General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
...Snip...
In the early days of D&D, getting your stronghold, your keep, your lands, your kingdom--that was a major goal of adventuring. It was to build a base of many underlings to support you.
Nowadays, though, that seems to be mostly avoided by players. They want to ensure that they can never be tied down to any obligation, no matter what the benefits are.
Has this happened, in your opinion?
Remember the stronghold rules fondly.
The first time they really came into play we were playing TOEE, the DM altered the structuring of the Temple so that there was no collapse at the end if she died, same with the nodes.
It became the new base of operations for 3 players with several characters each.
Actually sucked up a lot of our treasure to repair the Temple and change it into a place of good vice dedicated site to evil. From there many later adventuring companies based themselves out of there in our world.
-------------
Far as things I miss....
I would say many wouldn't like what I miss.
Weapon Speed and Spell Casting Speed adjusting your initiative. I know many ignored those rules, but I found they leveled the combat experience throughout.
While the Fighter/Barbarians could wield ungodly damages with Great Swords, the THIEF could hit for that quick strike with their dagger.
The casters had to worry for their spells being disrupted. Made that 1 segment Magic Missile versus the 3 segment Fireball stack up nicely when planning it out.
But as was mentioned before, I think the number one thing to miss is the old groups I played with. But yea that's what Facebook is for - lol. One of my old DM's friended me this past week.
__________________ Bill
The Yeti aka Magnus the Archmage
~"Henry Bowman lives within each and everyone of us, and it's time to start acting like it. " A Story Hour set in Valus by Funeris http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=97346
Weapon Speed and Spell Casting Speed adjusting your initiative. I know many ignored those rules, but I found they leveled the combat experience throughout.
[nitpick] Although Casting Speed affects (or replaces, depending on how you read the rules) your initiative in 1e, Weapon Speed Factor never does. The only time it comes into play is, oddly, during initiative ties, where a much quicker weapon gets multiple attacks. Weapon length affects attack order during a charge - no matter who is charging, the attacker with a longer weapon attacks first. With that said, using weapon speed factor on initiative was a fairly common houserule that ended up in 2e as a standardized rule, along with rolling a d10 instead of a d6.[/nitpick]
I actually miss the 1st ed. initiative system. A simple d6 roll that potentially took many factors into account, and no two DMs I encountered ran it the same way. I know most folks consider that a bug, but for me it was a feature. And I do really prefer team initiative over individual. I initially loved the 3rd ed. system, but at may table it seemed to encourage many of my players to do tactically stupid things, and their solution was to try and design characters who could survive doing tactically stupid things, rather than learn tactics. I guess I gamed with too many Wolverine wannabes.
That would be another thing I miss about 1st ed. (although not as specifically): characters you played rather than designed. Or, more properly, I miss the absence of character design in the game.
I actually miss the 1st ed. initiative system. A simple d6 roll that potentially took many factors into account, and no two DMs I encountered ran it the same way. I know most folks consider that a bug, but for me it was a feature. And I do really prefer team initiative over individual. I initially loved the 3rd ed. system, but at may table it seemed to encourage many of my players to do tactically stupid things, and their solution was to try and design characters who could survive doing tactically stupid things, rather than learn tactics. I guess I gamed with too many Wolverine wannabes.
That would be another thing I miss about 1st ed. (although not as specifically): characters you played rather than designed. Or, more properly, I miss the absence of character design in the game.
Yup. The 1E initiative system could get wonky but however it was used, team initiative was great. The ability of a group of PC's to act as a unit rather than an associated group of individuals was cool.
I also miss character generation as opposed to building. Roll some stats, pick a class. buy equipment and play.
I also miss character generation as opposed to building. Roll some stats, pick a class. buy equipment and play.
Agreed.. I sometimes get "analysis paralysis" with all the options, spending waaaaaaaaay too much time deliberating over choices that are far, far in the future, but that, somehow, I have convinced myself need to be resolved before I can start playing..
The thing I miss most from ADD is the special attention I got from teachers in grade school. It took awhile, but I finally learned what it was that the quick brown fox jumped over.
That's one of the big shifts I've seen over the years.
In the early days of D&D, getting your stronghold, your keep, your lands, your kingdom--that was a major goal of adventuring. It was to build a base of many underlings to support you.
Nowadays, though, that seems to be mostly avoided by players. They want to ensure that they can never be tied down to any obligation, no matter what the benefits are.
Has this happened, in your opinion?
Honestly, it doesn't seem that different. We thought more about this stuff when we played AD&D, but it was mostly away from the gaming table and irrelevant to it -- drawing designs for our fortifications, deciding which hirelings to hire, etc. At the gaming table, that stuff didn't come into play.
Nowadays, the group I'm DMing is less interested in the stronghold building stuff, but they seem interested enough in the NPC's and do set down roots to some extent. In my campaign, though, there are usually reasons to visit the same "shire" (safe, homefront) places and "borderlands" areas more than once, and there's only one big city to train and sell loot in, so people do get semi-attached to that stuff -- it's more about knowing the people who work at the pub than building a stronghold, though.
Yup. The 1E initiative system could get wonky but however it was used, team initiative was great. The ability of a group of PC's to act as a unit rather than an associated group of individuals was cool.
Except they aren't functioning as a team. They are functioning as people forced to act as a team. Individual initiative allows the players to work as a team if they can do so, which makes it a question of skill rather than a side effect of a game mechanic.
Quote:
I also miss character generation as opposed to building. Roll some stats, pick a class. buy equipment and play.
That's not really the fault of the system. If you agonize over what feat or attribute you are taking now because of how it will affect you when you are 6th or 10th level, then that's not the game system's fault.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
That's not really the fault of the system. If you agonize over what feat or attribute you are taking now because of how it will affect you when you are 6th or 10th level, then that's not the game system's fault.
IMO, it is indeed the 'fault' of the system (i.e., the difference in experience is due to the system's design). Not a matter of better or worse, except where, well, it subjectively is.
Some systems require a whole lot more building in order to roll up a character, just by default. Some systems also have 'system mastery' hardwired from the get go. Like 3e, say. There are many tricks and traps that await the unwary or uninitiated, the more so upon reaching higher levels. This was a design choice, not a mistake, or an accident of some kind. And, of course, 3e ain't the only RPG where this holds true.
The difference in chargen time and just plain complexity can be breathtaking, I've noticed. Some rules-light gaming recently has shown me this a number of times, or reminded me once again, more to the point.
IMO, it is indeed the 'fault' of the system (i.e., the difference in experience is due to the system's design). Not a matter of better or worse, except where, well, it subjectively is.
No, it isn't. It is the fault of the player. You can agonize over decisions that you might make months from now or not. It is entirely your choice no matter the system. A system might make it "better" mechinically if you do make "good" choices, but worrying about that is entirely up to the player.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
No, it isn't. It is the fault of the player. You can agonize over decisions that you might make months from now or not. It is entirely your choice no matter the system. A system might make it "better" mechinically if you do make "good" choices, but worrying about that is entirely up to the player.
When build choices you make at a given level might well greatly impact your character's survivability at higher levels (let alone straight away, obviously) there is, for many people anyway, some call for 'agonising' (or something in less extreme language, even) over such choices. Also, some who don't 'agonise' at least a little bit are quite likely to be stung later on. Discovering this for the first time could be a revelatory experience, and not - for some - in a good way.
Besides which anyway, this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExploderWizard
I also miss character generation as opposed to building. Roll some stats, pick a class. buy equipment and play.
. . . seems more to me about relative complexity and time investment of chargen, when comparing systems. Your bringing up the whole system mastery issue, if unintentionally and, ironically, via denial, was probably not even quite pertinent to the precise point.
But maybe it was. I'll let EW respond there, if he or she so wishes.
When build choices you make at a given level might well greatly impact your character's survivability at higher levels (let alone straight away, obviously) there is, for many people anyway, some call for 'agonising' (or something in less extreme language, even) over such choices. Also, some who don't 'agonise' at least a little bit are quite likely to be stung later on. Discovering this for the first time could be a revelatory experience, and not - for some - in a good way.
How you play the game is on you. Not the system. If you are annoyed that character creation takes a long time in more recent editions, it is because you are making things more difficult than they have to be. You can create a character in 3e/3.5e (or 4e) D&D in ten minutes, or many hours. If you are taking many hours to make a character you can't blame the system.
Quote:
Besides which anyway, this: . . . seems more to me about relative complexity and time investment of chargen, when comparing systems. Your bringing up the whole system mastery issue, if unintentionally and, ironically, via denial, was probably not even quite pertinent to the precise point.
The complaint seemed to be aimed at a previous comment that making characters took forever because people had to plan out their character many levels in advance. The chargen in more recent editions of D&D can take scant minutes: I know because I have put together several characters in just a handful of minutes each. If chargen is taking a long time for more recent editions, that is a function of the player, not the system.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
You can agonize over decisions that you might make months from now or not. It is entirely your choice no matter the system. A system might make it "better" mechinically if you do make "good" choices, but worrying about that is entirely up to the player.
Agreed. It largely comes down to whether you care about getting the "best" rules to maximize your power, making the character who's story you want to tell regardless of mechanics, or about getting on with the fight. I prefer the latter two styles of play, as do most folks I've encountered in real life, but internet mileage seems to vary.
Look, I wasn't meaning the difference between 'a handful of minutes' and 'several hours'. Yeesh. YOu can engage in hyperbole all you like, and it still doesn't alter tha fact that rules light systems (or at least, many of them anyway) require significantly less time and other investment at the chargen stage. Now, of course, you could go and assume 'significantly' to mean in this case the quoted difference. . . however, that's not quite the reality, so it serves no point other than to, perhaps, win the interwebs or, um, I dunno. Whatever.
There's a fundamental difference, like it or not, whatever your system preferences. I like both, personally (including the actual extremes, and in between too). But ymmv, and so on.
Ah yes, AD&D. In my experience, it conforms to what I believe ExploderWizard was referring to. So: agreed! Just, y'know, to get back to the thread proper. . .
It's not a matter of "agonizing over" decisions. I think it's pretty normal to want a working knowledge of what's being generated. Having to read more pages to get that is a significant factor. Having to read more just to get the instructions to follow is very significant at first.
Moreover, even if one randomizes the selections, more steps are still more steps!
Last edited by Ariosto; 9th August 2009 at 05:32 AM..
There are a couple of spells...but really, not that much.
Don't get me wrong, I love AD&D. I just don't miss it. If a game of AD&D popped up on my radar, I'd play, no question. But currently, 3.X is my D&D of choice.
You could take this and replace "3.x" with "4e(and maybe pathfinder)" and it would be me.
I didn't read past this early post, like 5th or something, but based upon the OP and because I haven't read past my quoted post, my unadulterated opinion is that I miss....
I also miss the nostalgic feeling. It was born on a trust between player and DM, that even though DM made sh*t up most of the time and the RAW was a loose breeze, at most, our gamemaster wanted us to win as much as we did. But a great DM in an AD&D game can make the (wonkiest) ruleset seem seamless, and make the vast mystical set of houserules -- sometimes introduced on a whim (and it made sense!) -- feel unfettered and simple.
But it all depended upon a good DM. My friend Eric Welling. He was a wondrous and mind-blowing DM.
I loved the rules-heavy, RAW strict, PCs = NPCs, CR/ECL = balance, nature of 3.x. I really did, until I started running the APs put out by Paizo, Shackled City, Savage tide, Age of Worms (we played in that order, not the release order). These campaigns were awesomely written, but a BEAST to run as a DM in to the mid-high levels. The stories, wild and interesting. But... they were all meat-grinders in the early levels and massive DM homework in the latter levels.
I grew weary of DMing 3.x... Maybe it's the 100 proof peppermint schnapps talking, but who knows.
I now run 4e. And I do it like I did back in 1981.
I try to DM 4e like I did back in those AD&D Days. So I miss very little, as I like the ruleset but I still get to revel in the ol' skool feel I get when I DM my current group. It feels like AD&D again.
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
How you play the game is on you. Not the system. If you are annoyed that character creation takes a long time in more recent editions, it is because you are making things more difficult than they have to be. You can create a character in 3e/3.5e (or 4e) D&D in ten minutes, or many hours. If you are taking many hours to make a character you can't blame the system.
And then, just three level later, the DM says "now, you can't take that cool feat, because your charisma is not high enough". Another bunch of level and that's "yes, you can chose this attack power, but frankly, you will rarely be able to connect to your target, it's not on your build list*". And then "You can't take that parangon path. Nor this one : You should multiclass to take it, and you can't take the multiclass feat because bla-bla-bla".
It's roughly the same problem in 3e : feat and PRC pre-requisite are sometime so hard to reach that it's impossible to have them without planing from level 1. The retraining rules of 4e help a little, but not so much because of all the stat pre-requisites.
As I said elsewhere, I would rather have a few restriction based upon fluff than a lot of restrictions based upon crunch. A DM saying me "no, halfling can't be juggernaut berserkers, that's silly" is less irritating than "sorry, the rules says that you need 12 ranks in knowledge arcana to take that Prc, you won't be able to take it before level 21..."
Needless to say, after such an experience, the player will take hours to create a new character... And that's entirely because of the system.
*Note that disincentive like this are better than hard coded restrictions based upon char stats.
Except they aren't functioning as a team. They are functioning as people forced to act as a team. Individual initiative allows the players to work as a team if they can do so, which makes it a question of skill rather than a side effect of a game mechanic.
They can do either as they wish or playing skill and familiarity with each other permits. I enjoy a level of cooperative skill that is less involved with system mastery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aus_Snow
Besides which anyway, this: . . . seems more to me about relative complexity and time investment of chargen, when comparing systems. Your bringing up the whole system mastery issue, if unintentionally and, ironically, via denial, was probably not even quite pertinent to the precise point.
But maybe it was. I'll let EW respond there, if he or she so wishes.
He. My chargen comment was really more about time investment than anything else. I don't see system mastery issues as really separate though since such motivations can be the prime source of the time investment.
What I miss is the balance (or lack thereof). It's not that I want anyone to sit at the sidelines or feel inferior. But in 1e, I didn't feel bad if I tossed a 1st level character an artifact (not that I made a habit of it, mind you). In 3e and 4e, that's pretty well declared as Wrong. Ditto for letting one player play a character 10 levels above the rest of the group and act as mentor. I don't want unbalanced. I want flexible balance.
The other things I know I miss are the idea that PCs generally end up with a hold of some sort, not just extraplanar dungeons. And the followers/henchmen. I've never had a campaign without copious followers, pets, and even full NPC party members, without any problems; so the 4e focus on economy of actions seems incredibly heavy-handed and stifling to me.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
