Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5365722" data-attributes="member: 85870">I have to admit, for a long time, I have never understood the "OSR" movement. Why would anyone willingly choose to back to an earlier edition of D&D (or any other game, for that matter) when the more "modern" versions seemed so much better? To give some perspective, I started on BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia, and played for a few short years as a teen, but never caught on to AD&D 1 or 2, then left the hobby for about ten years.  When I came back to the hobby in 2001, D&D 3 was in full swing, and good friend of mine at work got me into it again. It took a little bit of "transition" to get used to the rule changes, but it quickly became apparent to me (at the time) that 3.0 was a "better" game than BECMI ever was--no arbitrary class/race rules, more customization, consistent rules, etc. As a player, I flat out LOVED the 3.x rules. So when I started hanging out in more of the RPG community sites, I was surprised when people would talk about going "back" to 2e, or that their 25 year 2e campaign had simply never ended. And then it happened: This year, after 20+ years in the hobby, I started actually GMing. I've always thought I could be a pretty good GM; I tried a few one-shots in the past with varying results (some good, some bad). I had to learn not to railroad, and it took a little bit of work to find the balance between preparation and flexibility, but I've always had a knack with creating interesting characters and story (I'm a professional writer by trade, and have done college-level and semi-professional theater), and right now my current Pathfinder group seems to be having a very good-to-great time. But—It's become totally, brutally apparent to me now, having GM'd for six months, just how "heavy" the Pathfinder / 3.x rules really are.  There's rules.....for EV-ERY-DAMN-THING. I'm a working professional with a wife and a 2-year-old daughter, so needless to say I like my GM prep load to be "light." But I'm noticing that players who have high levels of 3.x rules mastery inevitably question GM hand-waving because they've had it ingrained into their minds that "D&D 3.x has an explanation for everything."  Even if it's not explicitly stated, my two biggest "rules crunch" players think that almost anything can be correlated tangentially to some other rule "that makes sense." It's created this mindset that nothing can be GM fiat, because it's somehow "not fair," or makes their character less effective than it should be. Plus, even though our party is only fifth level, I can't imagine trying to GM this beast past level 12 (or maybe 14 at MAX). What a nightmare of rules, buffs, spells, resistances, plusses and minuses......and of course you can't "handwave" any of it, because the 3.x rules create the mind set that it shouldn't be handwaved. Does this mean I don't still love Pathfinder? No, not at all, it just means that I think I have underestimated just how important it is to have a group that agrees on the basic premise that the rules are guidelines, not canon. My players are what I'd call "moderate" rules lawyers, but I'd NEVER play or GM 3.x with someone who went any farther. I'd go bat-crap crazy. I still don't agree with most of 4e's design decisions, but I can now appreciate a little bit more the desire to simplify the baseline mechanics by stripping out some of the base saving rolls for static numbers, making everything a static 1/2 level increment, etc. It really makes me want Paizo to create a Pathfinder 2 that goes much further in streamlining the rules without having to maintain backwards 3.5 compatibility. And forgive me, Old School Revivalists, for not understanding your desire to go back to rules systems that allow for a little more leeway in adjudication.</blockquote>

Verification