Coming to Terms With Pathfinder I

Okay, so here we are full circle again. Allow me to recap the past couple of weeks with you:

• I am frustrated with my group. They continue to infight, make stupid mistakes, and die left and right. Nothing I do seem to make any difference. The group is over 14 players strong (most 13-16 years old) and we are playing twice a week.
• In my effort to resolve the issue I delve deeper into the Pathfinder system to find answers
• What I discover bothers me. I get the distinct idea that in this version of d20 PC power has continued to rise, and yet the rules seem to foster a "take it easy approach". This frustrates me. But I can't help but wonder if my old school style GMing (even tho' we are playing PF) has led to over 35 PC deaths in the past 7 month period.
• First assuming that it is the game that is the problem I decide to quit Pathfinder. I feel like taking their focus on power down a notch by gaming with an old school system will help them learn that good playing is what will help them survive--not power.
• We begin with Labyrinth Lord, though I allow a student GM to continue the groups Pathfinder game once a week.
• In considering LL vs my favorite expression of a rules system--Swords & Wizardry I come to realize the kind of game I really want to play. I don't know if its S&W interpretations of the rules per se, but Matt Finch's tone and writing and spirit truly inspire me. Truthfully they always have, but in his writings I find my greatest inspiration as a GM. So I really decide it is the ultimate freedom offered by a 0e clone/simulacra that I desire as a GM. I want the freedom that offers, and I love Matt Finch's dark Swords & Sorcery tone in much of his work; as well as his solid old school ethos.
• I announced I would no longer GM pathfinder and immediately was dealing with a lot of hate from players that really could only see playing Pathfinder and wanted nothing to do with old school games, and worse dissed them heavily and insulted me personally for suggesting we try them. That was hard for me.
• So I realized that I am only seeing half of the issue. My players also have desires. Now, granted my current players are young players. They are all new to the game and so have little experience with one system let alone multiple systems. They also are very in love with the system we started with this year Pathfinder. I decide I need to see things from their point of view for awhile.
• I start playing as a PC in the PF game while continuing my LL system (strongly influenced by S&W). This is a good experience for me, and more than a little fun. I realize several things. 1) Players are worried about staying alive 2) anything that helps you attain #1 is worth having in a PCs eyes. 3) Given a chance players will almost always go for power--failing that a really "cool" concept 4) our groups are really too big, players have to wait a long time to act or shout out to be heard, lots of them have little chance to contribute, and play is generally chaotic.
• I found in my Labyrinth Lord game that players acted pretty much the same and that it was likely due to the size and dynamics of the group instead of my GMing style or the game we were playing.
• I also started a second S&W/LL campaign at home with my own children and one of their cousins.This game went brilliantly. But there were only 4 of them and they really tried to work together. This confirmed for me that the group size and dynamics are critical to success. I have runs groups of this age for the last 5 or 6 years, and never have I had trouble like I am having this year--and Pathfinder is the biggest variable so far. But I have had one other group have success with PF (last year) at least to 3rd and 4th level.
• So begins my analysis of the systems I am most likely to play, and I realize several things. 1) D&D is very distinct from d20 2) player options and "power-ups" have been creeping into the game since AD&D and have just grown exponentially from there 3) The goal is to try to find a game that offers GMs as much freedom as possible and players the most options possible.
• My initial feeling is that a good, solid skill system that fits in with a flexible and lite core system is probably the best system to look for. So I am initially drawn to two games I really love--Castles & Crusades and Adventures Dark & Deep, but I also spend some time with Hackmaster and GURPS.
• Hackmaster is now so different from both d20 and the original D&D that, though I like lots of what they do I decide not to pursue that very far. GURPS I spend some time looking at simply because it is likely the best skills based system out there (bold statement I know, but it is what it is : )
• With this out of the way and some conclusions drawn, I return to Pathfinder to reanalyze the system  in light of what I learned so far.

Some Games Getting it Right

There's an art to crafting titles. And I aint no artist in that regard. What my title means is that given the course of my recent discussions on crafting a game that allows for extensive players options and customizability, while keeping a rule system lite and flexible there are a few systems I think are getting it right. Maybe not spot on--but doing a good job at giving players a start.

Before I jump in I want to make one last point clear in what balance I think needs to struck if a game is to offer options to players and fight munchkinism. Options must be balanced by a commensurate level of sacrifice by the player. We must be cautious against offering options and therefore access to increased PC ability and or power. Such options and power-ups (as GURPS calls them) must be counterbalanced by an increase in difficulty or challenge in the campaign itself. Otherwise our game degenerates into a farcical melodrama of the superpowered against the rest of the worldly worms. So, with that in mind I want to talk about two systems that I think are getting this right.

Adventures Dark & Deep

The first is ADD by Joseph Bloch. I've already reviewed ADD, and make no bones about my love for this system. Joseph has cleaned up the Original AD&D system and using well crafted twists and techniques he here presents us with a very solid system, more rational than Gary's first, but still very firmly rooted in the original system. He has incorporated many of Gary's hints at what he might include in a second edition of AD&D were he to write it; and done so very well I might add. But what really captures our attention here is what he has done with the the skill system. In the ADD system skills are purchased with experience points. So a Player who wishes to develop or add skills to his PC must sacrifice hard earned experience towards a level advancement to get such skills. This is an elegant and just tradeoff in my opinion. Now, I vaguely recall Joseph saying at one time that his skill system was inspired by someone who did or wrote something similar, but can't now find the reference. The point here is that he has within a very finely retooled system, faithful to the original spirit of the AD&D game, a wonderful solution to PC customization and development question with his XP for skill system.

Not to mention Joseph also incorporated numerous new classes into his system that had been contemplated by Gary in the interim between 1e and 2e. These also offer options above and beyond what might normally be available. This would be sure to please players looking for new classes to play. And we also find here all the race and sub race variants to gratify the imagination of players hungry for new PC fields to plow.

Castles & Crusades

The second is another system I have raved about on my blog for some time now, Castles & Crusades. C&C has strong ties to the original system, but has chosen instead of sticking to the traditional system to embrace a rules lite d20 approach. This undoubtedly gives the game a very lite and fast feel, different from the original in important ways. But it takes all that is good in the d20 system and enshrines it within a very AD&D 1e feel.

And who can blame them for such an approach? We all have to admit that the original system was clunky, referent tables slow down game play, and noone could really call 1e lite. Very few of us, in fact played 1e as 1e. We used the combat and saving throw tables, but not alot else. d20 offers to the old school gamer a way to achieve that lite, fast and flexible feel like never before, and incredibly intuitive in so doing. And C&C takes this approach a step further with their Siege Engine or attribute based saves and checks. It is in fact in this that they easily resolve the skills based issue.

Recall in my post of February 22nd that I mentioned several possible solutions to this dilemma of giving increased player options while maintaining a lite system. How does one go about doing this? Two suggestions I made involved handing the player the reigns under GM guidance to make up the skills they can use. A sort of anything goes approach so much a part of the 0e game. Well, that is exactly what C&C fosters in it's Castle Keepers' Guide. On pg. 263 begins the section entitled "Role Playing Skills" and reads,

"The easiest approach to integrating extra character abilities is through role playing, allowing the Seige Engine, or the combat mechanic, to resolve any check or action the skill generates. If a player desires a certain ability for his character, that is not specifically written up for his class or race description in the Players' Handbook, attempt to accommodate it through game play. Discuss the ability with the player and determine whether it fits in teh context of the game, and if it is, determine how best to integrate the skill. often some type of sacrifice is needed, whether in experience points, weapons proficiency or other pre-existing trait. Once the skill is determined, assign the player character a bonus for making the roll against the Siege Engine."

And then the CKG goes on to explain how a player worked the swimming skill into her backstory and was awarded a +1 on swim checks. The marvelous thing about such an approach is that it leaves the creativity up to the player, and the GM gets to adjudicate based on the nature of the game. Both player and GM are empowered and neither are beholden to a predetermined rules matrix.

The CKG also describes how a GM (or in their case CK) can award skill bonuses based on the nature of an unfolding campaign. Say a campaign features lots of undead and necromantic magic. After a while of such adventuring, these players might be awarded an ability to identify certain types of undead, have +1 against such knowledge checks and even to determine weaknesses against new types of undead based on previous knowledge. 

And lastly the CKG offers an optional secondary skill table for players to choose or roll from. Such a table could also be used in the manner described above later in PC development if they are wiling to make large XP sacrifices. 

In my opinion C&C has managed to do several things in it's approach to PC development (and as another aside the CKG is literally full of other options for PC development at creation as well as over time). In embracing a rules lite core, very few additional rules have been introduced due to skill and PC option usage. It also has ecnouraged and preserved the original creative spirit in the game, keeping the ability of players and CKs to hold the creative reigns. Again, literally anything is possible in this system, and  you need very few new rules to make your vision a reality. And keep in mind that all of the CKG is considered optional to the C&C game. None of it has to be implemented; it is offered as an optional enhancement to play if you desire to use it. Which brings us to the last thing I wish to mention about how well C&C answers this question: options are optional. The Troll Lords offer numerous tools, and options and resource, but none of it is central to the game. None of it has to change how the basic game is played. You get to decide which of these opotions work best for you. And I love the consistent fact that the first option always encouraged and recommended by the Troll Lords is that which preserves the free, lite, and imaginative orientation of their game.

* * *

So, having considered this issue carefully, trying to balance the GMs desire for the utlimate ion fast, lite flexible play which allows his imagination to go in whichever direction he likes--with the desire for Players to creatively develop their PC in new and exciting ways I think we have our answer.

For those of us who deisre a system very faithful to the original with a wonderfully designed skill system I would heartily reccommend Adventures Dark & Deep. While not as rules lite as some, it is certainly more well crafted than AD&D and should play more smoothly.

For GMs like myself who like lite flexible systems, and want to to hold creative power over their game i would definitely reccommend C&C. Though C&C abandons the traditional approach to a table oriented mechanic it's embrace of d20 lite offers better, quicker more intuitive play--and that can only be a good thing. As this game doesn't fall into the pit of many other d20 models that pile rule on rule until you simply can't play the game RAW by any stretch. C&C somehow manages to preserve the fast, loose and incredibly open creativity of 0e, while offering a well crafted system of guidance--not mechanics--in offering expansion to the game that so many players crave. In short both you and your players will be satisfied with what the Troll Lords have crafted for your gaming pleasure.

(By the way this is my 200th post! Hoody Hoo!!!)

When You Get The Chance Go For Power!

So, back to the Pathfinder game! The players were given the opportunity to create characters using anything PF legal. This had particular import in relation to character-ready races from bestiaries. There was a mad dash to try and find the biggest, baddest most amped up race available. Which just confirmed my suspicions that players haven't changed much over the years. Given the opportunity they will go for power every time.

I think we ended up with an Ifrit, 2 Orcs, a Drow and an Aasimar. Huh?! I could tell right away my dwarf was not going to be okay with that--mainly the orcs, but the Drow wasn't going to go well either--and it would be three to 1. But it wasn't to be anyway, as we started shorthanded--only four of us, with one down already and in the middle of a fight with a zombie ogre. My dwarf really debated with himself about just turning tail and running as one after another of his companions dropped around him like flies. But he was a Lawful Good Cleric so he hated the evil that raised this monstrosity. Not to mention it was an Ogre, which he hated by dint of being a dwarf. So in the end it was more in line with his personality to charge in and slay the beast. He did have +4 to his AC against giant types after all. So with a 22 AC I felt fairly safe, and rushed headlong into glory.

And the Ogre rolled a 28. Ouch. Suffice it to say I ended up as a dwarf stain against the dungeon wall. Didn't even get to shout my death cry. Oh well. We all died, except for the Barbarian who ran like a sissy girl, but lived to fight another day. That's when the freak parade mentioned above entered the adventure. I give credit to the the student GM for not letting the monster PCs enter the town--they would have nothing to do with them. But they still found the dungeon entrance and sallied onward.

He is also getting peeved by the cheating die rolls of our players. He keeps asking me what to do about it, and I can only sympathize and suggest he require all rolls be witnessed by him. Which is a bit of a pain around a table of 12 players. I really think this GM is doing a good job too. He isn't too tough , but he isn't a pushover either. We got kind of shafted, just because we ended up with 4 PCs fighting the Ogre because of last minute PC pullouts and late arrivals. But what was he supposed to do about that?

Once again however, my feeling is that Players will always look for power when given the opportunity. Not that this is universally the situation as a couple of players like instead to develop detailed PC backgrounds, and don't always jump for the wildest and off the wall PC options for something new and awesome. One of our girl players was more interested in developing a halfling fighter with a knightly code of conduct and how that fit into his life. I really tried to praise her for that and use her as an example for the other players. But it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Interestingly I just started an old school campaign with my kids at home and their young cousin. The ages there are 12, 11, 9 and 6. And it was like a breath of fresh air! There was a huge world of difference in how they played, how cautious they were, how much they thought things through and how they worked together to overcome obstacles. It was inspiring and gratifying--since three of them are my children! And it also let me know that it wasn't me doing something wrong in my GMing. I was GMing the same way in both games. It's just that the combination of players in my own kid's game did sooooo much better than the kids at school. Which has really given me pause to think.

I don't think my own kids are that much smarter than the kids at school for one. Nor are they more experienced--this is their first game. I think our school groups are just too big. 12 is too big for young kids to work together and coordinate. If for no other reason than too much is going on at once. It is also easy to get overwhelmed by monsters. If I do a one for one monster ratio, it's almost like they can't deal strategically with a battle like that. I think it would be much better if there were four or maybe five PCs per group. I also think it works best when friends play together--or at least people who know each other well. Not only so they get along, but so they can work off of each others' strengths, and warn each other when their weaknesses show.

It may still be that the PCs in our school group want power above all else just for the sake of having power and being "cool". But it could also be that they have failed miserably this year at playing the game and are simply looking for extra power or different options to find that winning "combination" of PC development that will allow them to prevail. Either way I think reducing group size is almost a must. And will probably be the next change I implement in my school club.

Oh, and no, I didn't create a new PC. I may still do so, but I was feeling lousy that day physically--getting  a cold--and just didn't feel like jumping back in the game. Magmar is dead--long live Magmar, and the few things I learned while playing in his sturdy dwarven boots.