E6. I haven't talked about that in a long time, because I've pretty much abandoned regular D&D as a favored rule set for my setting(s). E6 was originally developed late in the 3.5 era. I don't know how late; that thread has a 2007 date, but it is by its own admission, the 5th thread on the subject since it was developed. I moved on from this, because I was as tired of D&Disms in D&D as I was with the higher level scaling problems.
Right now, I'm feeling a bit more charitable towards D&D specifically than I normally do. I still prefer my alternative, of course, but I'm more willing to play D&D specifically than I otherwise would be. But if I could run "D&D" the way that I want to, I would prefer Pathfinder 1e + E6. Why Pathfinder 1e? It seems like the easiest way to get what I want. I actually don't really think that Pathfinder was necessarily enough of an improvement on 3.5 that it justified the change, up until archetypes came out. Archetypes are exactly what the classes needed to give me the flexibility to keep playing. Sadly, they came out for Pathfinder 1e, not 3.5. Most of them can be used as is with 3.5, but I think it's a bit too fiddly to say, "we're playing 3.5, but you can use Pathfinder archetypes." Just ... Pathfinder is fine. It's 95%+ the same as 3.5 anyway. The biggest problem that Pathfinder developed, which 3.5 started, was its focus on char-op build strategies, but with E6, this isn't quite a moot point, but... mostly it won't matter too much.
Of course, Pathfinder has a bunch of weird stuff—as does 3.5 after late stage 3.5; there's a ton of races, for instance, that I'd have to say no to. 5e has developed this problem by now too; as I said yesterday, the game feels more like The Muppets than it does any fantasy that I'm familiar with. Or want to be familiar with. There's a reason why I prefer humanocentric campaigns, and even when I have other races, like in Old Night, they tend to be demihumans. Not in the sense that Gary Gygax used the word, which was in opposition to monstrous humanoids, but both meant the same thing except demihumans were non-humans with better PR. No, a demihuman is still mostly a human, just with a twist due to some magical event in the past, some genetic admixture, or something like that. This way you do get some variety, but also get to maintain your humanocentric feel. For me, it's the best of both worlds. Non-humans, on the other hand, should be explicitly more alien. Elves and dwarves in D&D, for instance, are not nearly non-human enough for non-humans. I addressed this in my High Fantasy X, or whatever I will end up calling that, by specifically making most non-humans into demi-humans. Having elves and dwarfs that are recognizable for what they are, but also more demi-human-like really works well for me. Could I adapt some of these racial ideas into D&D? Change just a bit what races like elves and dwarves are? Or is that too much trouble if I'm just doing D&D anyway.
Blegh. The whole thing is enough to make me second guess if Pathfinder 1e + E6 is worth doing after all. Anyway, I'm just about ready to run my corny Santa-themed one-shot. When I was asked, there wasn't necessarily any Santa themed expectation, but I kinda got strong-armed a little bit by being accommodating and not really having a plan. I don't mind doing much of anything for a one-shot, but this is kind of a corny premise, and kind of the opposite of my strong suit in terms of theming and tone. That said, I'm kind of excited for it. I think it'll be good as a one-shot. The biggest upside is that I generated these ChatGPT images for the game, and I think they turned out pretty good. I'll slide them into the "front" side of my GM screen or something.
I think I like the top two, at least for this corny premise, because I gave them Christmas colored eyes, and because AI kept wanting to shrink the monster's antlers otherwise. But I can't decide if I like the blizzard or the light snowfall better.
No comments:
Post a Comment