Lance845 wrote:


I disagree with your take on 4th. And not because I am one of those people who loved 3.5 or pathfinder.

DnD has a problem, in my opinion, in that it's VERY "gamey" as a RPG. By that I mean it doesn't do a great job of having it's rules facilitate the players taking on a role within a world. It facilitates the players playing a game. Between loosing health not having any impact until you hit 0 (whether it's 4 dmg or 100 it has no impact on you), that it's every mechanic and progression is focused on combat, and how much of an impact loot has on players and their progress, to the majority of the exp points coming from monsters slain instead of story or personal goal progression.

DnD has always been more game than role playing.

4th took that gak to another level. It was even less role playing then dnd has traditionally been and it took the people who played dnd who enjoyed the role play aspects and shook them a bit. They didn't like how much MORE gamey it became. As gamey as 3.5 and pathfinder are 4th is so shallowly and transparently just a game that it turned away a lot of people.

5th has some of 4ths innovations in concept if not in iteration but they are layered and hidden under more role play elements like the backgrounds, bonds, etc etc... which makes it all more palatable. It's STILL a REALLY gamey set of mechanics with all the same problems level/class systems have in that regard. But at this point thats what people play dnd for. But clearly they want the trappings of the rp around the game. The game just isn't enough.


If PF2 is Pazios 4th, its because it got even more gamey. They created different "modes" of defined game play depending on what you are doing with abilities and feats set up like talents and powers. The RP trappings are falling away.

 Myrthe wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I disagree with your take on 4th. And not because I am one of those people who loved 3.5 or pathfinder.

DnD has a problem, in my opinion, in that it's VERY "gamey" as a RPG. By that I mean it doesn't do a great job of having it's rules facilitate the players taking on a role within a world. It facilitates the players playing a game. Between loosing health not having any impact until you hit 0 (whether it's 4 dmg or 100 it has no impact on you), that it's every mechanic and progression is focused on combat, and how much of an impact loot has on players and their progress, to the majority of the exp points coming from monsters slain instead of story or personal goal progression.

DnD has always been more game than role playing.

4th took that gak to another level. It was even less role playing then dnd has traditionally been and it took the people who played dnd who enjoyed the role play aspects and shook them a bit. They didn't like how much MORE gamey it became. As gamey as 3.5 and pathfinder are 4th is so shallowly and transparently just a game that it turned away a lot of people.

5th has some of 4ths innovations in concept if not in iteration but they are layered and hidden under more role play elements like the backgrounds, bonds, etc etc... which makes it all more palatable. It's STILL a REALLY gamey set of mechanics with all the same problems level/class systems have in that regard. But at this point thats what people play dnd for. But clearly they want the trappings of the rp around the game. The game just isn't enough.


If PF2 is Pazios 4th, its because it got even more gamey. They created different "modes" of defined game play depending on what you are doing with abilities and feats set up like talents and powers. The RP trappings are falling away.

That's an interesting assessment and, in my experience, is spot on. My D&D group has been just going through the motions and, sadly, looks like it will disband due to a lack of interest in simply rolling dice in a combat situation. I think we morphed into that D&D game player away from role players and it became ingrained to our detriment.

Can you recommend another fantasy system that is a good balance of RPG and Game ? Maybe trying something entirely new would rejuvenate us and bring back the RPG Mojo.

 Red Harvest wrote:
You could play Amber Diceless RPG. Maybe Blue Rose RPG ( joking here.) The other side of level/class is skill bundle, like Runequest ( or Mythras)

If you want, try one of the 'retro-clones' of D&D. Swords and Wizardry for example . Rolling dice is generally to be avoided, because bad things will happen. This guy has a link to a big list of free retro-clones. http://www.tenkarstavern.com/

I agree that the endless dice rolling in combat is a killjoy. My group is starting into that rut as our characters approach 10th level. I find it tedious. However, it is as much a product of the DM and the adventure as it is the game.

Edit to add the link. Oops.

 Red Harvest wrote:
I think the assumption is that monsters 'level up' as players do (increased CR.) so should other things. Not a good assumption. Some things should get easier for PCs as the PCs increase in level

Buhlman et al do not appear to have a strong grasp of the underlying math of the game. Given that the game has a lot of math, this is not a good thing.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Myrthe wrote:
...

Well I would steer clear of anything that is level/class based.

The very moment you have levels and classes you have a standardized progression built around some kind of class function and those class functions are almost always combat. It also tends to put players into a box that is more about what your character can do instead of who your character is.

Consider meeting someone who has never heard of Superman. You try to tell them about him. Do you start with him being a kind charitable person raised with a work ethic and such? Or do you give them a physical description and then tell them he can fly, and has super strength, and is really fast and has heat vision etc etc...

One is a list of powers. One is a description of a person.

Level/class games are about defining your character by their abilities.



Point buy systems on the other hand let players spend an allotment of character creation points to define all kinds of aspects about their character. They generally include some kind of perks and/or drawbacks (drawbacks giving extra points for downsides) along with stats and skills to flesh out a character. Some characters might have more stats but less skills while others are more skillful with less natural aptitude. Variety. It's good. And those perks and drawbacks help define WHO they are instead of just what they can do.

Experience points are generally given for hitting milestones instead of killing things and are then a currency spent to progress whatever the player whats to advance.


As for games to play...

Genesys is Fantasy Flights generic setting neutral RPG system that they used for their starwars games. It's basically point buy with some interesting quirks and some neat narrative elements that come from the dice roles. Their first setting book of Torrinith which is the fantasy setting of the Runewars games. Obviously feel free to take the rules and just make your own game.

My personal favorite is the Unisystem by Eden studios. You can get the pdfs for their games from drivethrough RPG. They don't REALLY have a generic fantasy game but they do have a generic zombie game called All Flesh Must Be Eaten which has a large number of supplements that provide a framework for running all kinds of settings including a fantasy one (Dungeons and zombies). It's pretty basic and will take some work on your part to flesh it out.

I am in the middle of writing up a second edition of my unisystem DnD. Il post up the rules when I am done for sure. But I would definitely recommend looking into the basic mechanics (which are pretty simple and straight forward) and easy to play. In particular, a big boon over dnd is that combat is a contested action. By that i mean instead of you attacking and just trying to hit a target number (and thus when you get attacked you don't get to choose to do anything, they just need to hit YOUR target number) it's instead interactive.

I choose to attack you. You choose to parry. We each roll a d10 and add stat plus skill and ties go to the defender. You get to decide what you are going to do to try to defend yourself instead of being a passive agent and waiting to find out what happens to you.

 Red Harvest wrote:
lue Rose, the setting, is a bit too bounded for my taste. The generic True20 system on which Blue Rose is built is an interesting one. However, It works for others. That's a good thing, really, finding a RPG that one enjoys playing.

I really like the way D&D 5e handles the DC mechanic. It is a lot easier to ignore them most of the time and just get on with actual role-playing. Still, a matter of taste. I think the assumption is that monsters 'level up' as players do (increased CR.) so should other things. Not a good assumption. Some things should get easier for PCs as the PCs increase in level

Buhlman et al do not appear to have a strong grasp of the underlying math of the game. Given that the game has a lot of math, this is not a good thing.

Sometimes 'It's done when it's done' is the only answer - but Paizo really does not want an Osbourne situation on their hands - where sales of the current edition drop because a new edition is in the works.

Missing that deadline means the dropped sales can continue indefinitely.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Paizo really does not want an Osbourne situation on their hands - where sales of the current edition drop because a new edition is in the works.

 skyth wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Paizo really does not want an Osbourne situation on their hands - where sales of the current edition drop because a new edition is in the works.

With the way the new edition is, they might see a sales jump while people get the old 1st edition stuff before it goes away for good...I know the pending 2nd edition has been motivating me to want to get more of the 1st edition stuff.

And both Paizo and WotC seem to have made the mistake of taking a vocal minority as a majority - largely because that vocal minority agrees with something that they wanted to do

Voss wrote:

And both Paizo and WotC seem to have made the mistake of taking a vocal minority as a majority - largely because that vocal minority agrees with something that they wanted to do

I'm not sure that's entirely true. A lot of reactions on their own message boards are largely along the lines of 'What?' and a lot of breakdown of the math that doesn't work.

And various rants against several of the subsystems and changes.

But I could be missing it, as some people have complained that the devs are mostly talking to other sites and not providing the same information on their own site and messageboards.

However, the impression I've gotten so far though is that a lot of the really strange stuff (like resonance and arcane dying rules and the really boring math that yields little but iterative failure) is coming from inside Paizo. And they're trying to shift around to soften the blow but still hold on to as much of these crazy ideas as their fanbase will swallow.

Which, for the portion of the fanbase that followed them from WotC in wake of the 4e Apocalypse, is 'not very much at all.'

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

You should not have to build your species one level at a time. Darkvision should be something you are born with, not something you develop when you have a feat slot available.

 Red Harvest wrote:
It is a relict of the original game. Or relic. Originally, those abilities meant very little. A % bonus to experience points if the prime ability was over a certain number. A +1 to hit points if the CON was 15+, -1 hp if 6 or less. Dexterity 12+ gave +1 to missile fire, 9 or less gave-1 to missile fire. CHA determined the number of hirelings a PC could have, and their loyalty, but these were in range bands. It wasn't until the Greyhawk supplement ruined everything released that ability scores mattered much at all, and then only STR and CON. Also, we did use ability checks. Roll under your ability score to succeed. They were a thing, BITD. Amusingly enough, the DM rolled the ability scores for the PCs. Or was supposed to do so. I think that this rule was near universally ignored.

The THAC0. Interesting blog post here http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-did-armor-class-descend-from-9-to-2.html. And do note that modifiers never changed the AC-- it was always 2-9-- modifiers were added/subtracted to the die roll. So Chainmail +1 was AC5, but subtracted 1 from any to hit roll. ( made for easy math 20-5+1 =16 needed to hit. )

Voss wrote:
Surprisingly this question came up in one of the recent surveys they did, so it is something that occurred to them. The survey question wasn't phrased very well (a problem that dogs a lot of their surveys, as it garbles what little data they're getting), but was basically 'keep it for clarity, keep it for legacy, don't keep it and don't care.'


---

At the moment the answer is partly a legacy thing, a sacred cow that they keep around so old fans don't leave. The other seems to be part of the way they want progression to happen. Once you hit 18/+4 in a stat, it doesn't increase by 2/+1, but by 1/+0.5 (but you don't use the fraction).

So effectively your primary stat only advances at 10th and 20th level (because to keep up with the system math, you absolutely must start at 18 to keep up with monsters ACs and DCs), and you don't bother raising any other stats that high- just spread advances out to raise everything else to 18 as much as possible, especially Dex, Wis and Con (Str, Int and Cha are effectively dump stats, unless your class uses them)

 Lance845 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Surprisingly this question came up in one of the recent surveys they did, so it is something that occurred to them. The survey question wasn't phrased very well (a problem that dogs a lot of their surveys, as it garbles what little data they're getting), but was basically 'keep it for clarity, keep it for legacy, don't keep it and don't care.'


---

At the moment the answer is partly a legacy thing, a sacred cow that they keep around so old fans don't leave. The other seems to be part of the way they want progression to happen. Once you hit 18/+4 in a stat, it doesn't increase by 2/+1, but by 1/+0.5 (but you don't use the fraction).

So effectively your primary stat only advances at 10th and 20th level (because to keep up with the system math, you absolutely must start at 18 to keep up with monsters ACs and DCs), and you don't bother raising any other stats that high- just spread advances out to raise everything else to 18 as much as possible, especially Dex, Wis and Con (Str, Int and Cha are effectively dump stats, unless your class uses them)

Everything you just said is a game design issue. Min Maxing for role playing is counter to role playing (see the gamey bit I said at the end of the last page/top of this one). .5 increases that do nothing are pointless. Just say the limit a stat can increase to is 5.

Roll a d4 6 times to get your attributes and then apply racial modifiers. Or roll 2 or 3d4 and take the highest 6 times. You could get a 0 stat because of a racial penalty (except i think those are gone in PF2) but negatives are gone, because they only ever went into dump stats anyway who gives a gak?)

Functionally it does the same thing but gives players a hard cap so they need to spread their stat gains around and all those stat gains actually do something.