Modern Role Playing is S*%t

[Greygor]

No I don't really mean that hopefully it's just get you into the thread for an actual discussion.

Where I'm coming from. The last Tabletop game I ran was just after 3E came out, Prior to that my main system was AD&D you know the old Advanced guide stuff

https://geekyprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/adnd-phb.jpg

Back in those days I also used to play wargames like Squad Leader. The big difference between the two was that in RPG's I'd describe the situation and the players would react and I would fudge things in the players favour if the story needed it,

In comparison, SL was regimented, where rules for how far you could move, how much you could carry, opportunity fire if you crossed a LOS.

In the last few weeks I've been drawn back into RPG's, Pathfinder in fact. And as FGII is, IMO, pretty much industry standard for VTT's I've chosen it for my platform (my players aren't local)

But the setting up as been a nightmare, I've felt the need to detail everything because it appears to me the rpg'er's have turned into the wargamer's. How far are we away? Can I move this way without triggering an opportunity attack? The radius is 30' whose within it?

Plus Battlemaps galore.

Is it just me, have I let the game rules take over my better sense, would I be better to ignore things and play old school or have the new rule writers included too much in the rules that requires a proper tactical miniatures game.

I'd love to hear from GM's and how they prepare and run games today. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy

[dr_venture]

I do think there's a big divide in the styles of RPG people favor. Personally, I am conceptually attracted to the fullness of the rules for 3.5, Pathfinder, and their ilk, but in practicality, I find it much too much work to get all the details of the rules committed to memory. But I know a *ton* of people disagree, and they enjoy that detail. My son has been egging me into running a Star Wars game based on the D20 rules, and it's taken me half a day to figure out if the droid he wants can be played as a PC, and how they level up, etc. For me, I hate it.

I think that's partially behind the schism in the gaming market today, and why I think it's going to be hard or impossible for Wizards to make D&D all things for all people: D&D morphed into a new critter with 3.5, and gained new fans while leaving a portion of the fans behind. I don't want an even more complicated system with a lot of rulebooks that need to be purchased, but a lot of folks want just that. That's OK, we just need different systems.

I'd suggest you consider OSRIC, which has a great unofficial ruleset (not sure where you get it now that the FG wiki is down - maybe post on that forum?). Personally, I'm head over heels in love with Castles & Crusades, which plays like a simplified, logical cross between AD&D 1e and 2e... very rules lite, very easy to mod with house rules, and not prone to being replaced with a new version requiring the purchase of all new books and software. The 'quick start' rules can be downloaded free & legal here:

https://www.trolllord.com/cnc/ccqs.html

[Emrak]

I think most people would agree with you. D&D 3.5/Pathfinder is a skirmish war game with some social rules thrown in. That said, I do play--and greatly enjoy--Pathfinder.

I think your major hurdle is that you are not only trying to learn Pathfinder (heavy lift) but also all the ins and outs of FG2 (heavy lift). That's a staggering amount of learning, especially if you've been out of gaming for 13 years.

I would strongly encourage you to play in a few PF games that you can find here on the forums and in the GameCalendar link above. After 4 or 5 games under your belt you should have a significantly stronger grasp on the rule system and FG2.

[JohnD]

As someone with close to 30 years of DMing under my belt, I "think" the game in AD&D and figure out what that means in 3.5e or Pathfinder. You pick it up as you go.

[Doswelk]

Different players like different things, 3.5/d20 modern tried to have a rule for everything, I took one look at 4e and thought urgh, but I gather it plays better than it reads but it's not for me.

I play Savage Worlds these days because it is rules light and let's me get a game running nice and quick

In some ways though I do miss the good old days of AD&D (1st or 2nd) though the amount of rules books I had for 2nd was ridiculous!

I think I have changed when I was a teenager I had time to consult multiple rule books to create a character or an npc, now I need a and that I can just run without to much prep time.

We regard to battlemaps I find I am more inclined to use one on FGII than I am running a face-to-face game, but at the same time when I am running a face-to-face game I do miss the ease of linked story entries/npcs that FGII gives me.

[Greygor]

Lots of good comments here and some good advice.

I think my best bet is do a lot of winging it :)

Maybe I'll minimise a lot of automation in FG II and have the players just roll the base dice and apply the mods my self. This may sound strange but I'm currently quicker doing that in my head than working out the correct way to do it in the interface.

Then as we all get used to the interface bring in all the bells and whistles.

I'm just using Vanilla Pathfinder Core rules so that will help a bit and the players are starting at 1st level so what they can do is limited. That should help a little.

Also I'm running an Adventure Path and to be honest they are written a lot better than some of the pre-written modules I remember in the good old days.

It is tempting to devote part of the first session to a FG II learning session, maybe run a gladiatorial style combat to give everyone a feel for how the combat works in FG II.

Plus I might take that advice and join a game to give myself more chance to learn in between the sessions I'm running.

[Valarian]

It's been a while since I've played D&D of any persuasion. I've lost patience with all the rules and setup required. Alternatives include:

Castles and Crusades - best of old school D&D and 3e d20 (simple, yet without the dreaded THAC0)
Savage Worlds - not my favourite system, but works well
FATE (Dresden Files, Legends of Anglerre) - a different style of play, based on the invoking and compelling of character aspects. Great system.
The One Ring - my current favourite, playing in Middle-earth. Great system, very evocative of the setting. Combat works with stances (attitudes to combat) rather than battlemaps - allowing the players to narrate their characters actions rather than moving miniatures.

For modern settings, you might like to try:
Corporation - fast and cinematic play in a cyberpunk style world
Summerland - post-apocalypse where the world has been taken over by the Sea of Trees. Part faery story, part zombie apocalypse.

[Greygor]

It's been a while since I've played D&D of any persuasion. I've lost patience with all the rules and setup required. Alternatives include:

Castles and Crusades - best of old school D&D and 3e d20 (simple, yet without the dreaded THAC0)
Savage Worlds - not my favourite system, but works well
FATE (Dresden Files, Legends of Anglerre) - a different style of play, based on the invoking and compelling of character aspects. Great system.
The One Ring - my current favourite, playing in Middle-earth. Great system, very evocative of the setting. Combat works with stances (attitudes to combat) rather than battlemaps - allowing the players to narrate their characters actions rather than moving miniatures.

For modern settings, you might like to try:
Corporation - fast and cinematic play in a cyberpunk style world
Summerland - post-apocalypse where the world has been taken over by the Sea of Trees. Part faery story, part zombie apocalypse.

All fantastic suggestions, my only restriction is the players specifically asked for Pathfinder :)

Certainly something to keep in mind for the future though.

[damned]

Hi Greygor - your players might have specifically asked for PathFinder but you are the one that has to do all the heavy lifting. Pathfinder does have all these amazing classes and awesome feats which can turn your players into some really fine tuned adventurers but if its not what you want it will be hard for you.
Im another who uses Castles&Crusades. I started using it fr the following reasons:
1. the only fantasy rpg I had ever played was BECMI and AD&D1E - about 25yrs ago.
2. i had books for 3, 3.5 and 4 but not the time to learn them
3. there wasnt a well featured 1E ruleset - but there was one for Castles&Crusades
i started my first campaign after reading about half the players handbook...
yes - ok - it was pretty ordinary and i needed some help along the way but it is such an easy system to learn, to play and to fudge wherever needed.
13 classes. 7 races. old school mechanics with some nice simplification. only 2 books needed - players handbook (actually contains all the game mechanics you need to get going) and monsters&treasure or classic monsters.
the power is back in your hands. do a siege check for most things. make up the odds or the results when needed. use the dice tower when you need to fudge something.
in the fg combat tracker you can also change the hp of monsters mid combat if required and players will never ever know :) bump em up if they are not challenging your players, slice a few off if you are about to experience a TPK event... make sure a few die still so they know - you are playing for real :)
ok, ok, so maybe it sounds like im trying to push you back to some old school gaming - im not, but i do strongly suggest you take on something you can manage so you dont hate it and you dont abandon it half way thru...
have fun.

[damned]

oh yeah - one more thing - the quality of modules/adventures/campaigns is so much higher today than a lot of the old school stuff... so grab some new campaign material and old school it and play with a retro ruleset :)

[Greygor]

Hi Greygor - your players might have specifically asked for PathFinder but you are the one that has to do all the heavy lifting. Pathfinder does have all these amazing classes and awesome feats which can turn your players into some really fine tuned adventurers but if its not what you want it will be hard for you.
Im another who uses Castles&Crusades. I started using it fr the following reasons:

1. the only fantasy rpg I had ever played was BECMI and AD&D1E - about 25yrs ago.

2. i had books for 3, 3.5 and 4 but not the time to learn them

3. there wasnt a well featured 1E ruleset - but there was one for Castles&Crusades
i started my first campaign after reading about half the players handbook...

yes - ok - it was pretty ordinary and i needed some help along the way but it is such an easy system to learn, to play and to fudge wherever needed.

13 classes. 7 races. old school mechanics with some nice simplification. only 2 books needed - players handbook (actually contains all the game mechanics you need to get going) and monsters&treasure or classic monsters.

the power is back in your hands. do a siege check for most things. make up the odds or the results when needed. use the dice tower when you need to fudge something.
in the fg combat tracker you can also change the hp of monsters mid combat if required and players will never ever know :) bump em up if they are not challenging your players, slice a few off if you are about to experience a TPK event... make sure a few die still so they know - you are playing for real :)

ok, ok, so maybe it sounds like im trying to push you back to some old school gaming - im not, but i do strongly suggest you take on something you can manage so you dont hate it and you dont abandon it half way thru...
have fun.

Thanks for the thought, in my time I've done, AD&D2, Runequest, Dragonquest, Chivalry & Sorcery, Ars Magica, Traveller, Powers & Perils, Superworld, Champions, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, DC heroes, Mutants & Masterminds, Silver Age Sentinels, Hackmaster, Skyrealms of Jorune, Toon, Babylon 5 ... and so many others that I've forgotten. So I don't really mind using a system that the players want, I'm pretty adaptable.

In fact there is a chance that once they try it they may find it too tactical as well. But that's fixable, I'm an old hand at dropping mechanics as needed.

I'll just try and concentrate on telling a good story and maybe for the first session drop some of the FG automation so were not trying to learn the interface as well as the game.

[Emrak]

I'll just try and concentrate on telling a good story and maybe for the first session drop some of the FG automation so were not trying to learn the interface as well as the game.

This is actually what we said two years ago. Unfortunately, we never got around to using the FG automation and here I am, trying to get up to speed on it like a rank n00b. :)

BTW, WOTC just released a box set of OD&D https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/45390000 So who knows? Maybe there will be an original D&D FG ruleset in the offing some day.

[JohnD]

Starting out I'd advise you to just stick to the Pathfinder Core Rules... that will leave you with base classes and standard races. Should lessen the curve a little bit.

I'd strongly suggest you just observe a game... it will clear a lot up for you (that's how I got started).

[S Ferguson]

Thanks for the thought, in my time I've done, AD&D2, Runequest, Dragonquest, Chivalry & Sorcery, Ars Magica, Traveller, Powers & Perils, Superworld, Champions, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, DC heroes, Mutants & Masterminds, Silver Age Sentinels, Hackmaster, Skyrealms of Jorune, Toon, Babylon 5 ... and so many others that I've forgotten. So I don't really mind using a system that the players want, I'm pretty adaptable.

In fact there is a chance that once they try it they may find it too tactical as well. But that's fixable, I'm an old hand at dropping mechanics as needed.

I'll just try and concentrate on telling a good story and maybe for the first session drop some of the FG automation so were not trying to learn the interface as well as the game.

Don't forget Aftermath, Runequest, Stormbringer, The Morrow Project, Over the Edge, Cyberpunk 2020, Feng Shui. Freedom Fighters (or anything from FGU), Amber Diceless RPG, Twilight 2000 and 2300AD, ... ooooh what a trip down memory lane. And I'm still learning new systems with the same enthusiasm as I did before. It doesn't matter whether it's rules lite or heavy.

Pathfinder was, and I believe is, easy to pick up. You really should only need the Player's Core and the Beastiary (the rules are laid out similar to Castles and Crusades - where the Player's Core has the mechanics of the game included) and you're good to go. Everything else is fluff, or extra toppings. They taste good to some, and that's good, but like different systems, it's an individuals taste.

[Greygor]

Don't forget Aftermath, Runequest, Stormbringer, The Morrow Project, Over the Edge, Cyberpunk 2020, Feng Shui. Freedom Fighters (or anything from FGU), Amber Diceless RPG, Twilight 2000 and 2300AD, ... ooooh what a trip down memory lane. And I'm still learning new systems with the same enthusiasm as I did before. It doesn't matter whether it's rules lite or heavy.

Pathfinder was, and I believe is, easy to pick up. You really should only need the Player's Core and the Beastiary (the rules are laid out similar to Castles and Crusades - where the Player's Core has the mechanics of the game included) and you're good to go. Everything else is fluff, or extra toppings. They taste good to some, and that's good, but like different systems, it's an individuals taste.

I forgot Aftermath, wasn't there a D30 involved?

Amber, Morrow and Twilight I remember but not the others.

The thing with Pathfinder is not that it is difficult, more that it was designed in such a way to suck people into buying loads of miniatures, see 3E and 4E as well. It feels like were moving from story telling to battle recreation.

However I think I should create a rule set for my own Superhero Game, Up, Up & Away.

At least I'd get good feedback on what is wrong with it :)

[S Ferguson]

I forgot Aftermath, wasn't there a D30 involved?

Amber, Morrow and Twilight I remember but not the others.

However I think I should create a rule set for my own Superhero Game, Up, Up & Away.

At least I'd get good feedback on what is wrong with it :)

Nope just a d20. One of the good old ones with 0-9 numbered twice on them , and a d6 with pips instead of numbers.

And your superhero game would go well with my Aliens vs. Ewoks cartoon in which the screen goes red, you hear squealing and the credits roll....

[S Ferguson]

Actually, I own a d30 still. Forget what I used it for. Mabye Arduin or Talislanta pr Harn. Not sure. Well its a tructated polyhedral anyway. Like the earth which is more like a rhombic dodecahedon than a sphere;) . Unless there is a secret conspiracy to include d30's in FG. Then I'd be gung-ho behind it.:)

[Greygor]

I'm pretty sure the d30 was hit locations in Aftermath

[S Ferguson]

Nope. There were 30 LOC (locations) on the to-hit charts, but the die mechanics were percentile +/- modifiers to hit. Then another percentile roll was made and cross referened to a chart that gave the general area that you hit, e.g. 4-5 being the upper left and right torso. Hit location areas were also modified by cover. It was quite the 2 hr character development, 2 min lifespan games :D .

[Greygor]

Nope. There were 30 LOC (locations) on the to-hit charts, but the die mechanics were percentile +/- modifiers to hit. Then another percentile roll was made and cross referened to a chart that gave the general area that you hit, e.g. 4-5 being the upper left and right torso. Hit location areas were also modified by cover. It was quite the 2 hr character development, 2 min lifespan games :D .

Oh well, it was sometime ago so my memory plays tricks :)

I always used to enjoy Traveller character creation, almost a game in itself.

[leozelig]

I prefer the older editions of D&D for a similar reason. I do like battle maps though, but I do not use a grid. If my players suggest a reasonable plan, then we run with it. I much prefer that to rolling Diplomacy checks - skills in general have really taken a lot of the player skill out of the game, so I stick with the older editions. I had one player in 3.5 ask if he could make a Spot check to identify a weak spot in the armor and get a +2 to his attack. Then he rolled a Spot check every time he attacked after that!

I have been re-running several of the old modules, and I will agree that the production value is much better today. Some of that old school looseness led to some very awkward game situations as a DM. So I am not completely against the mechanical (wargame-type) approach.

[Greygor]

I prefer the older editions of D&D for a similar reason. I do like battle maps though, but I do not use a grid. If my players suggest a reasonable plan, then we run with it. I much prefer that to rolling Diplomacy checks - skills in general have really taken a lot of the player skill out of the game, so I stick with the older editions. I had one player in 3.5 ask if he could make a Spot check to identify a weak spot in the armor and get a +2 to his attack. Then he rolled a Spot check every time he attacked after that!

I have been re-running several of the old modules, and I will agree that the production value is much better today. Some of that old school looseness led to some very awkward game situations as a DM. So I am not completely against the mechanical (wargame-type) approach.

Does anyone find it ironic that D&D started out as a miniatures skirmish game, developed into a story telling game and is now back to being a miniatures skirmish game. :)

Of course it's all down to the GM style of play how much or how little he wants that aspect to dominate.

[S Ferguson]

Does anyone find it ironic that D&D started out as a miniatures skirmish game, developed into a story telling game and is now back to being a miniatures skirmish game. :)

Of course it's all down to the GM style of play how much or how little he wants that aspect to dominate.

Well, Chainmail was a tactical miniatures game, D&D just used the measurements system from it in order to facillitate a Tolkeinesque milleau: It was sort of the way Savage Worlds developed. I don't think Gygax and Dave really thought Blackmoor was really a miniatures setting. After all miniatures, especially fantasy ones were difficult (if not impossible) to find in the mid 70's.;)

Now I think it's just a financial issue. You make a game dependenr on miniatures, so what's the most logical place to make money.

[Greygor]

Well, Chainmail was a tactical miniatures game, D&D just used the measurements system from it in order to facillitate a Tolkeinesque milleau: It was sort of the way Savage Worlds developed. I don't think Gygax and Dave really thought Blackmoor was really a miniatures setting. After all miniatures, especially fantasy ones were difficult (if not impossible) to find in the mid 70's.;)

Now I think it's just a financial issue. You make a game dependenr on miniatures, so what's the most logical place to make money.

You've got me thinking now, I picked up D&D around '77 or '78 and there were miniatures then, but I can't remember when I first noticed them (This is in the UK).

It must have been around that time or shortly after that I saw Citadel Miniatures and Ral Partha in a Manchester game store. Could well have been Games Workshop back when it sold everything not just it's own stuff.

[JohnD]

Hi Greygor... I don't know what your time zone and availability is like, but I have a PF game this Friday evening; you're welcome to connect and observe if you'd like.

This can really help you power your way through the FG learning curve (and you can pick up a bit of the PF rules as well).

PM me if you're interested.

[S Ferguson]

You've got me thinking now, I picked up D&D around '77 or '78 and there were miniatures then, but I can't remember when I first noticed them (This is in the UK).

It must have been around that time or shortly after that I saw Citadel Miniatures and Ral Partha in a Manchester game store. Could well have been Games Workshop back when it sold everything not just it's own stuff.

Ral Partha was the first major miniatures store I think they opened their doors around '78 like you said, but they were hard to come by, even here in The Great White North. Citadel I believe opened in '79 or '80, but that was only in the UK. Until they started producing their own games, they had to be special ordered (at least over here). I mostly remember "paper-pushing" of counters over a mapboard, a remnant of the Wargame era which predominated the North American gaming scene for so long. Now you can find miniatures everywhere, and good Wargames like Advanced Squad Leader <<sigh>> :) are almost impossible to find. I think it was the Wargaimg aspect that kept a lot of the roleplaying games "tactically minded." Paranoia said it best: "Alright Billy, we know you're ignoring the movement modifier die! Come out with your hands up!"

[Greygor]

Ral Partha was the first major miniatures store I think they opened their doors around '78 like you said, but they were hard to come by, even here in The Great White North. Citadel I believe opened in '79 or '80, but that was only in the UK. Until they started producing their own games, they had to be special ordered (at least over here). I mostly remember "paper-pushing" of counters over a mapboard, a remnant of the Wargame era which predominated the North American gaming scene for so long. Now you can find miniatures everywhere, and good Wargames like Advanced Squad Leader <<sigh>> :) are almost impossible to find. I think it was the Wargaimg aspect that kept a lot of the roleplaying games "tactically minded." Paranoia said it best: "Alright Billy, we know you're ignoring the movement modifier die! Come out with your hands up!"

Well GMT still put out good stuff on the wargames side which I play on Vassal (I was a wargamer first and an RPGer second), but Eurogames seem to be well into the ascendant on the boardgames front the moment. Not in itself a bad thing, I'm always up for a game of Dominant Species or Agricola.

On a different note I did notice that Up Front is getting a re-issue which may have been my first ever Non-Collectable Card Game. I loved Up Front <<another sigh>>

[S Ferguson]

Well GMT still put out good stuff on the wargames side which I play on Vassal (I was a wargamer first and an RPGer second), but Eurogames seem to be well into the ascendant on the boardgames front the moment. Not in itself a bad thing, I'm always up for a game of Dominant Species or Agricola.

On a different note I did notice that Up Front is getting a re-issue which may have been my first ever Non-Collectable Card Game. I loved Up Front <<another sigh>>

Yeah, me too. <<group sigh>>

[Valarian]

Paranoia said it best: "Alright Billy, we know you're ignoring the movement modifier die! Come out with your hands up!"
He might as well. Those Red level lasers won't get through the armour of BILL-Y

[S Ferguson]

He might as well. Those Red level lasers won't get through the armour of BILL-Y

True. All the COP-R's have Computer produced prototype weapons. The Computer has thought this though. The Computer is my friend.:)

[Velocinox]

No I don't really mean that hopefully it's just get you into the thread for an actual discussion.

Where I'm coming from. The last Tabletop game I ran was just after 3E came out, Prior to that my main system was AD&D you know the old Advanced guide stuff

https://geekyprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/adnd-phb.jpg

Back in those days I also used to play wargames like Squad Leader. The big difference between the two was that in RPG's I'd describe the situation and the players would react and I would fudge things in the players favour if the story needed it,

In comparison, SL was regimented, where rules for how far you could move, how much you could carry, opportunity fire if you crossed a LOS.

In the last few weeks I've been drawn back into RPG's, Pathfinder in fact. And as FGII is, IMO, pretty much industry standard for VTT's I've chosen it for my platform (my players aren't local)

But the setting up as been a nightmare, I've felt the need to detail everything because it appears to me the rpg'er's have turned into the wargamer's. How far are we away? Can I move this way without triggering an opportunity attack? The radius is 30' whose within it?

Plus Battlemaps galore.

Is it just me, have I let the game rules take over my better sense, would I be better to ignore things and play old school or have the new rule writers included too much in the rules that requires a proper tactical miniatures game.

I'd love to hear from GM's and how they prepare and run games today. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy

Oh boy, you are NEVER going to get those worms back in the can!

"Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy" You are.

But then, so am I. :)

The problem you are experiencing always seems to lead people to discussing systems. The old crunch vs. simplicity debate, or less often, functional vs organic game rules. In my experience, this is never the case. It is about how much the player can predict the outcome of his actions. The more he knows about the rules, the more precisely he can plan the outcome of his turn. (Sounds like a wargame, doesn't it?) The feeling you miss, isn't a game system, or even a level of complexity or functionality, it is the feeling of being a novice.

I took a few very experienced, very intelligent and tactically savvy players and turned them on to a new system (the system is inconsequential and will only divert the discussion to be about that particular system's merits or faults) that just happened to be extremely crunchy to the novice. Though it actually isn't that bad once you grok the core guidelines. At first glance however, there appears to be a preponderance of data to be absorbed. This acted as a buffer to how quickly the players absorbed the system. It was deceptively simply so anyone could pick up the basics, but investigating further was a classic case of can't see that simple tree (system) because of the thousands of other systems (simple trees) near it.

Now today's industry says crunch is bad. Make the rules light, easy to understand and keep the game moving. Which is fine, I love those games as well. However, I knew the system for this experiment exceptionally well. I could speed through the game like 4E, 3.XX, SW, or anything else. The players however were bewildered. They tried to fixate on the rules at first, but as I unfolded the game to them and exposed them to more, they saw a core functionality that was always there and kept them company in the chaos and they could expect and predict that bit of the game, but the rest remained a mystery until they were exposed to it. I made it a strict point to always follow the rules and never house rule something as a one off. If I did it that way once, that's the the way it stayed.

Eventually the players began to trust what they couldn't see. They knew that somewhere behind the GM screen there were some predictable and static rules governing their experience and none of it was based on a whim. So they stopped trying to game the system, and settled in for a story. They began to gamble with their actions. They had played long enough to start seeing the most basic odds in doing a certain thing, but committing to an action was never a sure thing.

Now this might seem like this can be boiled down into a crunch vs simplicity argument towards crunch, but the truth is, I only used those cryptic rules to hide the inner workings, not to simulate real life or replicate fully some human process. The downside of crunch never occurred because I knew the system so well. This doesn't mean you need to be an expert on your rules, you can use a system of your own invention that is as light and crunch free as basic Savage Worlds if you want, as long as you prove to your players during game play that there is something defined and predictable under the hood, even if they cannot see it. If you convince them of this and they relax and start to gamble again, then any system will work as well as a cryptically crunch obfuscated system.

I hope I presented my point well enough that you can see why I don't think it is a certain system we miss, but that we miss not knowing what's going to happen and just clutching our character sheets and hanging on for dear life. :D

[S Ferguson]

Oh boy, you are NEVER going to get those worms back in the can!

"Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy" You are.

But then, so am I. :)

I hope I presented my point well enough that you can see why I don't think it is a certain system we miss, but that we miss not knowing what's going to happen and just clutching our character sheets and hanging on for dear life. :D

<<Transmision begin -- Do *not* start rules lite vs heavy discussion:) >>

Like you I have not only converted hard-core grognards but more importatntly, I have at each step, made the transition myself. I think that all of your points I covered, or had to cover in making the transistion from Tactics to Story. It really was The Fantasy Trip for Melee/Advanced Melee and Wizardry/Advanced Wizardry (the system that a lot later would form the core of GURPs) that made me trust the rules and how I put my faith in the story potential of, as you put it "crunch." The rules light games (and for the record, LARPs) showed the unbounded limitations of story - actually playing a role, without the rulebooks turned one of my groups into improvisational actors, rather than players in a game. I still enjoy all of the games I've accumulated over the years. And like I tell new players now: "Don't worry about it; it's just a game. You'll pick it up as we go along."

Paranoia had it right:

"We like our [rules] like we like our scotch - straight. But there are some people who prefer ice, soda, or even limp-wristed slop like margaritas or daiquiris. Well de gustibus non est disputantum. That's why we're providing optional rules."

Not letting the game take control of the playing is the key lesson that allows you to *really* play any game, be it card, board, simulation or modern RPGs. Play with younger children. You'd be amazed how fast they adapt. There's a kid in all of us.

[dr_venture]

I think this is an area ripe full of "Your Mileage May Vary." My experience is going from AD&D 1e to more and more comprehensive systems (and thus more complicated) in an effort to try to quantify the game world more precisely. I even spent a stupid amount of time trying to kludge together parts of multiple systems into my 'ultimate' system.

But a close friend of mine, whom I have gamed with for years, would always listen to the details of whatever new system I was either building or learning and say that he'd stick with old AD&D 1e: he knew it well, it was fast to play, and he didn't think the trade-off between time spent on game mechanics vs. time spent getting into the story was worth it. He even argued that the relatively crude rough simulations provided by the AD&D rules (with house rules, I should add) weren't that much cruder than the detailed rules I was learning/creating.

I fought him for about 20 years on the subject, and in the end I had to admit he was right all along. Every time I tried to really crunch the numbers and compare the accuracy/realism of the game mechanics vs. the time spent on the mechanics, I begrudgingly had to admit that the added realism was marginal compared with the increased time and effort it took to moderate the more complicated rules. Or I had to admit that whether or not the added 'realism' was actually any more realistic at all, as it was all based on wild assumptions about magic or the likelihood of combat outcomes that I was making assumptions about in the first place.

So in the end, I wound up playing Castles & Crusades, as it's even faster and simpler than old AD&D, and it's a game environment that I enjoy and know well. But that's entirely a personal preference: others are going to find a system that fits them well. Some are going to find the extra effort and time is worth it for the expanded rules/options, some won't. It's all good! To each his own... as long as there are enough others like yourself to have a good game!

[S Ferguson]

Speaking of the development of the "ultimate rules system" side.... man, I'm *still* doing it. Make me stop!:D

[dr_venture]

Not letting the game take control of the playing is the key lesson that allows you to *really* play any game, be it card, board, simulation or modern RPGs. Play with younger children. You'd be amazed how fast they adapt. There's a kid in all of us.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I have some role playing friends who absolutely *eat up* the complicated RPG games - they really thrive on the machinations of the complex game systems and using it to thwart their foes while advancing their own interests. They just *love* that and go out of their way to play such games. They do roleplay and the game has a story... but the emphasis is as much on the rule system as the story. Not my kind of game, but it's good for them. It's like Metal vs. Hard Rock vs. Funk Rock, etc. - to argue one has inherently more merits is like arguing over which color is prettiest.

[S Ferguson]

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I have some role playing friends who absolutely *eat up* the complicated RPG games - they really thrive on the machinations of the complex game systems and using it to thwart their foes while advancing their own interests.

I just think that the tactics they use to smite their foes is part of their storytelling. Just in a "little" more detail.... Heck they can probably give a great deal of description of how that last troll went down.:)

[dr_venture]

You're absolutely right, of course. I guess what I was trying to say is that for them, complex game rules are equally as important as story or any other element. They specifically *want* the game to control the playing. It's great to hear them talk about their sessions and such, all kinds of crazy power/ability one-upsmanship and rules dissections... but I enjoy hearing about it like I enjoy watching football: it's a fun spectator sport, but I'm not ready to strap on those pads myself.

[S Ferguson]

True enough. Haven't looked at Castles & Crusades aside from the free pdf introduction, but it looked interesting. Unfortunetly, responsibilities have limited my buying power, and I haven't had a chance to give it a whirl. Besides, my brain hurts if I use it too much in a hobby store :D .

[Mistindantacles]

Going back to the OP, I play AD& 2nd edition with some first edition sprinkled in. And for me, as both a DM and a player, is important thing is always the story.

Now, I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years and I hope to continue for at least another 30. But in all my time playing or DMing, I couldn't tell you a single stat one particular character had. What I can tell you are these wonderfully elaborate situations we got into, and out of. It's the stories I remember.

For me, I see these newer versions specifically made to make video game coding easier (for instance, DDO, NWN, etc...). And they're excellent for those purposes. But for trying to tell a story over 3, 4, or 5+ hours, the "modern mechanics" fall very short of providing the right tools to do so because everything reduces to die roll. Even interaction between PCs and NPCs; with these newer systems it seems the players cannot roleplay their way through a simple general store purchase - they have to roll their way through the conversation.

Limiting. And very weak, if you ask me.

Just my two pence.

[S Ferguson]

Going back to the OP, I play AD& 2nd edition with some first edition sprinkled in. And for me, as both a DM and a player, is important thing is always the story.

Now, I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years and I hope to continue for at least another 30. But in all my time playing or DMing, I couldn't tell you a single stat one particular character had. What I can tell you are these wonderfully elaborate situations we got into, and out of. It's the stories I remember.

For me, I see these newer versions specifically made to make video game coding easier (for instance, DDO, NWN, etc...). And they're excellent for those purposes. But for trying to tell a story over 3, 4, or 5+ hours, the "modern mechanics" fall very short of providing the right tools to do so because everything reduces to die roll. Even interaction between PCs and NPCs; with these newer systems it seems the players cannot roleplay their way through a simple general store purchase - they have to roll their way through the conversation.

Limiting. And very weak, if you ask me.

Just my two pence.

I too remember the epic stories and personalities, forged 30+ years ago and going. I don't think that the games today are geared towards video games, in fact, quite the opposite. I think "video-game mentality" is shaping the way the games are played. I find, at least in mt TT (and some on my VTT), players spend more time out of character simply because they're given all the rules. It really is no different than "rules lawyers" of 30+ years ago. I really don't think it's the game at fault, but how the players interpret the rules, Savage worlds, for instance, minimizes rolls to using them only when they *really* count. And if you play it the way it was meant to so is Pathfinder (I'm still not sure if D&D 4e is a tactical simulation:) ), and others. In fact the only "video game spawned" RPGs I can think of are Everquest, WoW, Starcraft, and Rune (and Rune is just a savage Ars Magica in sheeps clothing).

In short don't blame the games, establish guidelines in which you're DMing or reach an agreement with your group on how the "character talk" is to be handled, otherwise you 'll find them manipulating the characters like chess pieces (kind of what we did in Chainmail).

[Mistindantacles]

I'm not a rules lawyer. Never have been. In fact, at the start of every campaign I re-explain The Truck of Etherealness.

Excessive rules lawyering may cause the appearance of the Truck of Etherealness. A dimensional gate appeares 2 inches will appear in front of your character and a fully loaded 18-wheel tractor trailer travelling at 75mph comes through the gate, slam into your character for 100d100 points of damage, and will exist through a similar exit portal 2 inche s behind your characters back.

[S Ferguson]

I can't think of a better use of a semi.