Table-top games discussion

[quote=OTGBionicArm]You guys all seem way more organized than my group of friends. We mostly make shit up, drink heavily and bend the rules heavily. It turns into more of a drinking game than anything. xD[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=lifebaka]D&D/D20 systems tend to focus very heavily on combat, which tends to result in combat-focused games and lots of little fiddly rules that need to be memorized to play at a high level[/quote]This entirely depends on who runs the game. Most of the games I've run and played in were not mostly focused on combat at all. Combat was an element, but roleplaying was ALWAYS the focus and I've mostly played Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D games. This includes a 3.5 campaign I played where we got to 17th level (that Halfling cleric and I had a long-term relationship). Plus PF combat is way less fiddly than D&D given that combat maneuvers all work as your CMB being added to a roll against the enemy's CMD. Even Living Greyhawk had and Pathfinder Society has definite roleplaying opportunities in their adventures, it just depends on what the other players choose to do so yea, it can become combat heavy if the rest of the party members want that. D20 games do, however, focus primarily on die rolls in both combat and roleplaying. The only exception to this is actually the Heroes Unlimited game I will soon be done playing, which really is nothing but combat .-.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=OTGBionicArm]You guys all seem way more organized than my group of friends. We mostly make shit up, drink heavily and bend the rules heavily. It turns into more of a drinking game than anything. xD[/quote]Sounds like the game I tried to join at the gaming store here; I left halfway through the first session because no one would act seriously. [size=1]There was a dude playing an adolescent frost giant barbarian who wandered around naked...the player insisted on describing how his dick flopped around when he fought .-. They also made fun of me for having a backstory for my character ._.[/size][/quote]

[quote=caucheka]the only thing i really have of note is where me and some people online were playing 3.5 i made a fighter/favored soul/divine crusader for st. cuthbert with law as my domain focus. .... and yes, i sincerely named my character 'drudge jedd'[/quote]

[quote=OTGBionicArm][quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=OTGBionicArm]You guys all seem way more organized than my group of friends. We mostly make shit up, drink heavily and bend the rules heavily. It turns into more of a drinking game than anything. xD[/quote]Sounds like the game I tried to join at the gaming store here; I left halfway through the first session because no one would act seriously. [size=1]There was a dude playing an adolescent frost giant barbarian who wandered around naked...the player insisted on describing how his dick flopped around when he fought .-. They also made fun of me for having a backstory for my character ._.[/size][/quote] We didn't do stupid shit like that. Our shenanigans were cheeky and fun. Those shenanigans are cruel and tragic.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=OTGBionicArm]We didn't do stupid shit like that. Our shenanigans were cheeky and fun. Those shenanigans are cruel and tragic.[/quote]Well, admittedly, one of the players had been rejected by me earlier that summer. He appeared to be getting back at me for it by being an ass to me in this game and encouraging his friends to do so as well. So I packed up my Darfellan Sorceress and left. [size=1]he was working at the store at that time, so I actually emailed his manager and informed him of how I'd been treated, which actually got the guy fired because there'd been other issues previously .-.[/size][/quote]

[quote=lifebaka][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]This entirely depends on who runs the game. Most of the games I've run and played in were not mostly focused on combat at all. Combat was an element, but roleplaying was ALWAYS the focus and I've mostly played Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D games. This includes a 3.5 campaign I played where we got to 17th level (that Halfling cleric and I had a long-term relationship). Plus PF combat is way less fiddly than D&D given that combat maneuvers all work as your CMB being added to a roll against the enemy's CMD. Even Living Greyhawk had and Pathfinder Society has definite roleplaying opportunities in their adventures, it just depends on what the other players choose to do so yea, it can become combat heavy if the rest of the party members want that. D20 games do, however, focus primarily on die rolls in both combat and roleplaying. The only exception to this is actually the Heroes Unlimited game I will soon be done playing, which really is nothing but combat .-.[/quote] It's actually that the rules for D&D/Pathfinder generally allow for combat to be a viable solution to problems, and they actively encourage combat as a necessity in order for characters to gain more power, and characters gaining more power is largely about them gaining more power in combat. Not that the system can't or isn't used for roleplaying, because every system has loads of room for roleplaying. D&D is just set up to involve lots of combat and spend lots of its time on combat, no matter what else you're doing with it. Which isn't a mark against it, per se, unless you're trying to run a game that isn't supposed to involve people killing each other. I actually really like Pathfinder for its heavy combat focus, because the things that I'm good at in GMing are all tied into its combat and combat-related systems. I really love encounter design and using the fiddly rules to make character's lives difficult. Combat maneuvers in Pathfinder are great, but some of the changes they made to conditions (i.e. doing things like making grappled a condition instead of explaining what it does in the grappling rules) don't make learning how things work any easier. In fact, pretty generally I've noticed that there's a ton of cross referenced required for reading Pathfinder stat blocks and when dealing with conditions. Which saves them a lot of printed space, but is still kinda' annoying. Pathfinder isn't without flaws, though. The CR system is extremely loose, especially when dealing with low level parties. It's very easy to create on-CR encounters that just wreck a low level party who normally handles over-CR encounters with ease, because not all CR 1-ish enemies are even remotely the same power. (I'm lookin' at you, orcs.) The wealth system is based around the assumption that players "find" all their wealth, so other forms of wealth generation (such as working for a living) aren't very fleshed out. This, combined with prices for things, results in an economy that doesn't make much sense unless the GM just handwaves it all away. And, of course, the system just doesn't model mass combat very well, due to how the combat mechanics work. And it's not very good, as written, at leveling up players unless combat is happening, so it doesn't work particularly well for noncombat games. There are ways around all of these, of course, but those solutions exist outside of the system (for the most part).[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=lifebaka]It's actually that the rules for D&D/Pathfinder generally allow for combat to be a viable solution to problems, and they actively encourage combat as a necessity in order for characters to gain more power, and characters gaining more power is largely about them gaining more power in combat. Not that the system can't or isn't used for roleplaying, because every system has loads of room for roleplaying. D&D is just set up to involve lots of combat and spend lots of its time on combat, no matter what else you're doing with it. Which isn't a mark against it, per se, unless you're trying to run a game that isn't supposed to involve people killing each other.[/quote] Sure, but that's the case with a lot of RPGs. I've run games with very little combat, because there are definitely rules for gaining experience without it (as you already know) [quote]I actually really like Pathfinder for its heavy combat focus, because the things that I'm good at in GMing are all tied into its combat and combat-related systems. I really love encounter design and using the fiddly rules to make character's lives difficult.[/quote]I'm good at a combination of things, but I like to run a lot of roleplaying. [quote]Combat maneuvers in Pathfinder are great, but some of the changes they made to conditions (i.e. doing things like making grappled a condition instead of explaining what it does in the grappling rules) don't make learning how things work any easier. In fact, pretty generally I've noticed that there's a ton of cross referenced required for reading Pathfinder stat blocks and when dealing with conditions. Which saves them a lot of printed space, but is still kinda' annoying.[/quote]I'm good at remembering stuff, so this didn't really bother me. Plus the conditions are often easier to explain as a whole. My 12 year old brother recently started playing and the condition system is far easier for him to keep up with than having a different roll for every single non-attack maneuver done in combat. [quote]Pathfinder isn't without flaws, though. The CR system is extremely loose, especially when dealing with low level parties. It's very easy to create on-CR encounters that just wreck a low level party who normally handles over-CR encounters with ease, because not all CR 1-ish enemies are even remotely the same power. (I'm lookin' at you, orcs.) The wealth system is based around the assumption that players "find" all their wealth, so other forms of wealth generation (such as working for a living) aren't very fleshed out. This, combined with prices for things, results in an economy that doesn't make much sense unless the GM just handwaves it all away. And, of course, the system just doesn't model mass combat very well, due to how the combat mechanics work. And it's not very good, as written, at leveling up players unless combat is happening, so it doesn't work particularly well for noncombat games. There are ways around all of these, of course, but those solutions exist outside of the system (for the most part).[/quote]Yes, Pathfinder has flaws, that's true of everything though. Also that's as much about experience with the system as it is about the system itself. I once intentionally created an encounter that took out the fighter in our group, because he was their main source of damage, and this forced the rest of the party to kill the creature. It 2-3 levels above their CR and it was a long, difficult combat, but they did get it in the end, because I was very careful to make sure they could. A lot of CR related stuff is about common sense, though I agree a lot of under CR 1 monsters, in particular, are a bit awkward and not entirely balanced to each other. The wealth system isn't really fleshed out in most D&D-esque games, so ofc Pathfinder is no different. That's something I've dealt with and I felt it was sort of awkward, but it worked out fine. I disagree that the system doesn't allow for combatless leveling up as is, having run multiple games where I used combat fairly sparingly, it worked fine. I end up, often, forgoing die rolls in roleplaying encounters and letting the actual player just roleplay through something, but that's a personal thing. The die rolls help people like me though: who like playing charismatic characters, but realistically suck at being diplomatic and therefore don't roleplay it well. I don't think PFRPG the end-all, be-all of RPGs, not even a little. I just think if you're playing D&D 3.0 or 3.5 you might as well be playing it, because nearly everything is better balanced and easier to understand.[/quote]