Why do you still play PF1e / 3.x - and why not newer or older editions of the game?

[Dave2]

My favorite d20 game is Pathfinder 2 Remastered. I look forward to the new Starfinder based on this. I also like D&D 5e 2024.

The game system played the longest by far was 3.0/3.5. I think Pathfinder 1e is the best version of 3.5. I made the mistake of getting rid of all my Pathfinder books for space reasons. Was able to get what I wanted back in Pocket and hardbacks. About 70 percent pocket 30 hardbacks. The pocket editions do take up allot less space. I was able to do it for about 180 so not to bad. I am kind of on odd one so those books had multiple copies. These were the pocket editions 4 of the core 3 advanced players 3 advanced class 3 ultimate Combat 2 occult, and 2 bestiary 1. Hard back are 2 ultimate magic, 2 ultimate campaign, 2 mythic, and 2 unchained. They all fit single shelf. Also picked up pocket rise of the runelord and 3 of the golarian world guide the 300 page one. So pretty happy with Pathfinder 1 stuff. Would gladly run or play it any time for OSR game

Since 3.0/3.5 is around 25 years old I do consider it OSR. 3.0/3.5 is my favorite game engine for that like the without number stuff from Kevin Crawford and Castles and Crusades. But go too would be Pathfinder 1.

I do think will keep few of 1 e pockets I got of Starfinder 1 when sell all hardbacks I got for it.

[Tom Sampson]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I think d20's problem was treating PCs like something other than NPCs with no in game justification, unlike the way that Scion and other games do.

Like sure, have your heroes able to fend off armies, but because they're demigods, not just because the players have been playing awhile.

I believe this problem is more specific to Pathfinder. NPC classes exist for a reason, but in Pathfinder content they aren't used so much. And not only are NPCs commonly using PC classes, but it is also more common to feature high level NPCs. As such, in PF the primary differences between a player character and an NPC tend to be ability scores and wealth.

If you had a setting where the average level 12 spellcaster was an Adept and the average combatant was a Warrior, the in-game justification becomes much clearer.

[TriOmegaZero]

Oh no, it was also present in 3.5, and too a lesser extent in earlier editions. The mechanics just also allowed for more lethality in the early editions.

[Tom Sampson]

But the primary issue here really is that PCs are not sufficiently differentiated from NPCs, and that is the primary purpose of NPC classes vs PC classes as well as level differences between PCs and NPCs.

[TriOmegaZero]

I think we're on the same page, but in my mind it's that the character system doesn't justify the power curve of statted characters over unstatted characters. You can optimize characters with NPC classes as well (one level dip in Aristocrat gives a lot of proficiencies and skills) and end up with demigods that don't represent less invincible heroes some players expect of their fantasy games. d20 really is more superhero than fantasy when you progress far enough. Which IS a strength, as long as you're prepared for it.

[Waterhammer]

Thinking of PF1 as a super hero game is probably a good way to get your expectations right.

Which is okay with me. I’ve always considered Conan the Barbarian to be kind of a superhero. Power level on par with Captain America.

[Dave2]

I would agree with that entirely. I think of allot d20 based games as super hero style games. I think it sets up a good set of expectations with GMs and players.

[Oli Ironbar]

I would add that even superheroes start out normal people and that the nature of the game really changes as you level up so that a 1-20 campaign can be divided into: 1-5 leaving the mundane, 6-10 first epic conquests, 11-15 encounters leading up to the greatest villain, 16-20 final adventure and return to normal.

Campaigns could start at lvl 11, for comparison, and the initial rivals and counterparts to the PCs are similar levels to start, but it is very rare for the world to level up along with the party in my experience. More normally I’d say the PCs outgrow their opening settings so whenever they do return, they are seen as someone different with different responsibilities from when they left.

[Melkiador]

I think the PCs are more like pulp heroes than modern day super heroes.

[TriOmegaZero]

I really don't see it. Maybe for the first few levels.

[BigNorseWolf]

Melkiador wrote:

I think the PCs are more like pulp heroes than modern day super heroes.

Vastly depends on level and class

[rabindranath72]

I started back in the BECMI days (I am 53 now), and 3.0 (core only) is my preferred version of D&D post-2000, as it retains enough legacy elements of 2e+Player's Option stuff (we loved the concept, hated the implementation) to have that old-school "feel".
If I want something more modern and epic, I have 13th Age. I like 4e, and I would love it if it were less tied to the battlemap, something which I in general dislike in pretty much all games.
Ran some PF1e and PF2e, but there's just too much going on. In general I like opinionated games to exercises in regression to mediocrity like 5e (and the abomination that is 5.5e.)

But if I want a simple old-school experience, nothing beats B/X D&D; or even AD&D 1e if I want something more (but not so much more that 2e+PO, hence 3.0, would be a viable option.)

In the end, it really depends if the game concept "juice" I have in mind is "worth the squeeze" in terms of rules complexity (and player base.)

[Charles Markley]

rabindranath72 wrote:

I started back in the BECMI days (I am 53 now), and 3.0 (core only) is my preferred version of D&D post-2000, as it retains enough legacy elements of 2e+Player's Option stuff (we loved the concept, hated the implementation) to have that old-school "feel".

If I want something more modern and epic, I have 13th Age. I like 4e, and I would love it if it were less tied to the battlemap, something which I in general dislike in pretty much all games.
Ran some PF1e and PF2e, but there's just too much going on. In general I like opinionated games to exercises in regression to mediocrity like 5e (and the abomination that is 5.5e.)

But if I want a simple old-school experience, nothing beats B/X D&D; or even AD&D 1e if I want something more (but not so much more that 2e+PO, hence 3.0, would be a viable option.)

In the end, it really depends if the game concept "juice" I have in mind is "worth the squeeze" in terms of rules complexity (and player base.)

Great year, GenX! I level up to 53 in the fall. I had a box set when I was 11, and that really turned into improved play-acting on the playground rather than roleplaying/rolling dice. I didn't really start playing until 2e, and I just felt 3.0 improved on some of the issues enough that I stuck with it. 3.5x and PF1 made some improvements, and I am interested in what Corefinder will turn out. I didn't like 4e, nor 2e, and am learning 5.5 (man, does it give a lowest-common denominator vibe!) for business reasons...

[rabindranath72]

Charles Markley wrote:

rabindranath72 wrote:

I started back in the BECMI days (I am 53 now), and 3.0 (core only) is my preferred version of D&D post-2000, as it retains enough legacy elements of 2e+Player's Option stuff (we loved the concept, hated the implementation) to have that old-school "feel".

If I want something more modern and epic, I have 13th Age. I like 4e, and I would love it if it were less tied to the battlemap, something which I in general dislike in pretty much all games.
Ran some PF1e and PF2e, but there's just too much going on. In general I like opinionated games to exercises in regression to mediocrity like 5e (and the abomination that is 5.5e.)

But if I want a simple old-school experience, nothing beats B/X D&D; or even AD&D 1e if I want something more (but not so much more that 2e+PO, hence 3.0, would be a viable option.)

In the end, it really depends if the game concept "juice" I have in mind is "worth the squeeze" in terms of rules complexity (and player base.)

Great year, GenX! I level up to 53 in the fall. I had a box set when I was 11, and that really turned into improved play-acting on the playground rather than roleplaying/rolling dice. I didn't really start playing until 2e, and I just felt 3.0 improved on some of the issues enough that I stuck with it. 3.5x and PF1 made some improvements, and I am interested in what Corefinder will turn out. I didn't like 4e, nor 2e, and am learning 5.5 (man, does it give a lowest-common denominator vibe!) for business reasons...

Great year indeed :D

Lowest-common denominator indeed! Absolutely abysmal. The only edition of D&D to date that I have bought on release, read, and sold immediately back. If this is the trend that WotC wants to set, I may well be done with D&D for good. I am just not the target audience anymore (and haven't been for the last 10 years, apparently...)

[Sysryke]

I don't want to massively derail here, but could you all expand just a little on the problems of D&D 5.5? What do you mean by "lowest common denominator"? Is 5.5 the same as the rather poorly named D&D One I've been hearing about?

Some of my clients occasionally talk about current D&D as new participants in the hobby, and my 3.x/4e knowledge is becoming less useful when I'm trying to help encourage new players.

[glass]

Sysryke wrote:

I don't want to massively derail here, but could you all expand just a little on the problems of D&D 5.5? What do you mean by "lowest common denominator"? Is 5.5 the same as the rather poorly named D&D One I've been hearing about?

Without getting into the edition warring: Yes, "5.5" and "D&D One" both refer to the same (current) edition of D&D, also known as "5.24" (with the original 5e edition being retroactively dubbed 5.14).

"D&D One" was WotC's code name used during development, and the other two names are community applied. AIUI the finished version is officially just 5e, as WotC are trying to pretend it is not a new edition (it totally is, of course).

I cannot speak in detail about 5.5 because it is the first edition since I started in the late 80s where I have not even bought the PHB (partly because I do not like what D&D has become, and partly because I do not like what WotC/Hasbro have become). But my impressions is that compared with 5.0, it contains a huge volume of small changes with really fixing anything significant.