Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder

[Tequila Sunrise]

Evolution doesn't lead to a "higher" from, it leads to more specialized forms adapted to specific circumstances. Something highly evolved need not be for everyone.

Applies to organisms as well as to games, it would seem. ^^

In 5e's case, the game seems to be evolving into a non-specialized form. Like the generalist bear.

Which may turn out to be disastrous, if the ttrpg world is like Africa, where there are no bears because only specialists can survive. It'll be interesting to find out how long our gaming culture will support a D&D edition that specializes in not specializing.

 

[Imaro]

In 5e's case, the game seems to be evolving into a non-specialized form. Like the generalist bear.

Which may turn out to be disastrous, if the ttrpg world is like Africa, where there are no bears because only specialists can survive. It'll be interesting to find out how long our gaming culture will support a D&D edition that specializes in not specializing.

I'm curious, do you think all the previous editions were "specialized"? If so what exactly was each specialized for?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm curious, do you think all the previous editions were "specialized"? If so what exactly was each specialized for?

Well, I'm not an authority on the early editions, but as I understand it they're best as logistical quasi-wargame adventures. (Which makes sense, D&D originally having grown out of wargaming.) Nab-the-loot, constant risk vs. reward analyses, with the ultimate game "win" being retirement to domain management.

2e was kind of an awkward phase for D&D, where the rules were still mostly best at quasi-wargaming, but the DMG was chock full of story-related advice and TSR was publishing all kinds of epic story novels. If pressed, I'd say that 2e specializes in settings -- it's got everything from the classic GH to super-high-magic FR to avante garde settings like PS and DS.

3e specializes in lots of rules, lots of options, and the 1-20 adventuring career. 3e refined D&D rules, so it appeals to those who appreciate elegance.

4e specializes in balance, lots of options, and 1-30 playability. 4e again refined the D&D rules, though it also parted the 'magician's curtain' and slaughtered many sacred cows in order to do so, so it doesn't appeal to 'illusionists' or traditionalists.

Not to say that my analysis is exhaustive, definitive, or accurate for every D&D gamer. But I do think that every edition is a slightly different beast than the others.

 

[brvheart]

In playing 1E for around 20 years I don't recall any real wargaming element to it or much risk vs reward analysis. Yes, there was a lot of go into dungeon, kill monster, earn treasure and XP. There was also a certain amount of unstructured role playing involved.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In playing 1E for around 20 years I don't recall any real wargaming element to it or much risk vs reward analysis. Yes, there was a lot of go into dungeon, kill monster, earn treasure and XP. There was also a certain amount of unstructured role playing involved.

I don't mean to imply that early D&D is RP-lite or any such nonsense, as that obviously depends on the players involved.

The picture I've gotten from online discussions is that many players mistook the play style that early D&D is designed around. Many players who hadn't been playing since the very beginning saw the book covers, with heroic-looking characters confronting dragons, and assumed that the game was about heroes fighting the good fight. But things like random encounters and the gold=xp rule actually encourage players to avoid direct conflict whenever possible. Which tends to create a strong nab-the-loot, combat-as-war, Conan-mercenary dynamic. You get most XP from gathering treasure, so the adventure becomes a logistical puzzle to solve: How do we avoid random encounters and other hazards which yield minimal/no treasure (i.e., XP) in order to get to the loot, and then get home alive?

Not to say that everyone played early D&D this way; but this is what early D&D is best at, from what I gather.

 

[Zardnaar]

I for one am not seeing this need to completely change the game system every few years. We have gone from 1E to 2E to 2.5 to 3E to 3.5 to Pathfinder and 4E somewhere in between. I don't need a D&D Next! I am starting to see why OSR is getting to popular as a lot of people are wanting to get off this train! I am getting off and this is my last stop. I have plenty of game systems to last me the rest of my life now. Some say the game has evolved, or has it devolved?

I got off the Pathfinder train end of last year. Went back to OSR games and a houseruled 2nd ed. Ascending ACs/saves, no racial or level limits etc.

 

[brvheart]

I don't mean to imply that early D&D is RP-lite or any such nonsense, as that obviously depends on the players involved.

The picture I've gotten from online discussions is that many players mistook the play style that early D&D is designed around. Many players who hadn't been playing since the very beginning saw the book covers, with heroic-looking characters confronting dragons, and assumed that the game was about heroes fighting the good fight. But things like random encounters and the gold=xp rule actually encourage players to avoid direct conflict whenever possible. Which tends to create a strong nab-the-loot, combat-as-war, Conan-mercenary dynamic. You get most XP from gathering treasure, so the adventure becomes a logistical puzzle to solve: How do we avoid random encounters and other hazards which yield minimal/no treasure (i.e., XP) in order to get to the loot, and then get home alive?

Not to say that everyone played early D&D this way; but this is what early D&D is best at, from what I gather.

From what you gather or experienced? Because that was not my experience. I did not give that much XP for treasure and none for coin. Monsters were the main source for XP most of the time.

 

[brvheart]

[delete double post]

 

[brvheart]

I got off the Pathfinder train end of last year. Went back to OSR games and a houseruled 2nd ed. Ascending ACs/saves, no racial or level limits etc.

I see no need myself to get OSR. Have too many copies of 1E still and if and when I run it again it will be RAW complete with level limits and THAC0!

 

[MerricB]

From what you gather or experienced? Because that was not my experience. I did not give that much XP for treasure and none for coin. Monsters were the main source for XP most of the time.

Your experience does seem atypical. AD&D 1E and older editions are designed about about 80% of the XP coming from treasure. This is both in design and borne out by the published adventures. (The actual rate of treasure:monster XP is set out in one of the BECM books, IIRC, in a section on adventure design).

Cheers!