the RAW". ;)

'We' being the Royal version of 'I' in this case...


TriOmegaZero wrote:

F%+# RAW.

Irontruth wrote:
I find I like some physical representation.
This is exactly what I was saying. Even attempting to go matless just leads to player complaints and requests for minis to be used.

Quick sketches work for me too :D

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

F%+# RAW.

Irontruth wrote:
I find I like some physical representation.
This is exactly what I was saying. Even attempting to go matless just leads to player complaints and requests for minis to be used.
Quick sketches work for me too :D

This is what I'm use to, quick scribble on an A4 showing roughly where things are at the beginning and then completely TotM. Yes there were "but I thought they were over there?" conversations but still on the whole much faster combats and less set-up times then using miniatures.

Your mileage may vary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The part I prefer to skip is the grid. I don't need to use mini's or sketches; stuffed animals, random things from someone's desk, or dice all work for my mental picture just as well. It's just the relative positioning that I care about, not exact measurements.

"This fortune cookie is in melee combat with the stapler. The troll doll is hanging back using ranged attacks."

"Which one am I again?"

"The stapler."


Well, the conversation has moved on.

I'd say that I actually NEVER played 4e with minis. Technically, I've only played Pathfinder with those cardboard (or some use paper printouts) pawns.

In 4e IF we used something, we used the pogs the 4e had which were far cheaper than minis.

However, 4e was very playable without minis for many. Even for those who USED minis, it was ONLY for combat. I think everyone I knew that played 4e didn't use minis for anything out of combat. Most used minis when involved with combat in 4e, even if I played many games old school without them.

I haven't played 5e with minis either. I've seen some use representations, with the most used being pen and paper to show where someone is in respect to someone else. Others have used things like representations (I actually see a lot of legos use with one group), but I don't think I've seen any one really using minis with 5e, personally speaking.

I saw a LOT of minis use with 1e. OD&D practically had it's primary combat system (at first with three booklets) being a minis system with Chainmail as it's default combat system. After that, with the secondary system being more popular (and the hereditary line from which our usage of a D20 comes from, which from what I understand was actually originally from a NAVAL war game instead of a fantasy miniatures wargame like Chainmail) I still saw a lot of people using minitures and the like.

I saw a distinct decrease in miniature usage when AD&D got bigger, and especially with AD&D 2e. I still saw them for sale and people painting them though.


We always used miniatures, but we started with the old Chainmail miniature rules and wondered into the original D&D game. The only version of D&D I haven't played / DMd is 4E. I read 4th (the original core 3 books) decided it wasn't for me and gave my books to someone who liked it. Honestly I don't remember much about the read through though. Miniatures always helped with visualization and eliminated confusion about what / who is where for us. So, yeah, I'd say TOZ has it. It's the players who dictate miniatures. I've known groups who've never used minis as well (although I've never hung with a 4E crowd, so I've no clue there). To each, their own on minis, maps, etc..


Theater-of-the-mind is not the definition of old school, but... the play style enforced by theater-of-the-mind is old school, or at least aligned with old-school principles.

3.x and Pathfinder are not a very good tool for theater-of-the-mind play for the same reason they are not conducive to old-school play.

With no map, and no grid, all your brain has to latch onto is the set pieces. Set pieces become a very important part of positioning, and are much more likely (in my subjective experience) to be incorporated into the scene in theater-of-the-mind.

Disclaimer: my GM style is primarily based on running tactical combats on Lazz maps in Virtual Tabletops. So this is not offered as case for superiority. I love tactical RP on a grid. I also love logistical theater-of-the-mind RP in a dungeon. They're actually like two different kinds of game in my mind, and I like them both.


The minis argument is always a bit weird. 3e is the first rulebook I remember that offered grid diagram examples in the PHB, but all the movement rates and distances in AD&D were listed inches, and the Gygax wasn't, like, speaking metaphorically.

I guess I'm on the players-not-rules-mandated side with TriOmegaZero.


All I'd say is, it's worth trying things without the minis if you've never done it.

Pathfinder probably isn't the right game for it, and it really will take a lot of getting used to. But if you can get past the initial mental barriers, you'll develop skills on both sides of the GM screen that you can take back to tactical RP.

I'm a strong proponent of both styles in alternation.


Hitdice wrote:

The minis argument is always a bit weird. 3e is the first rulebook I remember that offered grid diagram examples in the PHB, but all the movement rates and distances in AD&D were listed inches, and the Gygax wasn't, like, speaking metaphorically.

I guess I'm on the players-not-rules-mandated side with TriOmegaZero.

Exactly, movement used to be defined in inches. We used miniatures and rulers from the beginning just like we did for miniature games. We used a grid for dungeon and indoor settings from the beginning because it made it easier. When non-miniature gamers began to get into RPGs is when theater of the mind became a thing. The idea that 3.x is the first set of rules emphasizing miniatures is what I find odd. I guess it just depends on when you started and who you played with.

251 to 270 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / Other RPGs / Old School vs. Modern Gaming (Swords & Wizardry vs. Pathfinder) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Other RPGs