| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
you've never played Rolemaster obviously....
1. we spent a lot of money to switch from 1E to 2E because it was supposedly better
2. we spent a lot of money to switch from 2E to 3/3.5E because it was supposedly better
3. we spent a lot of money to switch to PF1 because it was an extension of 3.5E and supposedly better
3. It's a worldwide system, plenty of people play it, so you can go from town to town and find a group
4. spent money trying 4E, 5E, and PF2 which were not better.
5. Felt no need to spend a large amount of money again
6. have plenty of Adventure Paths/modules to last 15-20 more years.
7. Prep time is not as burdensome as you think, using Modules and Adventure Paths, combined with Combat Manager, I can have a great game prepared that I can modify on the fly to meet the strengths of the party. In far less prep time than it takes to build an adventure from scratch.
8. Didn't want to learn a new system again
9. it's a very "complete" rule system - with rules for virtually anything. We have yet to find anything major that there's not a decent rule for.
10. There's more classes and archetypes than we can ever play in our lifetime, so the game doesn't grow stale.
need I go on?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the 80s we played mostly by DM-fiat, as the "rules" by Gygax were haphazard, incomplete, fluid, grossly interpretable -- it was a much more free-flowing, free-form game where DMs had full control of the mechanics and how the game played. That was fine; we were young -- gaming was new.
It took a while before we switched to 2nd in the 90s but the game was much more "controlled" and "designed" -- and we got Really into 'story' and 'atmosphere' and character development. Effectively, we went from Gygax and Arneson to Tracy Hickman and Carl Sargent. And we had the FR novels.
3E was not appealing at all at first -- I remember looking at the invention of "Feats" (still by far the WORST design in the history of any universe that should be eradicated out of existence) and being flabbergasted at the design stupidity. But the d20 system itself, as a whole, is spectacular.
While true that the tragedy of losing Chris Pramas from the writing/developing of the Players' Handbook crushed the chance of near perfection from the 3.0 Core Three (by allowing a no-talent hack to finish it), and forced a quick need for 3.5 wherein the gross design errors of the 3.0 PHB could be corrected -- the d20 system itself was still absolutely great.
Sadly, WotC kept the hack that finished the 3.0 PHB for the 3.5 (while erasing the real talent from the company) and 3.5 didn't really get much better. Worse, WotC kept publishing more expansions -- each and every month -- wherein the latest "MTG Card" had to be more powerful, more 'broken' than the last.
As horrible as WotC was being for D&D, at least we had Paizo as the Silver Lining to make Pathfinder. A great start on fixing the problems with 3E and deleting all the 3.5 baggage that made it unplayable.
So now,.... Why do I still play Pathfinder and not PF2? Because for over 20 years I have been playing this d20 game and know it in-and-out. There is no need to try to learn a brand new system written, frankly, for an illiterate-friendly customer base.
Ultimately?
If I were 20 years old? Even if I were 30 or perhaps just 40 years old? I could see myself taking the time to learn a new system. But what do I have left, 15 more years of gaming before I'm in Hospice? I'll stick with d20 Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started with BECMI and AD&D 2e. One of the things that got me hooked on 3.X was balance. No longer did we have these different - ARBITRARY! - XP charts for each class. No longer did wizards start off pathetic and wind up too powerful; just hearing a character's level gave you at least SOME idea of how powerful that character was. No longer were demi-humans' levels limited. More generally, BECMI and AD&D had arbitrary rules; 3.X was more complicated, but those complications existed for a REASON, giving us a more balanced and generally more fun game. And although I sometimes rant about inaccurate CRs, 3.X beats the heck out of BECMI / AD&D in that area. Also, 3.X gave us a wealth-by-level table. And 3.0 and 3.5 gave us rules for monsters as PCs, using Level Adjustment; that filled a void that I felt REALLY needed filling. And Pathfinder gave us great pawns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd still run AD&D 1st or 2nd...
Each edition, and even other systems, have benefits and drawbacks. The biggest issue I had with AD&D 1st and 2nd was the bonuses granted from ability scores (basically nothing unless 15 or better) and the class minimums to "qualify" as something other than a basic cleric, fighter, magic user, or thief; it could get pretty ridiculous in AD&D 1st like a bard (if actually starting as a fighter, becoming a thief using the dual-class rules, and then switching to bard) or a cavalier version of paladin (Unearthed Arcana) required that the character's ability scores to add up to at least 84 or 85 respectively. AD&D 2nd was a bit better, especially if the GM allowed the Player's Option books (Skills & Powers and Spells & Magic), but there were still some (sometimes glaring) gaps that required house-rules.
3.x and PF1 definitely improved the rules to make it less dependent on house-rules/GM-fiat and applied a more standardized approach to the mechanics. However, in 3.x (more in 3.0) characters often felt feat and skill starved (which became even worse when WotC went all-in on the "splatbook" revenue model) and the emphasis seemed to change to PrCs instead of base classes. PF1's tweaks to the underlying 3.x/d20 engine made it much easier to "play the character you wanted" (especially with the additional classes and archetypes) without needed to jump through quite as many hoops as 3.x.
PF2 is a based on a different paradigm that emphasizes teamwork during play instead of "white-room" character optimization. There is still customization, but the floor and ceiling of a given character are much closer together than in 3.x/PF1 and you can't "solo" an encounter in PF2 like you could in PF1 (unless it's designed that way). If anything, "optimization" in PF2 is a team sport where you brainstorm "combos" with your fellow players rather than applying a "build."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I don't love PF1. At least not the mechanics and their presentation: Huge stat blocks, long spell descriptions sometimes and cross-references back and forth. In actual play, fiddly rules questions and condition tracking can unnecessarily bog down the game.
Still my players love the character customization, and I feel that, too. So I continue, but cut corners when it comes to preparation, a bit more every year. I have like a dozen houserules, and most of them are about simplifying the game (while keeping the interesting stuff). Who knows, my table might become like one of these 3.5 tables, houseruled to the point where the original system is barely recognizable.
Beyond that, I like the setting. It has something for everything, including many opportunities to add your own ideas. I wouldn't GM another AP for a while (too clunky, too railroady), still some of them make great reading material. And I had a great time collecting all the pawns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think every one of your points except for maybe 3 (although I'd argue in 2024 you can find people playing AD&D quite easily as well) are relevant to every edition of the game if you already have all of the material for AD&D as well. None of the points actually speak to 3.5 on its own merit or what you enjoy about the rules vs 1e/2e rules. The rules for everything might be the only point that does.
And I run it myself, so I have my own reasons, just curious about other peoples reasons.
the point is, we're happy to move to a new system _IF_ it's better. We just haven't found a system that's better enough to convince us to reinvest in a game again. Especially since we have 20 years worth of content for this one.
Huge stat blocks, long spell descriptions sometimes and cross-references back and forth. In actual play, fiddly rules questions and condition tracking can unnecessarily bog down the game.
Herolab and Combat Manager makes these Super easy to handle....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my part, it's options, options, options! My group transitioned to D&D 3.0 in 2021 after I moved back home from living in St. Louis for a year. We switched to 3.5 then Pathfinder 1e when it came out. We decided that would be our last switchover. We've been playing since the AD&D 1e days and just decided that spending tons of money, learning a new system, as well as being tired of starting over again or converting older characters to newer systems. Over the years we collectively spent thousands of dollars on books and such for updated versions and with D&D 3.5 being easy to convert to Pathfinder we decided we would never run out of options for character building and adventure ideas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.
One point I didn't address in my earlier post here was the "weight at high level play" part. High level play isn't an issue for me when I choose a gaming engine, because I HATE high level play! During my BECMI years (the 1980s) when I got a copy of the D&D Companion Set, I practiced with it by using it with my own PCs, solo. I had been using those PCs, slowly running all of them through adventures from 1st level, so it was quite an achievement, actually, to advance some of them as high as 18th level. However, that experience taught me that high-level play is too overwhelming, due to the power level and the options. Other than that one practice solo campaign, I never advanced any character past 15th level, nor statted out any NPC with more than 15 class levels, in any tabletop RPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.One point I didn't address in my earlier post here was the "weight at high level play" part. High level play isn't an issue for me when I choose a gaming engine, because I HATE high level play! During my BECMI years (the 1980s) when I got a copy of the D&D Companion Set, I practiced with it by using it with my own PCs, solo. I had been using those PCs, slowly running all of them through adventures from 1st level, so it was quite an achievement, actually, to advance some of them as high as 18th level. However, that experience taught me that high-level play is too overwhelming, due to the power level and the options. Other than that one practice solo campaign, I never advanced any character past 15th level, nor statted out any NPC with more than 15 class levels, in any tabletop RPG.
15 is where the fun stuff begins..... we always stretch our games to go levels 1-20...
|
15 is where the fun stuff begins..... we always stretch our games to go levels 1-20...All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.One point I didn't address in my earlier post here was the "weight at high level play" part. High level play isn't an issue for me when I choose a gaming engine, because I HATE high level play! During my BECMI years (the 1980s) when I got a copy of the D&D Companion Set, I practiced with it by using it with my own PCs, solo. I had been using those PCs, slowly running all of them through adventures from 1st level, so it was quite an achievement, actually, to advance some of them as high as 18th level. However, that experience taught me that high-level play is too overwhelming, due to the power level and the options. Other than that one practice solo campaign, I never advanced any character past 15th level, nor statted out any NPC with more than 15 class levels, in any tabletop RPG.
Here here!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quoting myself from a different thread
Some of the reasons I love Pathfinder.
1. Accessibility: there is always a regular game going in my local area and the local game shops stock a fair range of books.
2. The PRD/SRD: if I don't have my books with me I can look up the rules on my phone.
3. The OGL: which means there is heaps of cool 3P content to draw from.
4. Nostalgia with options: back in the 80s my friends and I started with D&D. Pathfinder lets me relive the old days but with many more options to choose from.
5. The APs: the adventure paths are really well written and fun to play.
6. Golarion: very diverse and interesting world, plenty of story and adventure hooks for me to make use of.
7. Support: the game is well supported by Paizo and the fans. If I have any questions I can go on to the forum and search for a thread that answers my question.
8. The look: the artwork throughout the books, especially the maps, looks amazing.
I posted that years ago, before 2nd edition Pathfinder came out, but it is still true, at least for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you both start during D&D? How do you feel about running those levels comparatively?
I started with Basic D&D around 1982, transitioned through 1st, 2nd and 3rd, etc...
most games ended far before 15th level, usually due to lack of adventures, and general loss of interest in the current campaign. this loss of interest was typically due to GMs being more worried about keeping the players reigned in, and slow advancement.
At early levels there's excitement cause you get to level up quickly and get new things, but mid levels many GMs would slow the advancement to a crawl. This caused boredom and general lack of interest.
We have discovered that continued advancement (of course slower than early levels, but not at a snails pace) allows players to maintain interest and excitement due to being able to do all the cool shi8t that high level characters can play.
Considering the number of posts I see about mythic play on the forums, I suspect many others have a similar mindset.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's always interesting to see what others think and the different experiences.
I really think different groups have different goals in what they want to have fun doing on the whole. Of course people vary individually in their style and approach. I've always felt people that really only played D&D variants are kinda stuck in that experience and model and don't experience detailed, stylistic, storytelling, or down right silly games.
I’ve played so many different RPGs I’ve lost count, and I’ve always returned to D&D/Pathfinder.
In my opinion some games are better in particular areas: VTM has better atmosphere, GURPS has better mechanics, Pendragon better facilitates roleplaying, and FATE better supports narrative. However, as a total package, nothing beats the original format, and Pathfinder 1st edition executes that format the best. Even better than AD&D which I consider second best.
I’m sure at least part of that is based on nostalgia, but I can’t help feeling that the old trope of cleric, fighter, mage, and thief working together to conquer a dungeon can’t be beat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started with Blue Book D&D in 1981 and played 1e for years with side quests in a couple of dozen other RPGs. I got sick of AD&D 1e by about 1986 because its rules are so arbitrary, unrealistic, badly laid out, unbalanced and incomplete. It's really easy to DM and fun for dungeon-bashing as a kid, but you can't tell a story that makes sense because so much is broken and mortality is too high for decent character development. My house rules folder was thicker than the PHB by the end.
When 2e came out I had hoped that it might fix things, but no. Balance was a bit better but it still had 80% of the faults. I ignored it and played GURPS and RQ2 and Toon and WFRP and CoC instead.
3e was a lot better in dozens of ways and brought me back to D&D. It was simpler through its consistency, but more work because monsters had stat blocks. The OGL was a magnificent feature. IMHO feats were a good idea but too rare and underpowered. 3.5 improved balance a bit but felt as much like a reason to pay more for new books.
4e is a boardgame dressed up as an RPG. Not for me. If I want a boardgame I'll play SFB.
PF1 is 3.5 with many improvements, albeit with layers of added splatbook cruft. Which is only manageable because of the SRD. But it is fairly fascinating and adequately balanced, and it comes with a very detailed world and does allow for some real storytelling potential and genuine character arcs.
I studied PF2 in the playtest and saw too many things I didn't like. I can see why it exists (easier to GM, most notably), but it's not for me. Same for 5e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very much part of the market segment which got tired of dropping tons of cash on new rulebooks, sourcebooks, and HeroLab/other apps every time the system changed. That's why I didn't move on to 4e, 5e, or PF2. (I've been playing since the mid-'80s. While my first box set was Basic's Red Box, my first played game system was AD&D 1e.) HeroLab is a great blessing.
I happily left 1e and 2e behind because there were so many odd, arbitrary constraints. No female elf with a natural Strength of more than 16 - in a system where the ability scores usually produced the first bonuses at 15? Species who had glass ceilings placed on their character advancement beyond a certain arbitrary level (or were not even allowed to play a certain class combination)? Irritating ability score requirements for so many interesting classes (even though 1e's UA made it easier to get around that)?
3.x/PF gave me lots of material on my two favourite game settings: FR and Golarion. My only complaint for 3.x was their "boutique cosmology". I wanted a full-fledged Planescape and a slightly more rational Spelljammer to join all the settings together, so that my players' PCs could visit wild and wonderful worlds while still remaining in the same cosmology. Also: they forgot to include the Con penalty when they ported the aasimar species into 3.x. (Long live home-brew variants on published settings!)
However, as a total package, nothing beats the original format, and Pathfinder 1st edition executes that format the best. Even better than AD&D which I consider second best.
What's your reasoning behind placing AD&D second best? Why do you prefer running PF1e over AD&D as a DM?
Most of the thread is people asserting that they prefer running PF but with little explanation of why they prefer running those rules over the AD&D rules that they were running before moving to 3rd edition/PF1.
I totally agree with you that the old trope still can't be beat, for me at least.
I don’t know exactly why I like AD&D so much. It has a weird “X factor” about it where even its many flaws somehow add to its overall charm. I don’t think it is pure nostalgia either, because I started with basic D&D and I don’t feel the same way about that game. At least part of the reason for me is that AD&D fosters creativity and simultaneously a sense of mystery in a way no other system does. Sorry, if I am sounding vague, it is difficult to express the feeling in words, but what I mean is that when I used to build a campaign in AD&D it felt like I was discovering things as much as creating them.
Pathfinder is a better game because it has captured a lot of the essence of the original but cleaned it up so that it is far more playable. I sometimes find the game mechanics overly restrictive, especially as a GM building adventures, but overall I think they have gotten the balance right.
AD&D (both 1st and 2nd in different ways) can do quite a bit while still retaining ease of play* if you know what you're doing and are willing to tweak the rules/jump though the required hoops to customize things.
For instance: the racial level limits can be softened by a house rule requiring double the experience to advance past the adjusted limit (or halving experience earned after reaching the adjusted limit); adding "virtual" levels in a class (for some "non-traditional" multiclass combinations) is possible with a hat of difference; for AD&D 2nd, the GM can really customize the setting by using the Player's Option books to create distinct variants of the classes (especially specialty priests for the setting deities and using the systems of magic in PO: Spells & Magic).
Granted, there are still balance issues and gaps, plus 3.x/PF1 often reduces the number of hoops to jump through, but AD&D still has its own "fun factor" that can be harder to achieve in 3.x/PF1. The Player's Option class customization is, IMO, one of the best "design your own class" toolkits available for any version of D&D/AD&D.
*- note, this is ease of play; some things may require substantial prep work
Interesting. You say it is a better game because it made the original game more playable, but you think that the mechanics can be overly restrictive, especially as a GM building adventures. It sounds like you know AD&D really well and have a lot of love for it, that it makes you feel more creative when running it as a DM and it is less restrictive. But you find Pathfinder to be the better game to run.
My impression is that game philosophy has changed over the years. In original AD&D the DMG was much longer than the PHB, and there was no combined "Core" book. The rules were less systematic and less precisely defined, so GMs used to homebrew and house rule far more content. The old rules were also less integrated with one another, so ignoring a rule or changing rules had less dramatic consequences, you didn't have to worry about the flow on effects in most cases. You could completely ignore the confusing mess of the initiative rules for instance and it would have negligible impact on the functionality of the game. Table variation was enormous, many of the rules were a mystery to the players and the GM was far more central to the game. The big problem with this approach was GMs and players often argued about what was a reasonable ruling in a given scenario and this ruined the experience for everyone. From this we had the tropes: "rules lawyer PC" and "killer GM".
Pathfinder is more rules centric. An experienced player will often know the rules as well as, if not better than, the GM. That changes the experience quite a lot. Player success is more defined by character build now than it used to be. Back in AD&D times player success depended on how well they could adapt on the fly. A good player picked up on "cues" provided by the GM and so being immersed in the setting was critical. In Pathfinder much of what used to be dependent on the player can now be decided with game mechanics. In my opinion this has greatly reduced the amount of arguments at the table, as both GM and player know and agree on the rules. It also reduces GM favouritism because more aspects of the game can be fairly decided with a dice roll.
As a GM, Pathfinder feels more restrictive, generally if I want to introduce homebrew rules I have to spend a lot of time deciding on the various interactions with the existing rules.
On the other hand, much of the work has been done already, as often many options that I want are already available, I just have to find them. An example of this are the magic rules. I don't like that spellcasting is so predictable in Pathfinder, that doesn't feel like magic to me. Luckily, I can use the existing setting rules for the First World to modify the way magic works so that I don't have to invent my own rules and worry how that might impact the game overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder much of what used to be dependent on the player can now be decided with game mechanics. In my opinion this has greatly reduced the amount of arguments at the table, as both GM and player know and agree on the rules. It also reduces GM favoritism because more aspects of the game can be fairly decided with a dice roll.
IMO this is critical to a good game. A player should be able to go into a session with a reasonable expectation of the rules working a specific way. The player will build hid character and decide his actions based on those specific rules and how they work. It would be very upsetting and unfair to that player, if the GM arbitrarily decided that the rules worked a different way and that the players preparations/decisions let to a totally unexpected outcome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Endless situational modifiers to consider for one single action in combat at higher levels (feats, high ground, flanking, favored enemy all together etc) to begin with. The intricacies of the various status effects and how they interact with those things, the variables that have to be considered to figure out how they work in a given moment. AoO, flanking, 5ft step etc on top of those things. There is just a LOT of moving parts in combat. More than any other D&D-like game that I know of, old or new.All these years later, what is it you love about PF1 and/or 3.5/3.0 that you keeps you running what is arguably the most burdensome system to run as far as prep time and weight at high level play.you have not clarified what "weight" means or what you were thinking about at the time.
So, it sounds like you never dealt the AD&D 1st weapon speed factors and casting times... Or the weapon attack adjustments vs. different armor classes... Or the unholy mess of unarmed combat in the original Unearthed Arcana...
So, it sounds like you never dealt the AD&D 1st weapon speed factors and casting times... Or the weapon attack adjustments vs. different armor classes... Or the unholy mess of unarmed combat in the original Unearthed Arcana...
Did your group persevere with those rules? We ditched them early on. Referring to a table for every single hit roll was ridiculously tedious. And the initiative rules were so convoluted we basically went with PCs go first, then NPCs, unless the PCs were surprised.
The concept of initiative and taking or seizing the initiative has a long history in military doctrine around the world. I assumed that D&D adopted the term due to its war gaming roots. That’s why they didn’t call it something else instead.
Weird, the post I was responding to seems to have disappeared.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Decrying the "complexity" of 3.x/PF1 rules while admitting to not using all of the "simpler" AD&D 1st/2nd rules (because they took too much time) is just a bit inconsistent...
Reread the 3.0 DMG page 9 (Adjudicating) and pages 11-12 (Changing the Rules). The 3.5 DMG page 14 (Changing the Rules) was basically the exact wording as 3.0 DMG pages 11-12. WotC literally gave you permission to change things and make house rules to improve the play experience for your group. Paizo was even more explicit on page 9 of the PF1 Core Rulebook (The Most Important Rule).
If things are bogging down from keeping track of all the minutiae and "fiddly bits" of 3.x/PF1, streamline things in a similar fashion to the approach taken in AD&D 1st and 2nd (after discussion with the rest of the group, of course). When rules get in the way and you mod one system for your playability preferences but insist on applying everything in another, blaming the second system for the difficulties that you perpetuate is just scapegoating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started playing when D&D hit the UK in the 70s and have played other games.
My group changed additions, when we saw them as an improvement. So didn't go to 4th. Never tried 5th as we now only play PF.
Why not change to PF 2nd? Firstly we have loads of character options still to try and plenty of AP still to play and Secondly We did didn't see PF 2nd as great improvement. It might be slightly better, but not enough to warrant the expense of changing.
Lastly our group do not see the tighter maths that designers appear to so love as a good thing.