forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

SirKicley wrote:The result of having less complicated rule systems to worry about (500 spells, 200 feats, complicated combat resolutions and ubiquitous modifiers, several classes, races, prestige classes, 50 different "Conditions", and tons of magical items and effects), is that it allows more time to focus on more narrative play - whether it's spent on roleplaying interaction, story development, character integration to the story (the arwen/aragorn comment for instance), etc.

You brilliantly summarize my view Robert, & this is one of the reasons I love ToR.

Every game has its strengths & weaknesses, & most of us have probably played D&D at one point or another. I first played it in 1977 (!) & had the good fortune to learn from a couple of DMs who emphasized role-playing over roll-playing. We developed some incredible games with minimal rules, & I use to laugh when I'd show up to run a game sans DM Guide, & new players familiar with different styles would ask me in shock how I could run a game?

I only bring it up to mention that we all have different styles & I also don't find the other type of gaming ("lazy" DMs, et al) appealing. I'm guessing that's another reason why many of us prefer ToR .

Mim wrote:
I only bring it up to mention that we all have different styles & I also don't find the other type of gaming ("lazy" DMs, et al) appealing. I'm guessing that's another reason why many of us prefer ToR .

I don't find it appealing either - regardless of system. I wouldn't enjoy being a player in a game being run by someone who put forth no effort beyond the flavorless meta-game mechanics speak. Nor do I enjoy Pathfinder or D&D by such. Which is why I'm not a fan of Pathfinder Society games or game-conventions, because they lend themselves typically to such gaming due to strict time constraints. Since my free-time is limited, I would prefer to allocate the free time I do have to only those games and thus I would just assume pass it up and wait for something more to my liking - regardless of system.

Luckily I am in the middle of a pretty decent sized hub of roleplayers in my area, and I have some very good friends who feel as I do and are fantastic DMs/GMs/LMs; so I get to enjoy those games when I'm player, and I get to LM for them in the same style when I run TOR. Regardless, even when I'm a player I put forth the effort to be more than just a blah meta-game mechanics speaking player. I get into the roleplaying of my character and assist in developing the plot as best I can - especially with those DMs who so rewardingly reciprocate.

Robert

Ugh, yes. I tried a Living Pathfinder game at a convention once. Never again.

Etarnon wrote: On Roll20 this week, there's a guy volunteering his services to be paid as a GM. Most of the people are blasting him for something that's "normally free." SO I think he'll put more work into it than the average.

And then again, this makes complete sense. There was another thread on here of six people looking for someone to be their DM based on what they wanted for a system etc. Hey if you're willing to "pay" someone for then you can probably call the shots of how you want the game run, or if you have specified criteria of how you want the game run, you may have to resort to paying someone. Otherwise you have the whole 'beggars can't be choosers' maxim.

In the end, I have tried to run games as a DM/GM in the past with very ungrateful players who whine and argue all the time - and I found myself asking myself and them - why do you think I am here simply for your amusement and entertainment. It is as much for my fun as it is yours. No one is paying me to do this - I spend my own free time working on this and you show absolutely no appreciation with the way you whine in such an entitled behavior. Needless to say I don't play with most of those people. I can afford to be choosy with whom we game with because there are so many of them here in the hub of California. And I'm near an AirForce base; and military guys are always looking for RPGs to join.

And again the average is not lazy. But there is a lot of that in the hobby in general.

I don't automatically associate it with Laziness w/ everyone. Some people just aren't as comfortable or articulate with narration and creativity. Imagine that you will have a much different experience in a game full of chess-masters and financial advisors as you would a group of drama students and creative arts majors. D&D allows for both because it can be both a narrative RPG, AND a tactical strategically run mini's game. Those "lazy" DMs and Players who are avid chess masters may not give it a lot of flavor - but to them, they're still enjoying themselves. If you're not, and you're the lone man out, then either assimilate or find a different game.


Some are just lazy.


Robert

Shieldmaiden wrote:Ugh, yes. I tried a Living Pathfinder game at a convention once. Never again.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean that all Pathfinder is played that way or intended to be. Mine are never like that. Nor is the Rise of the Runelords campaign I play a swashbuckling Sorcerer/Rogue in, nor the Wrath of the Righteous campaign that I play a defending crusader paladin in. Joseph and Brian (respectively) are fantastic DMs who run excellent games and are very imaginative, creative, and descriptive and we all have a wonderful time.


Robert

SirKicley wrote:

Shieldmaiden wrote:Ugh, yes. I tried a Living Pathfinder game at a convention once. Never again.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean that all Pathfinder is played that way or intended to be. Mine are never like that. Nor is the Rise of the Runelords campaign I play a swashbuckling Sorcerer/Rogue in, nor the Wrath of the Righteous campaign that I play a defending crusader paladin in. Joseph and Brian (respectively) are fantastic DMs who run excellent games and are very imaginative, creative, and descriptive and we all have a wonderful time.

Robert

My experience, granted it's extremely limited, is that convention games are very rarely a good barometer for how games are played in private with peoples' own groups.

SirKicley wrote:Exactly, but that doesn't mean that all Pathfinder is played that way or intended to be. Mine are never like that. Nor is the Rise of the Runelords campaign I play a swashbuckling Sorcerer/Rogue in, nor the Wrath of the Righteous campaign that I play a defending crusader paladin in. Joseph and Brian (respectively) are fantastic DMs who run excellent games and are very imaginative, creative, and descriptive and we all have a wonderful time.


Robert

Yep, agreed. I've played a little Pathfinder, but never really bought into it, because I didn't see much point upgrading from my huge pile of 3.5 stuff. I do like what I've seen/played of the material though, including some excellent adventures. I've run hundreds of hours of D&D and never descended into rules-led hack and slash. That's just not how I roll.

One of the GMs in my group is running Pathfinder when it's his turn (we alternate between three GMs, whenever we get to a suitable stopping point or we get bored of one game, someone else steps up) and I'm finding it a little frustrating. He's playing fast and loose with the rules in a way that doesn't really work, especially as I know the rules so well. It's one of the problems with a highly-detailed system. When you disregard certain rules, things can get out of whack fast, especially if players are expecting something to work in a certain way.

Shieldmaiden wrote:He's playing fast and loose with the rules in a way that doesn't really work, especially as I know the rules so well. It's one of the problems with a highly-detailed system. When you disregard certain rules, things can get out of whack fast, especially if players are expecting something to work in a certain way.

I think one of the joys of games such as D&D3.5 and Pathfinder is in building characters in a certain way to exploit and take advantage or system mechanics and the way the game works. If I was playing a game in such a way then I'd find a GM who 'moved the goalposts' to be very annoying to the point where I'd want to alter my character. Mind you, I don't really play RPGs like that but I know gamers that do. I suppose it's why I dislike 3.5/Pathfinder so much because I've only ever played in games where the GM expects players to build their PCs in such a way - such a thing feels too similar to being at work!

"Why do you think I am here simply for your amusement and entertainment. It is as much for my fun as it is yours."
Statement of Truth +5.

One of the recent groups I played with was primarily composed of rules based full of min-maxing, crunchy big-numbers types, so the two of us who statted our characters around their personalities instead of the other way around were basically gimped and useless. There's nothing inherently wrong with playing for numbers, but it definitely isn't for me. I tried running a more lax pathfinder game set in the world of Dark Souls, and the players I had were more about personality and roleplay. Much more enjoyable, but keeping things consistent was difficult. There are so many detailed rules that changing one often had massive implications in how they needed to approach the game, and not always positively.