DMs who started with AD&D 1 / 2 - why do you still run 3.x?

[DungeonmasterCal]

Haldrick wrote:

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.

Completely agree!

[Azothath]

I think it's best and more factual to say some editions shifted focus/rules on Mechanics or Game Play. So 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, PF1, PF2 all did this to some degree. There are other FRP games out there and "better" is really just a matter of taste. I think of quality as a matter of breadth of scope, uniformity & consistency in the rules/model, and quantity of RAW published.
I think the change in 4th was too much for the dedicated fanbase at the time and somewhat for PF2. PF2 had the advantage of time in guiding the players to the new game rather than an abrupt debut.
it's kinda off-topic so I'll end it there

[Neriathale]

Ozreth wrote:

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.

This feels like a very weighted question (you don't like PF1, I get it), but my answer would be:

1. It's one of the two fantasy systems our play groups really like and want to play (the other being my OH's self-published system, which I think is a better game, but that's off topic :)) and you can't ref without buy-in from the players. In contrast, we tried PF2 and half the group hated it so much they were coming up with increasingly lurid excuses not to turn up for games night... including the GM.

2. We don't play super high level campaigns, generally finishing around 14th after multiple years of play, so the whole "high level gameplay is broken" thing isn't an issue.

3. Flexibility and range of options to play. Just flicking through a sourcebook can bring up all sorts of new character ideas becaue there are so many out there.

4. There's a lot of background material, published adventures and so on to use. The prep time needed for coming up with your own world and adventures is (for me at any rate) a lot more than the prep time needed to run a published module or AP.

[CULTxicycalm]

Art theory time: The most important aspect of a session is the adventure. Then the setting. And finally the system. I would rather play a great adventure with bad rules than a crap adventure with great rules. Ergo what guides my choice of system (and setting) is: which system has the best adventures. And that is Pathfinder without a doubt. As for why I prefer PF1 over PF2, I don’t know PF2, so I can’t compare them. I plan to run all APs though (I run 4 groups in a single interacting world), so when I am done with the PF1 APs, I will run the PF2 ones. And if I discover that I prefer PF1, I will convert the PF2 ones to PF1.

[Andostre]

Ozreth wrote:

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.

Because I grew up as new editions and game systems came out, and PF2 landed after the point in my life where I have the motivation (and sometimes, the mental fortitude) to learn a new system. I have other things to learn and keep up with related to my family, career, house, and a social life that also includes non-gamers. Maybe ten or twenty years ago I'd be all over tackling a new system (and I was!), but nowadays, most people I game with are in similar situations as me. That's a double whammy, because even if I learned PF2, I don't think I'd know anybody else who played it.

I'm imagining someone with a different lifestyle or who's more enthusiastic about the game rolling their eyes thinking that it's not that hard to learn PF2. Maybe they're right, but with the time and brain power that I have available, learning and keeping up with PF2 doesn't even compare with just playing a game system that I already know.

[Ozreth]

A fair amount of people seem to be glancing at the title and seeing 1 / 2 and missing the AD&D part. I’m not talking about PF2, but that’s ok! All thoughts welcome. Have enjoyed reading the responses.

[Sysryke]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

I'd still run AD&D 1st or 2nd...

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."
."

I'll probably stick with PF1, because it's what my group is comfortable with. We're all middle aged to mature adults, with busy lives, and not a ton of spare time or funds to invest in new systems. If I ever win the lottery, maybe my view will change.

All that said, if I ever do branch out again, the above post is the best dang sales pitch I've heard so far for PF2.

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

And though it's usually blasphemy to bring it up on these threads, I will say 4e was fun/strong on two fronts; ease of entry, and character/party balance.

[Sysryke]

Azothath wrote:

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 feel like I've played most of those types of games within D&D systems. Could you provide some clarifying examples of other games/systems that are more stylistic, detailed, silly? For reference, I've played quite a bit of the MURPG, a bit of WhiteWolf, and a smattering of Gamma World and ShadowRun. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm firmly in the camp that holds all RPG's as storytelling. (Just my opinion, I'm not looking to tell anyone they're wrong, or have it explained to me why I'm wrong).

[TxSam88]

Sysryke wrote:

Azothath wrote:

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 feel like I've played most of those types of games within D&D systems. Could you provide some clarifying examples of other games/systems that are more stylistic, detailed, silly? For reference, I've played quite a bit of the MURPG, a bit of WhiteWolf, and a smattering of Gamma World and ShadowRun. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm firmly in the camp that holds all RPG's as storytelling. (Just my opinion, I'm not looking to tell anyone they're wrong, or have it explained to me why I'm wrong).

IMO: Rolemaster is the best system out there. I know a lot of people say it gets bogged down in charts, but to me, it's the most realistic system available.

AS for Silly: Paranoia is a total blast to play with he right people, and not too difficult to modify for live action.

[Arkat]

TxSam88 wrote:

IMO: Rolemaster is the best system out there. I know a lot of people say it gets bogged down in charts, but to me, it's the most realistic system available.

aka "Chartmaster"

No thanks.

[Dragonchess Player]

Sysryke wrote:

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

If you want a RPG with a truly "nigh unfettered ability to customize," then you should probably try to find a copy of Champions/HERO System...

You can literally "build" anything with that set of rules. Unfortunately, you pretty much have to build everything your character does from scratch; it's a steep learning curve.

[TxSam88]

Arkat wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

IMO: Rolemaster is the best system out there. I know a lot of people say it gets bogged down in charts, but to me, it's the most realistic system available.

aka "Chartmaster"

No thanks.

it's easy to run, just make sure the player has the charts for his main weapons, and tell him the Armor he's going against. he then gives you his damage and crit category, you roll on that and done.

[Waterhammer]

Rolemaster did not treat me well. I never rolled any of the cool critical effects, and quickly got my character killed in some horrible way. The other players were amused, at least.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I do remember the very first fight we had in MERP ("Rolemaster Lite") where the first enemy disembowled himself and the other dropped his sword and ran away.
Things improved only slightly from that point. It didn't help that the GM had some issues understanding the rules and insisted that he was right in the face of common sense and those of us who were better at reading English than he.
It was briefly fun but we dropped it after a few sessions.

[Sysryke]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

If you want a RPG with a truly "nigh unfettered ability to customize," then you should probably try to find a copy of Champions/HERO System...

You can literally "build" anything with that set of rules. Unfortunately, you pretty much have to build everything your character does from scratch; it's a steep learning curve.

Thanks for the tip. I feel like I got that same experience in the Marvel Universe RPG, but it's a diceless system. Maybe it's just a quirk of superhero themed systems . . .

[TxSam88]

Sysryke wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

If you want a RPG with a truly "nigh unfettered ability to customize," then you should probably try to find a copy of Champions/HERO System...

You can literally "build" anything with that set of rules. Unfortunately, you pretty much have to build everything your character does from scratch; it's a steep learning curve.

Thanks for the tip. I feel like I got that same experience in the Marvel Universe RPG, but it's a diceless system. Maybe it's just a quirk of superhero themed systems . . .

I've played both HERO and Marvel, HERO is the superior system.

[Andostre]

Ozreth wrote:

A fair amount of people seem to be glancing at the title and seeing 1 / 2 and missing the AD&D part. I’m not talking about PF2, but that’s ok! All thoughts welcome. Have enjoyed reading the responses.

You said "people that started with older editions of D&D, why do you still play PF1?" What's the alternative that you're questioning against (on Paizo's website) if not PF2?

[Valandil Ancalime]

TxSam88 wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

If you want a RPG with a truly "nigh unfettered ability to customize," then you should probably try to find a copy of Champions/HERO System...

You can literally "build" anything with that set of rules. Unfortunately, you pretty much have to build everything your character does from scratch; it's a steep learning curve.

Thanks for the tip. I feel like I got that same experience in the Marvel Universe RPG, but it's a diceless system. Maybe it's just a quirk of superhero themed systems . . .

I've played both HERO and Marvel, HERO is the superior system.

I love HERO system/Champions, but it does require decent math proficiency. You can make fairly simple characters, but you can also make ones that need to use a calculator to figure out.

Ozreth wrote:

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.

To answer the OP, I just don't want to learn or pay for a new system and have more Pathfinder stuff than I will use in my lifetime.

[Dragonchess Player]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

If you want a RPG with a truly "nigh unfettered ability to customize," then you should probably try to find a copy of Champions/HERO System...

You can literally "build" anything with that set of rules. Unfortunately, you pretty much have to build everything your character does from scratch; it's a steep learning curve.

Thanks for the tip. I feel like I got that same experience in the Marvel Universe RPG, but it's a diceless system. Maybe it's just a quirk of superhero themed systems . . .

I've played both HERO and Marvel, HERO is the superior system.

I love HERO system/Champions, but it does require decent math proficiency. You can make fairly simple characters, but you can also make ones that need to use a calculator to figure out.

"System mastery" in Champions/HERO System can be even more evident than in 3.x/PF1. The "simple characters" can feel very underpowered next to a character created by someone who really knows their way around in HERO System.

Spoiler:

This is going on a tangent, but I once challenged myself to create a 250 point character that was "viable" (at least 50 active points on attacks, decent defenses, and above-average movement) at the brick, energy projector, and mentalist roles. I managed it, and even threw in some martial arts maneuvers, but I wouldn't use that character in a group with people just learning the system.

To be fair, once a character is created the HERO System rules are fairly straightforward (mostly) and combats can be very cinematic while often still being fast-paced (especially compared to some high-level 3.x/PF1 fights).

[Azothath]

LoL...
Let's say the early Rune Quest was a bit too realistic in the HP & damage category. --> Chaosium.

Champions/Hero is rather balanced in specific areas and modeled ability scores, recovery, powers excellently. When it comes to normal stuff like downtime, money, skills, etc it is a total bust. Fights can take f-o-r-e-v-e-r. TBH you need to be an good imp accountant for the Hero system. Let's just say I had a great time with a psychic gadgeteer who disdained the Hero lifestyle.
Heroes Unlimited was crap. Might as well play TMNT.
Villians & Vigilanties... ummm, had problems but was simple & chaotic.
Marvel Superheroes was kinda the Starfinder version.

GURPs is good BUT you have to pare down PCs all the time to keep it balanced. It can handle silly to gritty but not so much on high magic. Susceptible to overstating for (partial) success, too much brown nosing like LARPs.

I did like parts of Rolemaster, the themed spell system was nice but awfully "much of the same" just recast into different molds. The critical hits were hilarious. The play was a bit clunky but staying in character was baked in.

D&D 3.5 was good, best low to high level play. PF1 accentuated that by powering it down a bit and making it more generic. The system is far too front loaded and the learning curve high. Encourages too much martial domination that leads to poor social skills and why Starfinder does better in that area.
Greyhawk was medieval-ish but clearly based on other authors. Too many interpret randomness as genius (LoL).
Forgotten Realms was great but the setting silly and the magic HIGH.
Blackmoor never took off.
Ravenloft was great for sadistic GMs and masochistic to naive players. A little humor and the whole thing falls apart.
Arcanum was high drama and I got tired of NPCs via Leadership having more levels than the PC along with rampant railroading.

I think Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, Toon are stylistic games.

Macho Women with Guns/Renegade Nuns on Wheels/Batwinged Bimbos from Hell, Paranoia, Chill, okay Toon again, are all a fun waste of time.

[Davor Firetusk]

3.0 Ravenloft that aims to play the horror straight is really fun without falling into the just torture the players angle that was mostly 2e Ravenloft.

[Dragonchess Player]

Azothath wrote:

Champions/Hero is rather balanced in specific areas and modeled ability scores, recovery, powers excellently. When it comes to normal stuff like downtime, money, skills, etc it is a total bust. Fights can take f-o-r-e-v-e-r.

Note that I said "combats can be very cinematic while often still being fast-paced," which does not necessarily equal "short." Once people gain some familiarity with the system, I seldom saw the resolution time for a character's actions take the up to 2-3 minutes (or even 5+ at times) that seemed to happen with distressing frequency in 3.x/PF1 (from needing to recalculate bonuses and penalties from buffs, circumstances, debuffs, feat use, etc. almost every round).

Unless you had a Champions/HERO character focusing in adjustment powers (Aid, Drain, Transfer) affecting more than BODY and STUN.

[TxSam88]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

I seldom saw the resolution time for a character's actions take the up to 2-3 minutes (or even 5+ at times) that seemed to happen with distressing frequency in 3.x/PF1 (from needing to recalculate bonuses and penalties from buffs, circumstances, debuffs, feat use, etc. almost every round).

use Herolab - it solves a lot of this problem....

[Azothath]

knowing the rules solves a lot of problems... lol
The computer assistants help but only for low to moderate system mastery. They also inspire system lazyness.

Running PF1 printed material 'as is' is pretty easy, especially when given tactics. Players knowing what they are going to do before their turn is essential to faster play. The numbers in PF1 are doable(simple accounting) and people should figure their numers for usual attacks beforehand... I've seen people guess a lot. Sadly most NPC & some monster writeups don't list common attacks, just the feat free basic BAB ones.

Champions has a higher level of detail than PF1 and up to 12 turns per round with people going at different rates.
Our Battle Royale took two sessions. My one PC managed two multipowers which had attacks & defenses, so a bit more complicated than normal (gadgets ya know...).

[Sysryke]

TxSam88 wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

3.x hooked me by being the first system where any race could be any class. I love the nigh unfettered ability to customize. Pathfinder's archetypes and alternative class features enhanced that.

If you want a RPG with a truly "nigh unfettered ability to customize," then you should probably try to find a copy of Champions/HERO System...

You can literally "build" anything with that set of rules. Unfortunately, you pretty much have to build everything your character does from scratch; it's a steep learning curve.

Thanks for the tip. I feel like I got that same experience in the Marvel Universe RPG, but it's a diceless system. Maybe it's just a quirk of superhero themed systems . . .

I've played both HERO and Marvel, HERO is the superior system.

Just to be clear, which Marvel? I don't know the Hero system, but the Marvel generation I played was the diceless version where build points and energy in the game are described as white and red stones. In that version, you can literally build anything.

[Ozreth]

Andostre wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

A fair amount of people seem to be glancing at the title and seeing 1 / 2 and missing the AD&D part. I’m not talking about PF2, but that’s ok! All thoughts welcome. Have enjoyed reading the responses.

You said "people that started with older editions of D&D, why do you still play PF1?" What's the alternative that you're questioning against (on Paizo's website) if not PF2?

Remaining with AD&D 1e or 2e mostly.