Whatever Happened to the basics??

[Library Ogre]

Don't follow you in the least, actually.

[Library Ogre]

Yep, still unable to follow you. Not seeing dragonslaying and the acquirement of goodies being necessarily antithetical to a PFRPG game.

[tmikesecrist3]

Well put... the thing I love about roleplaying and palladium books, is the vircatel every thing goes. take my idea for a historic fantasy. campain? there will be a lot of role playing as even thow there is a high king, old brittana is vary fragmented and the pc's are going to find the high kingom of britan in the worst mess its been in since the romans, invaded. In the end can the pcs. stop the saxon barbarions. I dont think so, the most thay can hope to do is hold them at bay longer,

Thay would have to try and raly suport for, the high king organse and army, porbly settle a few fueds or at least work out a truce, you have the saxons in the east, and hostel irish to the west. you still have to two elven courts... and who knows what there going to do. you have the fact that many ppl in britana have eather convorted to christionanty(the new religion) or are roman christions. and the fact that the pindragons are pagan. King Uealis pindragon is ageing. and his hair aparent is uther pindragion. whom is more brash and not a smoth as uealis. so he is not garntead the suport of all the nobles.

so I see deplomacy, espeanage, raisng and moblizeing armys, trainging villige millitas and fortifying villages and towns so that thay can hold intell help can arive, assantion, and strate up combat. The saxons are comeing and thay have a grudge agest the pendragons and the ppls of brittana, when thay come thay will wage totel war!!! in there in the saxon toy box... are sumaners deamons, posably some of the moster races, pact witches men of magic. and that does not take into accout that there are brittana's demon moster, and superaterl puplation. what happens with them.... with the orcs to the north deside to attack well the north is nearly undefended to deal with the saxon threat. and what of the picks and the scots?
there is much that can happen... and all I know is that the blood of brave men will water the fields of britana.

[Shawn Merrow]

In the end all that matters if your group is having fun your playing the correct way.

[drewkitty ~..~]

In reading through some of the forums, it saddens me to see how DND like some of the games out there have become. Also, it strikes me that with the wealth of information available in the Palladium Fantasy setting how far off course some of the games become. Does anyone out agree with me or am I am shooting in the dark?

don't know about any other game system really, PB has charted a good course of not coming out with new editions every 8 years.
So most of the game books back to 1st ed RT are still usable even now, even though some minor details have changed.

Don't follow you in the least, actually.

Take the latest Dragon Hoarde question posted. THe whole campaign sounds more like a monty haul campaign than a standard palladium adventure. People seem to be loosing focus on the storytelling & the depth of the roleplaying. Even with high level characters a campaign shouldn't be focused on massive dragon slaying.

You get that with a bunch of newbes just starting out.

[The Dark Elf]

My games always involve little combat and even then its combat for a purpose. Its why I play Palladium. My players would only be lvl 2 instead of lvl 10 if they played any other system

They are always a mystery to unravel, plot to solve, secret/surprise to uncover with a twist when you least expect it. Rewards are good but roleplaying is always the key.

Couldnt care less how everyone else plays as long as Palladium sticks to its orignal intentions (which it does) cos this game is just how I like it (almost).

[Damian Magecraft]

Dont really see any straying into the Hack & Slash mentality anywhere in Palladiums stuff.
Northern rangers thread was about a very high level/high powered party that through the course of several sessions discovered some dragons (of some sort) involved in the plot of the current story...(my impression is that this is a very long running campaign that would read like a novel series.) The only problem in that thread was/is the GMs still stuck in the mind set that it their job to TPK the party becoming upset over his choice of "monster".

My games range, in the course of a campaign (6 to 12 months +), all over the place, one session might be diceless, the next might be a dungeon crawl, the one after that might be a mix.

as to the Original Posters comment on D&D becoming more like palladium...
Really? I dont see many D&D Role-playing games at my FLGS, I do however see tons of Roll-playing there though...In my mind it looks more like D&D went back towards its minitures roots...(Hasbro market research [lets not get into how accurate I feel this is...] indicates that this is the direction the majority prefers...)

[Veknironth]

Well, I think it's just that people who run lower powered campaigns and use mostly cannon material don't need to post here. They aren't running into dilemnas like the one mentioned and they don't have players doing silly things that create unbalance. I agree with you in preference of style, but that's our preference only. Whatever people like to do is fine for them. It also gives us ample opportunity to mock them when they post something absurd.

-Vek
"It's when you start killing Old Ones that's a problem.

[maasenstodt]

From my understanding of RPG history, Palladium was created by Kevin to combat what he thought was a serious lacking feature of role playing: actual role playing. D&D was all about dungeon crawling, killing monsters as your DM tried to kill you. In the case of dragons, D&D was more beastly than anything with character depth as Palladium portrays them.

It's interesting to consider what motivated Kevin to make the changes he did to D&D in creating his own game. Leaving that aside for the time being, however, I want to challenge your assertions about D&D. D&D, was a tool box that players could use however they liked. Did some D&D players de-emphasize role-playing? Sure. But consider that for many of them, coming from a wargaming background, that's what they wanted. On the other hand, many other D&D players focused heavily on role-playing, including Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax. Part of D&D's appeal is its tremendous flexibility and the ease with which it could be house ruled for any taste - witness what Kevin did with it.

Over the course of editions, D&D has come away from the dungeon crawl and has become more like Palladium. Palladium offered a world rich in culture, history and heavily rewarded players not for fighting but for thinking, avoiding conflict, and role playing. Some of the things I've heard about from other players pertaining to Palladium is its unique ability to adapt any rule you want that won't break the game. These players would point out that house rules with D&D wouldn't be possible. But I'm getting a little off topic.

Again, I'd challenge your assertions. The worlds of Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and the Wilderlands all pre-date Palladium's entry into the market, and all offered vibrant, expansive worlds to explore outside of the dungeon, for those who wanted to do so. Heck, some of Kevin's earliest RPG work, before he published anything that I'm aware of, was as an illustrator for Judges Guild, helping on products like Verbosh. Paging through that book now, it looks not very different at all from the first edition of Palladium Fantasy in its presentation of a world rich in culture and history.

Moreover, given that Palladium Fantasy itself is essentially a heavily house ruled take on D&D and that it has many more game structures that could be broken by the introduction of house rules than D&D, it makes little sense to suggest that D&D is less capable of accepting house rules than PFRPG.

My point is that while you can do just about anything in a Palladium setting, its inherent creation was geared more towards thinking out problems and role playing. I think that was the point of the post to "get back to the basics," and the idea of dungeon crawling to kill multiple dragons is more "D&D"ish than what Palladium is about. There's nothing really wrong with this type of gameplay and the idea of "if they're having fun, let them be" holds true. The only problem I see with this style of gameplay is it is geared towards players who basically ADD entertainment.

The notion that dungeon crawls aren't about problem solving strikes me as ridiculous. Is that really what you meant to suggest? Additionally, consider that the single adventure included with the Palladium Fantasy game, the Tombs of Gersidi, is a dungeon crawl!

I've witnessed many players who want a quick fix of entertainment and want to get into the action of dungeon crawling instead of actually role playing their character. These players don't last long and they are usually the type of players that cause the most problem either with munchkinism or inability to stay in character. When I first started out, I pitted players against multiple dragons, and had dragons pitted against me. We came out alive, obviously, but later I realized how dumbed down I had made them just to allow the players to live. Magic was not used in a clever way, there wasn't much if anything of character depth; it was essentially a fire breathing beast who was cranky in the morning and the players were there to kill it. As I matured as a player and a GM, I've modeled my campaigns around plot points, role playing, and less fighting to help characters develop and grow.

I don't see how dungeon crawling and role-playing are mutually exclusive and I don't see how your dumbing down of monsters and magic reflects on D&D or any other game.

From what I gather of NorthernRanger, he's a previous D&D player so you'll get that "D&D" feel when reading about the dragon horde anyway. He's also very interested in porting many different types of fiction and genre into Palladium which Palladium allows easily. This can be a plus or a minus depending on how something is ported and why it is being ported. As I've worked on the Palladium Character Generator, I realized that Palladium offers over 50 O.C.C.s not including each variant of Warlock, or material from the Rifters. You would think there wouldn't be a need to port an O.C.C. into your game, but people still do it. It's a good thing when it's balanced compared to official O.C.C.s (and not compared to other players in the group). It's a bad thing when it enables a gateway to munchkinism by throwing in an O.C.C. or race just to up the ante. I myself always thought it would be cool to port Naruto ninjas in by making them like hand to hand Warlocks who use a house rule version of chi which is used like PPE but has life threatening implications if depleted. The style of fighting and techniques would allow for various types of ninjas with close, medium and long range fighting. Years after I created it, I went back through and cut out a bunch of stuff and changed stats because it was over-powered. When I first created it, it didn't seem that way, and it wasn't until I took a second look at it later did I realize what needed to be changed. I guess my point is that when creating content for your campaign, it has to be evenly balanced and complements other O.C.C.s and doesn't try to just one up the O.C.C. you think is the strongest.

The notion that everything has to be mechanically balanced isn't supported by either the first editions of D&D or by Palladium Fantasy. Moreover, I'd argue that that mechanical balance is of more use to those looking for a wargaming experience than those emphasizing role-playing. Your argument, therefore, seems contradictory.

It really boils down to what you and your group like to do and the GM accommodating for that if it's in their best interest. While I personally wouldn't have much lasting fun in a group of this type, I won't say they're playing it wrong. Palladium offers a wide variety of genres to be played even in PF, but for me, I feel Palladium was created to allow players to actually role play, build lasting, memorable characters and instilled the idea that combat is dangerous, deadly, and is better to avoid it if possible. It's one thing if your player(s) has a case of munchkinism, it's another if your GM has it and the players are along for the ride.

I largely agree with you here, but again I'd add that D&D certainly allows players to role-play and build lasting, memorable characters, and that combat is dangerous, deadly, and often better avoided.

[Entiago]

MMOs killed "typical roleplaying".

[Entiago]

Has D&D become more like PF? Yep! Has PF become like D&D? Yepers again.

Im sorry- what? D&D unfortunately has a large supply of books and realms and writters, editors, and so on. They are large and greedy and put out there.

PF has no mere mention of the vast size of D&D. With that said- there is no resemblance of the 2 companies, and I for one am glad (sort of).

[maasenstodt]

All the arguing over system is pointless. It all comes down to style of play. I've seen D&D games that had a lot more role-play then most of the PF games I've ever seen, and I've seen more hack-n-slash in PF then most here on this board would be willing to admit. No system lends itself to one style of play or another. You can not rule for play style. The closest for play style PF lends itself to is rule-mongering, as it has one of the more complex rule systems in the genre, but even that is only as accurate as the GM tolerates.

I agree with most of your comments, though I'd disagree that systems don't lend themselves to certain styles of play. Someone who wants crunchy combat simulation in their gaming isn't as likely to be as happy with Risus as with Riddle of Steel. Someone wanting a quick, free wheeling comedy game may well be left chaffing with Rolemaster.

[maasenstodt]

DnD did not start off too bad with the powergaming, w/some exceptions. However, 3rd edition really introduced it on a broad scale. Anyone with a little bit of planning could create a cookie cutter caracter that was almost guranteed to become epic at some point.. Rule lawerying got really bad too.
Castles & crusader really took it back to some of the basics and reintroduced a heavy element of role playing. We all saw how well that went with hardcore dnd players. Over the years my problem with introducing DND players to palladium is that they dont like the having to earn their way to higher levels, or that every kill doesnt drop a +5 gythianki vorpal.

If the definition of power gaming is simply role-playing characters with abilities well above norm, that's been part of RPGs from the 70's onward. While I'm partial to lower powered gaming myself, I see nothing wrong with players who want to engage in cosmic-level gaming. Kevin & Co. was catering to that audience well before D&D's 3rd edition, and more power to them for doing so. Heck, despite my general preferences, I can see a Cosmo-Knight campaign, where players are taking on warships in single combat, as being quite compelling.

Rule lawyering, I think, is a product of more and more complex rulesets being introduced. OD&D, even with its supplements, is quite light on the rules, leaving greater discretion to GMs to make rulings on individual situations. Games like AD&D and PFRPG codified the resolution of more situations, giving players prone to do so greater ability to challenge GMs. Myself, while I do like certain crunchy rulesets, I'd never want to cede control of the game to a rulebook.

I find it interesting that you mention Castles & Crusades, since over the last 3-4 years, I've played more of that game than all the rest put together. While I disagree that it "reintroduced a heavy element of role playing," I do very much like that it actively encourages GMs to rely on rulings rather than rules. Between that and its adaptability (being able to use supplements from OD&D through 3rd edition on the fly), it has a lot to recommend it.

[maasenstodt]

I've posted before in Sound Off about how I feel about MMOs, and my view is that there is little if any role playing in MMOs who claim to be MMORPGs. I may have a case of nostalgia about my group playing before, but it seems now, 5-6 years later after we've played MMOs that there's little for role playing. It's almost dumbed down the player and resulted in them only wanting to be led around by NPCs and fight encounters. WoW is essentially D&D on crack.

I've not played any MMORPGs, but several of the players in my group have. The results haven't been detrimental to our gaming. While it's unfortunate that you're apparently not enjoying gaming as much recently, do you really think your group is dumber for having played other games?

Once players are introduced to simplified hack-and-slash gameplay for an extended period of time, it's hard to go back to role playing because you're so used to it being easy.

That's an interesting view, but very different from my experience. I played countless hours of games like Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy that were almost entirely hack-and-slash, yet it had no discernible impact on my tabletop gaming. And that's coming from somebody who likes games as focused on role-playing as Dying Earth.

Anyway, to the point of the topic, games whether they be MMOs, D&D, or munchkinism in PF has damaging effects to players who are introduced to it. It reminds me of when I was first introduced to PFRPG and the vast unknown about weapons, armor, equipment and creatures that made it so appealing. Once you've read all of the books and seen every level of power, it's lost the initial wonder of the game. Hop skip and a jump to this style of gameplay can kill a group.

Perhaps you could benefit from playing different games, as it could be that your tastes have changed and you might find something else more enjoyable. Or perhaps you could try going back to a game's roots, putting aside all the sourcebooks and added material that may have overwhelmed your initial sense of wonder.

In high school in the early 90's, I played a lot of Rifts. I picked up and used every new book that I could. It was fun for a while, but eventually I burned out on the game. In recent years, I've played it again on occasion, and I've had a good time in doing so. That's happened because I've grown willing to toss out the stuff that doesn't inspire me. With Rifts, for instance, despite having a full shelf of supplements, I basically ignore everything beyond the original RMB, SB1, and a few bits of Mercenaries (mostly Chipwell stuff). That let's me enjoy the same sense of wonder that I had when I started with the game, and that in turn translates into better sessions for everyone involved.

I hope you can find that mojo again.

[Library Ogre]

Within reason, you can play any style with any system. Can you play hack-n-slash with a pure words role-playing system (you do nothing but talk, and the GM describes what happens)? Yep. The GM just describes how you awesomely kill thing after thing. We did that in 6th grade, and I loved it. Can you do heavy role-playing with WH40K or Battletech? Sure. Negotiate an end to the conflict, point out that their forces are about to be overwhelmed and that you'll let their heroes escape in exchange for X, hell even ransom their soldiers back to them.

However, system can and does support certain kinds of play. Rifts supports "Awesome" play... doing cool things with cool characters. 2nd edition AD&D supported fairly gritty games that tended to become more heroic as you leveled up... at low levels, you were in danger from pretty much anyone with a weapon, but as you got up in level, you were in a lot less danger from anyone, but remained largely human in scale (ignoring magic); a 9th level 2nd edition fighter could still be whittled down in the space of a round by 8 guys with swords, even if they were tyros, provided there was a lot of luck on the side of the tyros (a couple criticals on the part of the tyros, and everyone hits).

Now, I don't see anything inherently hack-n-slash about killing a dragon, or even multiple dragons. Nor is there anything wrong with someone who does so getting a sizable chunk of treasure. It has far more to do with the tenor of the game and the reasons for any actions taken.

[Entiago]

MMOs killed "typical roleplaying".

????
I seem to be a little behind in the abbreviation department.

MMO= Massive Mulitplayer Online- basically World of Warcraft, Conan, City of Heroes, etc etc.

most tend to call themselves MMORPGs, meaning you can get together with various other players from around the country or even the world, group together with your online characters an complete quests, adventures or even compete in PvP (Player vs Player) combat in set arenas or battles.

Most of them are fun and addicting- but this topic would be better reserved for Sound Off Forums.

[Entiago]

It has far more to do with the tenor of the game and the reasons for any actions taken.

and this is more towards the answer for W.R.Xavier. All the styles more so depend on 2 important things.
1. the GM
2. the players

after all these 2 things anything else is possible. Preference is the main key of what the group and/or GM want to accomplish. So if the GM feels the need from his/her players that more action is required over storytelling then they will get some. If bigger stronger opponents is what is needed then perhaps a trip off to visit a menacing dragon is what is called for. Each GMs "job" is to give the players more of what they crave for, and some of what they dont. But even if the players show not to like a bit of content they come across, secretly they do.

A true test is having multiple players that require different interactions and requirements to feel "part of the group" or to feel "unique". As back in the day there were the 10 Types of Players list put out- more of an observance of how different individuals interact in a group. Satisfying each of these different types alone is a challenge, but in a group can be even more difficult letting each one have their own time. Wether it be thru interaction with NPCs, hack-n-slash, mystery solving, or whatever be the case, the players need to feel the love of the GM and vice-versa.

Without players there is no GM. Without GMs there are no players. Unless we all break the line and just go haphazard. but this is why some games go longer than others and why some groups die out quickly.

[The Dark Elf]

Theres a lot of talk about comparing Palladium to D&D. So to compare what really matters......

Do D&D ever tell their fans they are printing a book and then never do?

Is that not what this thread is comparing?

[Damian Magecraft]

Theres a lot of talk about comparing Palladium to D&D. So to compare what really matters......

Do D&D ever tell their fans they are printing a book and then never do?

short answer...yes

[maasenstodt]

The XP chart for Palladium shows an obvious slant towards giving more xp for role playing rather than killing monsters. It's my understanding that D&D gives more XP for killing things than role playing. If this is true then gameplay that is more hack-n-slash would lean towards D&D style of play, while role playing would be more Palladium. While you are allowed to play any genre and game style you wish under Palladium, you'd get more XP out of thinking of a huge plan that got you out of fighting a bad guy than to actually fight the bad guy.

This is an interesting topic. I don't have my books in front of me, but off hand, it seems to me that neither Palladium nor most versions of D&D encourage awarding many points for role-playing (or "playing in character," etc.).

In terms of what the games do similarly, both games put a large emphasis on overcoming obstacles/problem solving. In Palladium, this is explicitly awarded. In most versions of D&D, it is implicitly awarded through the treasure = XP mechanic. It is worth noting that in D&D, this is far and away the largest source of XP for most characters.

They also both award points for defeating foes, though in both cases, the vast majority of XP awarded are likely to come from other areas.

On the other hand, something that Palladium does that no version of D&D that I'm aware of does is to award XP (and very significant amounts, at that) for "Good" behavior.

Based on those observations, it seems to me that the primary difference between most versions of D&D and Palladium in this area has little or nothing to do with either role-playing or problem solving. The major difference seems to be that D&D awards characters for selfish behavior (to an extent, anyhow; characters are free [and sometimes obligated] to donate the fruits of their adventuring), while Palladium awards characters for selfless behavior.

IIRC, 2nd edition D&D's dragons aren't as intelligent as Palladium dragons are. This gives you the sense that they are essentially large lizards that, if killed, will provide lots of goodies.

Again, I don't have my books in front of me, but it I know for a fact that several D&D dragons have superhuman intelligence (that is, beyond what is naturally possible for any player character). I also know for a fact that at least several varieties of Palladium dragon are potentially less intelligent than player characters can begin play as.

I do think that Palladium dragons have a greater number of special abilities that might make them more difficult foes, but I definitely disagree that D&D dragons are just big, dumb lizards with lots of treasure. Heck, consider that some versions of D&D have specific rules for "subduing" these intelligent creatures rather than killing them, something that Palladium does not have.

If I want to role play, I'll play Palladium. There's no point in playing D&D when you can get the same classes in WoW.

I'm reading a lot of bias against D&D here that I think is unjustified. The notion that D&D discourages role-playing is simply incorrect.

D&D is rooted in swords & sorcery literature, and I'd certainly agree that the game rewards characters for behavior befitting that genre. That fact, however, doesn't speak to its potential for role-playing or problem solving. In fact, if you're looking for a game to chastise for limiting role-playing, D&D has nothing to match Palladium's utter bias towards "Good" behavior. After all, even good-aligned adventurers can win a hefty share of treasure (and, thus, XP) in D&D. In Palladium, selfish and evil characters get pretty well shafted.

[Library Ogre]

Moreso than "role-playing", Palladium rewards heroic behavior.

[OldGeek]

Moreso than "role-playing", Palladium rewards heroic behavior.

Yes and yes...

The exp chart is more geared to careful planning, heroic actions and the like then anything else. If you rp anything less 'good' in nature, and role play well, you will tend to level a "bit" slower then the fellow who created a heroic warrior monk willing to put his life on the line to save others.

Role play on it's own is worth a massive 50 xp. It's left to the GM to decide when and how that is handled, but killing generally grants from 25 (a wee lil menace) to 300 (a huge and scary thing). This is more then the rp bonus.

You get exp for using skills - this is not expressly rp related
you get it for planning - again, not expressly rp related
you get mass amounts for puting your life on the line to save others - might be rp IF you are the type that would do that

The exp system in Palladium doesn't favour rp any more then old ad&d 2nd edition (I can't speak for older versions off the top of my head). It just makes it possible to move to more story driven plots with less killing simply due to granting exp for things beyond killing (noting that ad&d second did that too actually, just less so and only as an optional rule).

[Probitas]

Both sides make valid points, and they are both correct. Every GM I ever met has fudged dice to keep a player alive when the actions taken were proper, and has allowed a player to die when the actions warranted it. The same GM has done the same thing for the NPC's, to keep the story flowing, and to prevent having to stop a session mid stream because some rules lawyer managed to lay a trap. It's the trip that matters, the destination is not important except to those who like to keep score. And so they have scoring: levels, abilities, goodies, perks. But you could game an entire campaign using very little in the way of rules, no dice, and with no emphasis on rewards. Some people prefer the intangible, others need to feel the gold between their fingers, as it were.

As long as no new player has become alienated due to the gaming style of any one group, nothing wrong has occurred. However, if your gaming style causes players to leave because of player or GM behaviours, then it might be that the people in question need to rethink their positions. It's been my position that anyone who comes to a game should be able to game in a way they find fun and enjoyable, and no other players desires should conflict with that; that is one of the primary jobs of a good GM. It may be that certain players like to take leadership roles, or play the hero of the group, or the go-to-guy for certain actions, and that's fine, but even in movies and books the bit players get their moments too; even the comedy relief contributes to the story. What matters most is there should be some substance to the game, and that all get a chance to 'shine'. If it's devolved to dice rolling and looking at charts, and reading results off to a tally sheet, then I think the whole point of gaming has been lost. At no point do I think that the 'prize' should be the primary goal of all role playing sessions, regardless of how much someone may want a sword of god slaying (HAH). But that is my opinion.

I think what most people who disagree with the aforementioned Monty Haul style of rpg ala D&D think is that the system is being tweaked in a direction that even the designers would disagree with, that it's been made too easy, but again, if that is what everyone who is playing agrees with, then we should not question their actions. It's a case I think of staying out of the bedroom when consenting adults enter inside. We may not agree with it, but we aren't involved, so it matters not. I know it can be said that dumbing down monsters is the antithesis of drama in an rpg, but the goal is to have fun, and if the players skills are not up to the task, but still want to slay that dragon, then dumbing one down is appropriate. After all, when you break a monster down, it's just numbers and rules. What does it matter WHAT the monster gets called. You might just as well call it a giant douche, it still gets killed. Let them call it what they want, YOU know it's not a dragon in YOUR world, and that should be enough for you. I know that after much thinking about it, it's enough for me.

@Mark - Heroic and foolhardy are two different things, and even I would be hard pressed to reward bad judgement even IF the monster in question is a push over; monsters get lucky too.

[KillWatch]

well I guess my view is that Palladium has always been more skill based conanish style gaming where magic items are poweful wonderous and cursed items

D&D is the land of magic toilet paper rolls and rules lawyering