PDA

View Full Version : What are your favorite parts of D&D? What do you want to get rid of? [All Versions]



Chambers
2011-05-22, 09:36 PM
I've been thinking a lot lately about the different versions of D&D (and other RPGS), what makes each one work and what takes the fun away from each one. I'd like to read peoples opinions on what parts of the game they love and which parts of the game they hate/think get in the way.

I'm not looking for edition bashing. That's not what this thread is about. It's about identifying different mechanics in the various editions that you either loved or hated.

Examples:

I like the way the latest edition of Gamma World does healing out of combat. Take a short rest and everyone is back up to full. A DM can still challenge the PC's by stringer encounters together and the risk factor is very high when that happens, making for a more intense game.

I don't like the discrepancy between Casters & Non-Casters in 3.P. Even in Pathfinder high level casters have options and abilities that the non-casting classes don't have.

I like having Classes, but I like the abilities granted by those classes to be flexible to a certain extent. I loved the idea of the Generic Classes in Unearthed Arcana (and in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)) and am sad that that alternate system wasn't fully developed.

I like the idea of Traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm) and Flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm) but wish they had been implemented better. An example of a better version of Traits/Flaws is the Assets & Complications system in the Serenity RPG.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-22, 10:45 PM
1.I like the tough, unfair deadly type of magic that was present in 1/2 E. The things where just using the spells was dangerous to the caster. I like magic to be mysterious and unknown. Later editions watered down magic to little more then button pushing.

2.I like the whole d20 concept. Roll 1d20 and beat a DC.

3.I like all the class options you can take to tweak a character.

4.I do like flaws, but they need to be more detailed.

5.I like the Great Wheel of the Planes.

Tvtyrant
2011-05-22, 10:45 PM
I like the multiple forms of Psuedo-casters like Binders, ToB, and Incarnum. I don't like the existence of full casters/Manifesters. They have too many abilities and wreck the games progression.

The enemies. The fact that you can fight Aliens, Demons and Undead all in one battle. You can fight anything at any time anywhere.

Locations: It does a really good job allowing you to go anywhere and do anything; you can go to a city made on top of the corpse of a god for its sake!

Creativity: The rules let you do a ton of stuff that doesn't work in other game systems, like making a rocketship (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177571).

Jude_H
2011-05-23, 03:15 AM
LIKE IT:
I like the goofy monsters and silly traps.
I like that people know the game. I don't have to spend as much time teaching the system.

KINDA COOL:
Class systems have their place.
The wargames can be fun.

SCRAP:
Actually, I'd scrap a lot of it.
There are just too many rules in every edition for my taste. 3e and late 2e are worst in terms of running the game without digging up books to check an obscure ruling, IME. 3e and 4e are worst in terms of character limitations (there were stronger assumptions of "You can't do X unless you have the feat/power").

Game prep has been onerous since Players Options. I'd prefer to scrap the advanced character building of WotC editions, especially 3e. D&D is designed as a class-based game, after all. 3e is an odd point-buy-type system in disguise as a class system.

The game mechanic is generally ugly. The number distributions are swingy enough that juggling modifiers is not only tedious, but often ineffective. For example, there's a 95% chance that it doesn't matter if your character outmaneuvers another for the higher ground; there's a 90% chance that it doesn't matter that you've terrified your enemy with your blood-chilling snarl. There are also few instances of graduated success and failure, and no guidelines to make it possible. That means matching a DC and beating a DC by 30 often yield the same results. It makes sense with the wonky d20 mechanic, but on a less swingy distribution, I'd prefer to see some differences.

Remmirath
2011-05-23, 03:23 AM
Favourite things:

I liked it better in older versions where there weren't so many classes. I can't entirely put my finger on why, but I'd rather just have variations on a few classes.

Something I really like about MERP/Rolemaster is the critical system. It's sort of a double-edged sword, because it tends to make for more character death, but I like that it tends to add more drama to fights ('I almost lost a leg' is a better story than 'yeah, I lost twenty hit points').

I like the skills in 3rd edition D&D the best. There are a lot of them, enough that most characters won't end up with the same ones and there's probably one for what you want your character to do. They're good flavour, basically.

I like systems where magic, or at least the most powerful spells, have some downsides. Ideally, I think that magic should be the most powerful thing you could do - but come at a great cost so that it will only be pulled out if really necessary.

I liked the earlier versions of backstabbing better; multiplying the damage total feels more satisfying to me than adding handfuls of d6s.

I like it when there's a noticable difference between fighting styles. Shields actually providing a large enough bonus to bother, in particular, since most systems do the rest of it fairly well.

I like it when there are ways to resurrect characters, but they don't come cheaply. Having to sacrifice something of note for it, be it from the person bringing them back or the character being brought back, is a good thing in my opinion.

I like classes to feel distinctly different. I like it to be a good deal different if I play a fighter than if I play a mage or thief.

I like it when magic is restricted to only a few classes, and those have some downsides to them (weak or fragile, can't do other things effectively, whatever). I like magic to be at least a little bit rare.

I actually like 'taking ranks in weapons' systems, wherever they are (I can think of a couple different ones). I like it better if it's seperate from other skills/feats, especially for fighters, since that's well... what they do.


What I want to get rid of:

Pointbuy and stat arrays. Especially the arrays. I suppose they might be convenient at conventions, but in all other cases I just can't stand them. They remove some of the individuality of characters, and while I suppose they make for balanced characters they make for mediocre balanced characters.

I'm really not fond of the every-four-level stat increase of 3rd edition. I've gotten used to it, I suppose, but it's always struck me as odd (especially at higher levels).

Spell resistance/magic immunity rules in 3rd edition are pretty screwed up, in my opinion. I think they ought to apply to all spells (and I do usually have that as a house rule).

Rules for things like diplomacy and leadership (especially leadership). I think they get in the way of roleplaying, and encourage people to just toss the dice instead of being in character. Bluff, intimidate and sense motive I think do work. Leadership in my opinion is particularly bad, and is something I always just forbid when I'm DMing.

The CR system. It doesn't work terribly well, in my experience, and it's also unnecessarily annoying to calculate. I prefer just having set XP totals for monsters; it's easier and makes more sense to me, since the monster is just as tough no matter what (and where 50 XP might be a big deal at 1st level, it's a drop in the bucket at higher levels anyhow).

Activated abilities, in all systems. Okay, honestly, I just stay away from those for the most part - but I really dislike the whole mechanic. It feels too much like spellcasting to me, and it doesn't seem to make sense that (for example) a fighter can only hit someone with his shield a certain number of times a day.

I don't like cross-class skills. Most of the distinctions seem fairly arbitrary, and it doesn't seem to me that it should be harder to learn something that isn't associated with your class. Maybe get some extra bonus points at first level towards the skills on the list, but while you're out adventuring it should all be the same, I think.

I don't like multiclassing XP penalties. Multiclassing is penalty enough in itself, usually, and the book-keeping of it is a bother.



... Well, I guess I'm a bit picky. That's probably enough for now. :smalltongue:

hewhosaysfish
2011-05-23, 07:00 AM
For a while now, down there in my sig
|
|
|
V
I've ask if DnD 3.5 is a fried-egg, chilli, chutney sandwich.

No-one has drawn any attention to this, so I'm not sure if anyone got what I meant. It's a reference to the British sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf, to the scene where Rimmer is persuaded to eat such a sandwich and feels prompted to ramble drunkenly wax philosophical about the parallels between the sandwich and his bunkmate Lister.



Rimmer: I could never invent a sandwich like this, Lister. You see all the ingredients are wrong. The fried eggs: wrong; the chutney: wrong. The chilli sauce: all wrong. But put them together and somehow it works. It becomes right. It's you -- this sandwich, Lister, is you.

Lister: What are you saying to me, Rimmer?

Rimmer: You're wrong, right? All your ingredients are wrong. You're slobby, you've got no sense of discipline, you're the only man ever to get his money back from the Odour Eater people, but people like you, don't you see? That's why you're a fried egg, chilli, chutney sandwich.


And it's this scene that came to mind when I started thinking about which elements of DnD I would reuse if I ever where (as every gamer daydreams of doing) to sit down and write my perfect RPG system.

Class and level: wrong. Hit points: wrong. Alignment: wrong. Vancian spellcasting: wrong. The D20: wrong. STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA: wrong. But somehow... it works. I've had a lot of fun playing DnD and it doesn't show much sign of stopping.

Isn't that odd?

Eldan
2011-05-23, 07:16 AM
I'll go by edition, and list what I know.



AD&D 2nd:
-The settings, and the fluff in general. I love opening an monster manual and have two pages of ecology and behaviour on hand, together with random facts that will most likely never come up in most games.
-The art. Who do I have to bribe for them to bring Tony Di'Terlizzi back? Seriously. 3rd and 4th can't even remotely compare.
-The magic. I like magic with drawbacks. Perhaps instant-killing is a bit too much, but haste aging people just makes sense.
-A bit of freely interpreted rules. Some things don't need a feat. They need an ability or skill check.

3rd:
-The character building. Thing is, for all my talk of preferring talking over fighting, as a player I love burying my face in a dozen books for a day and creating a convoluted mechanical mess that does something unexpected. And I love 3.5 for having more races, feats and spells than anyone could ever use.
-The skill system. Yes, I know you could just say "he's a smith, so he can do smithing things", but I want a vague guide on how good someone is as a smith.

4th:
Disclaimer: I don't know much about fourth. I read the core books when they came out, once, but that was ages ago, and I don't remember much.

However:
-The Feywild. I already had Faerie as a plane pretty often (I put it in the category of semi-transitory planes, together with Shadow and Mirror), but having actual material on it is nice. (OF course, I don't know how good that material is, but it should be better than 3rd ed's nothing).
-All classes are competent. I don't care much about balance, really, but 3rd ed had some classes that were useless even when you were fine with wizards owning the game.


Dislikes:
Skill tricks. No. Just no. Those aren't things you'd have to buy. These are things you ask the DM about. "Hey, can I get one hand free while climbing to fire a crossbow?" - "Sure, -5 to your climb check, though."

FelixG
2011-05-23, 07:25 AM
Kill it:
Classes. I have recently found myself enjoying classless systems much more these days as you can become anything you want by buying the proper skills/advances/what have you.

Mastikator
2011-05-23, 07:45 AM
My only knowledge is of 3.5e so that is what I refer to here:

The D20 vs DC mechanic is nice.

The skills and feat are nice too. But I think it's a weird list.

The arcane/divine magic distinction.

Things to rid:
Classes, a very obvious piece of evidence that classes are not good is the constant flow of completely new classes. It's like the greeks who try to explain the sun with "what about circles within circles" ad infinitum.

Levels, which granted is a part of classes. I don't like the level system. Power, ability and skill should not be linear.

The "To hit" mechanic. Combat should be a skill that you put ranks into and take feats to be competent. It's not something you automatically learn the more life experience you have.

The "Caster level" mechanic. Like combat I'd like to see it a skill that you put ranks into.

The "hit point" system. The problem is that it represents both tissue damage and "combat readyness" and it's impossible to tell which is used when. Break these into two, use tissue damage for each body part (just head, arms, body, legs). Allow for individual body parts to be disabled.

The lack of long term wounds and disabilities. Need I say more?

The "fatigue" system, three levels (ok, fatigued, exhausted), should be points, like hp, that you lose and regain.

The "fear" system, should be points, with levels and possibility of long term trauma (causing phobias, repressed memories, PTS etc).

Vancian magic. I prefer mana points honestly. I'd rather have arcane mana points and divine mana points. And all spell like abilities drain from either of these pools. Mana should also not be replenished fully on rest.

The exponential power increase, I don't have a problem with the fact that you can become super powerful, but it should be either linearly gained or even better; inversely exponentially gained

The lack of consequence for using magic. Arcane magic is like fire and if you play with it there should be a chance to get burned.
A simple way is to make negative mana points = instant death without save, and critical failure of casting = double mana cost and no effect plus some unpleasant effect.
Divine magic should be conditioned by your deity of choice, no chance to harm yourself by the magical power itself, but your deity may be angry if you missuse the magic or ask to much.

Defined linear spells, I'd rather have a spell system similar to that of Psionics. That they don't automatically scale, but you can augment them and alter them. This should also be restrained with requirements of feats and increasing difficulty.

The Alignment System, it only serves to distract you from developing your character. There is no remedy, just remove it.

Knaight
2011-05-23, 08:00 AM
Keep

There are a lot of fun magical items, of use in a particular sort of game.
There are a lot of fun monsters, of use in a particular sort of game.
There are a lot of fun materials, of use in a particular sort of game.
Point Buy is a pretty solid mechanic, though done better elsewhere.
The general framework of the feat system is pretty solid, though the implementation of actual feats is less so.
Overall, there is a lot of very nice art in D&D, which shouldn't be lost.

Toss

Rolled character generation can go die.
Classes can go die. The closest I'm coming to classes is WR&M, which is a good game.
D&D has been way too crunchy from the start.
There have been way too many subsystems from the start, toss most of them.
The linear d20 distribution can go away.
That every skill has a list of predefined difficulties rather than a general set of word based difficulties that correlate to different things based on genre is a mistake. It goes.
Hit points. If they are removed entirely, all the better, otherwise there need to be very few of them, and getting more of them needs to be difficult.
Vancian magic. Its just not an elegant system. I personally favor some combination of a backfire/fatigue system, but whatever.
Defined spells. These have an annoying tendency to be boring.
The whole "key stat" "dump stat" system can go. Dropping any attribute should have disadvantages, adding to any should have advantages, and what goes up and what goes down should be entirely a matter of character. Of course, with the class system gone this should come naturally.
There is excess mechanical definition, largely to avoid needing GM judgment, and has been from the beginning, though this gets worse with edition. For instance, the careful definition of everything on every weapon could easily be replaced with a qualitative "better weapon for the situation" bonus.
In addition to the fun magical items, there are a lot of boring ones. The whole +1 sword, +2 sword, +3 sword, so on and so forth can go away, as can the attribute boosters and such. Its the wondrous items and a few of the really nice weapon and armor enchantments (e.g. brilliant energy) that are actually fun.

Lord Raziere
2011-05-23, 08:33 AM
Like:

Fighting stuff and being awesome

Don't Like:

black and white morality

the racism/specie-ism

focus on items: not eliminate them entirely, just....put the spotlight on something else.

classes. get rid of them

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 09:24 AM
Vancian magic. I prefer mana points honestly. I'd rather have arcane mana points and divine mana points. And all spell like abilities drain from either of these pools. Mana should also not be replenished fully on rest.

The lack of consequence for using magic. Arcane magic is like fire and if you play with it there should be a chance to get burned.
A simple way is to make negative mana points = instant death without save, and critical failure of casting = double mana cost and no effect plus some unpleasant effect.
Divine magic should be conditioned by your deity of choice, no chance to harm yourself by the magical power itself, but your deity may be angry if you missuse the magic or ask to much.

These. So much these. (Of course, I stopped using Vancian magic in '05 and started using the BESM: Advanced d20 Magic system.

Other stuff to toss in 3.5:

Exponential Wizard; Linear Fighter: This is crap, and everybody knows it. Characters should scale equally, and shouldn't be able to do another class's job better than said class.

Multi/Multi/Multi/Multi/Multi/Multi-classing: You shouldn't have to "dip into this for 1 level," then "take a 2 level dip of that," followed by another "one level dip." No, you should be able to pick a path and stick with it. Each "class" should be unique and flavorful, and have a set role to fill. Either that or do away with classes entirely.

Options: Simply put, there are too many books to choose from. Either put the options all in one book (maybe one book per type of options; i.e.: Martial book, Magic book, Psionic book), or do away with the majority of them entirely.

I've probably got more, but the Vicodin is making me kind of loopy. I'll cut it off here before I call WotC a bunch of profit-mongering (censored).

Knaight
2011-05-23, 09:29 AM
Multi/Multi/Multi/Multi/Multi/Multi-classing: You shouldn't have to "dip into this for 1 level," then "take a 2 level dip of that," followed by another "one level dip." No, you should be able to pick a path and stick with it. Each "class" should be unique and flavorful, and have a set role to fill. Either that or do away with classes entirely.

In regards to classes, I rather like the SAGA talent tree method. If you are going to have classes, and you are going to have a feat system, one might as well have a few hybrids between the two, while also seeing to it that every feat and talent taken has a major influence.

Eldan
2011-05-23, 09:35 AM
Personally, I like vancian. I think it's very flavourful, while I find point-based systems (i.e. Mana, power points and so on) to be trite and overused.

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 09:37 AM
In regards to classes, I rather like the SAGA talent tree method. If you are going to have classes, and you are going to have a feat system, one might as well have a few hybrids between the two, while also seeing to it that every feat and talent taken has a major influence.
That's one of the things I liked best about RM/HARP. It was virtually classless. Sure there were classes, but as long as you had the character points to spend, the only thing classes did for you was reduce the cost of some skills and talents. You could still pay regular price to get any skill or talent, but your class gave you a discount on certain ones.

For example: My last RM character was a ninja bounty hunter sniper by profession, and a rogue-type (I think I actually took the "scout" class, or something like that) by class. I took it because the sneaking and sniping skills were the most important to me, but I also needed some armor, some melee, and some mind-magic to make it work. I just spent my character points appropriately, and everything fell into place. In DnD, I would probably need to take no less than 5 or 6 classes to make it work.

@Eldan: The problem with Vancian magic, as I see it, is that there's no consequences. In many of the books I read, magic has consequences for the wielder. Be it fatigue, insanity, or whatever. As powerful as magic is in standard DnD (since magic solves everything) there should be some sort of consequences involved. BESM: Advanced d20 Magic has consequences. Specifically, fatigue (in the form of non-lethal damage) and possible loss of control. You can cast all day long, but the second you overstep your ability, BAM! Consequences. I like the fluff that wizards can draw too much power and lose control.

Vancian magic is so bland, IMO. Oh...you can cast this many spells of this level per day. Once you run out, you're done. There's no chance for a spent wizard to come back and destroy his/her enemies in a kamikaze strike (that he/she may or may not survive). Once you're done, you're not even winded with Vancian magic. You can still hit things with your stick just as well as you could if you never cast a spell.

valadil
2011-05-23, 11:11 AM
Like:

Classes. What? I guess I'm alone in this preference. I think it's part of what makes D&D unique. The newer games I've played are almost all point based.

Why do I like classes? I think they spawn creativity. If I don't have a class that lines up quite right with my conception of a character, I have to figure out a way to express that character. From an optimization perspective, I like matching bundles of abilities. Buying a skill and putting points into it over and over bores me. Buying a set of skills, maxing out one or two, and then seeing what I can make out of the rest is a whole lot more interesting IMO.

Levels. Again, not so popular. I like having clearly defined jumps in power. It's not realistic and it never will be, but it's fun. Gaining a couple skill points per session just doesn't feel like my character is advancing very much.

I should point out that classes and levels are things that I feel are iconic to D&D. While I enjoy them I don't think all games should use them.

Ditch:

Alignment. It's a big source of confusion. I can't count how many times I've heard players debate if rolling a die to choose to side with the party or enemies counts as chaotic or lawful. Some argue relying on chance is chaos. Others say a system like that has to be lawful. I just don't get why anyone would think a person would behave that way. I prefer to ignore alignment entirely.

Splatbooks. Too many, too often. I quit playing MtG for a reason.

Dungeon Crawl Mentality. I have no problem with dungeon crawls. But I resent the idea that that's all D&D is good for. I've run a lot of social games with D&D. The system does not get in the way of roleplaying. The preconceived notion that D&D is only for monster slaying does though.

Specialization at the expense of versatility. When I imagine a heroic fantasy character, he should be capable on his own. No matter what character I play, he should be able to survive on his own in the woods for months on end. He should have all sorts of useful skills and abilities. When I make characters who have lots of stuff they can do, the specialists in the party overshine them. That's okay, specialists should be better. But being a jack of all trades shouldn't cost so much. I want to be able to do three different things at 90% capacity instead of one thing at 100%. Instead it feels like I'm cut down to 60% or so, and that's just not enough to bother.

Chambers
2011-05-23, 11:22 AM
Great replies so far, thanks.

Here's another question: using the SRD + original content, what's your preferred method for dealing with the caster/non-caster issue. (SRD meaning that the ToB and special magic like the warlock & binder isn't available)

Knaight
2011-05-23, 11:34 AM
Here's another question: using the SRD + original content, what's your preferred method for dealing with the caster/non-caster issue. (SRD meaning that the ToB and special magic like the warlock & binder isn't available)

E6. It also solves a bunch of other problems I have with D&D, though by no means is it anywhere close to all of them. If there is still an issue, which there may well be, the Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric classes are all banned, and replaced with the Adept.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-23, 11:35 AM
Gentlemans* agreement. We are all trying to have fun together, so work together to do so.
*And womans

Tvtyrant
2011-05-23, 11:45 AM
Honestly I haven't had a problem with it in actual play. My casters always want to blast, and I run grindy type games. 6 separate battles between rests minimum, and usually more like 9. I also involve lots of "mooks + giants" to wear the party down.

J.Gellert
2011-05-23, 12:45 PM
Good:

The many campaign settings.

The community.

The (older) CRPGs.

Paladins.

Its long history.

Bad:

The classes and levels.

The "Vancian" magic.

The alignment system.

The dependency on magic items.

The "Eastern" RPG and MMORPG influences.

Coidzor
2011-05-23, 01:02 PM
The idea that melee can't have nice things would be nice to get rid of and the idea that certain classes should be completely useless in a variety of situations. Like Fighters when there's no fighting to be done.

Like the idea of the skill system but don't like the implementation such that no class can actually have skillpoints to model an actual character archetype that one would want in a story.

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 01:11 PM
Gentlemans* agreement. We are all trying to have fun together, so work together to do so.
*And womansHave to say, this is the way my group does it, and it's probably the most effective way.

Knaight
2011-05-23, 01:38 PM
Have to say, this is the way my group does it, and it's probably the most effective way.

Its also just the assumed way, everything else is pretty much in addition to this.

Eldan
2011-05-23, 01:51 PM
@Eldan: The problem with Vancian magic, as I see it, is that there's no consequences. In many of the books I read, magic has consequences for the wielder. Be it fatigue, insanity, or whatever. As powerful as magic is in standard DnD (since magic solves everything) there should be some sort of consequences involved. BESM: Advanced d20 Magic has consequences. Specifically, fatigue (in the form of non-lethal damage) and possible loss of control. You can cast all day long, but the second you overstep your ability, BAM! Consequences. I like the fluff that wizards can draw too much power and lose control.

Vancian magic is so bland, IMO. Oh...you can cast this many spells of this level per day. Once you run out, you're done. There's no chance for a spent wizard to come back and destroy his/her enemies in a kamikaze strike (that he/she may or may not survive). Once you're done, you're not even winded with Vancian magic. You can still hit things with your stick just as well as you could if you never cast a spell.

Oh, that's all entirely true. I would very much like a mechanic for suicidal overcasting, and more dangerous spells. But what I'm saying is: just because you don't use vancian doesn't mean you have that. Psionics doesn't really have it either (well, there's the overchannel feat). And it could be added to vancian. Get a slot back at a high cost, or increase your caster level while fatiguing yourself? Doable. AD&D had plenty of spells that could kill you.

But overall, I like the idea of Vancian. If you fluff it right, I think it's more interesting than generic "I have 20 points of magic in my head".

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 01:59 PM
Oh, that's all entirely true. I would very much like a mechanic for suicidal overcasting, and more dangerous spells. But what I'm saying is: just because you don't use vancian doesn't mean you have that. Psionics doesn't really have it either (well, there's the overchannel feat). And it could be added to vancian. Get a slot back at a high cost, or increase your caster level while fatiguing yourself? Doable. AD&D had plenty of spells that could kill you.

But overall, I like the idea of Vancian. If you fluff it right, I think it's more interesting than generic "I have 20 points of magic in my head".

That's specifically why I went with the BESM: Advanced d20 Magic system. It's not, "I have 20 points of magic in my head," type of points based casting. It's more like, "My body can only take so much magic being channeled through it." You take non-lethal damage from casting (in a skill-based casting system), and you can "overchannel" by taking regular, lethal damage once you're out of non-lethal damage.

I honestly don't like mana/magic points/power points based systems. I really like this one, though.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-23, 02:12 PM
Its also just the assumed way, everything else is pretty much in addition to this.
If this assumption is made, I honestly don't see what else you really need in D&D.

Knaight
2011-05-23, 02:15 PM
But overall, I like the idea of Vancian. If you fluff it right, I think it's more interesting than generic "I have 20 points of magic in my head".

Sure, its more interesting than "I have 20 points of magic in my head", but there are more options. One I've commonly seen is "This is how unstable I've made my connection to magic right now", where things can go wrong and the more you use magic the easier it is for them to go wrong and more severe the consequences are. There is "These are the spirits I've brought with me, and how much they can shake my control when things go wrong", where as one increases one's power one both makes it likely they will lose it and release a bunch of hostile entities they were siphoning power from. Vancian is boring, and a one dimensional point system isn't any better.

Eldan
2011-05-23, 02:23 PM
Thing is, I don't think Vancian is boring. I think it not only offers a ton of fluff opportunities, I don't think I've ever seen a system that more reeks of scholarly wizard to me than this one. You work over dusty tomes full of arcane formulae and sigils that would drive lesser men insane, binding the power of the universe itself into your head as half-formed energy constructs, raging torrents just waiting to be released with a word and a gesture at your command. It requires preparation. It requires forethought. It requires discipline. It requires a wizard. Let the foolish warlocks and sorcerers channel power they barely understand and spread themselves across the landscape in small bits in the process. The wizard knows magic, he understands magic, and he prepares magic.

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 02:26 PM
It can be fluffed any way anybody wants, but: I prefer a magic system that's mechanically interesting that I can fluff any way I want, over one I find mechanically boring that I can fluff any way I want.

Eldan
2011-05-23, 02:38 PM
That's not just fluff to me. That's what the mechanics say, basically.

Knaight
2011-05-23, 02:43 PM
That's not just fluff to me. That's what the mechanics say, basically.

And see, for a prepared wizard they are pretty solid mechanics. But what about the Sorcerer, and the Cleric, and the Druid, and even the Bard? Vancian magic is fundamentally wrong for that, which makes it screwy as a generic system.

DodgerH2O
2011-05-23, 06:30 PM
I've played mostly 2nd, some 3.x, and a few sessions of 4th. I've DMed 2nd and 3.x (very few sessions of a homebrew setting). Incidentally, my "primary" game is Shadowrun, started with 2nd, moved to 4th and have run more games with it than I can count, so any comparisons will mostly be to SR and some (old) WoD.

My favorite parts of D&D:

1.) The "setting" of 1st (read, not played) and 2nd editions. This is variable but the "fluff" and rules give an impression of a world full of powerful and dangerous forces that adventurers can face, overcome, and harness. Magic was poorly balanced but overall dangerous and the effects ubiquitous. 3rd edition keeps a lot of it but the rules, I should say the mechanics rather, make it easy to focus on the character sheet rather than the setting.

4th edition just seems like a different game and world to me. A world where (as a minor example) any peasant of a certain race can teleport at will (even a short distance) changes the dynamics of a "traditional" sword & sorcery immensely.

2.) The heritage and dice. This is a big thing, people know "Dungeons and Dragons" as the game with the funny dice, and lots of people have played some version of it or know someone who has. This and the fact that I read too much DnD inspired fiction when younger are probably the culprit for why I've spent so much time "hacking" 3.5 to try and make a game that feels right to me despite the fact that the system doesn't adapt well to the style of campaign I want. Yeah I could use SR or Storyteller system rules, or make some up from scratch, but then I couldn't call it Dungeons and Dragons.

The things that I don't care for:

1.) Hit Points, mostly re: Lethality in a roleplaying context. This is a personal thing, but I like systems where even a nobody with a gun/knife has a chance (within the rules as written) to land a hit on and possibly grievously injure a non-supernaturally endowed humanoid. I'm fine with them as a DM but players tend to RP characters differently if they know they have 104 HP and a dagger only does 1d4. Even I do it. Oh, hit by an arrow, 8 HP, whatever. Getting cut/shot/stabbed HURTS and not every character is a tough guy/girl with the willpower to grit their teeth and ride the pain but the system encourages shrugging off damage up to a point. This is true of all editions, though 4e DnD again is a different game entirely, and HP is inherently part of a High Fantasy Heroic setting, how many heroes in novels and movies spend half the time resting and healing? They get hit, and keep going, even with holes in them.

2.) Magic. Oh I love magic, but I like to think of it as an unpredictable, dangerous force that takes years to grasp, decades or centuries to master. I know material components are a pain to keep track of, but having to find an amber rod and rabbit skin etc. to cast that spell that you had to delve into a dungeon to find makes it more valued than "Oh, I leveled up, I suddenly know Fireball, oh, and I bought a components pouch at creation, so I already have plenty of bat guano and if I run out, just stop by the friendly local reagent-store." Again, part of the playing style, but RAW in 3.x discourage this attitude. DM making you fight too much for arcane spells? Roll up a Sorcerer, they're arguably powerful enough anyway, if the setting has a lack of scrolls etc you're better off choosing your own spells.

3.) Expansion books. I enjoyed several in 2nd edition, and they do add to the game, but often they seem like justifications for "power creep", it's hard to tell a player that the money they spent on a sourcebook was wasted because you don't agree with "the rules" contained therein. 4e DnD made these necessary to even have a character with novel abilities, and while more useful, the extra books in 4e are still expensive. I know these aren't unique to DnD, but for instance Shadowrun sourcebooks often expand settings without adding any cool items or powers. They're nice to have but other than the big ones (Magic, Matrix, Gear) aren't necessarily game changers.

4.) Finally... COMBAT. Ugh. The RPGs I've played all do combat poorly, but considering that a large set of DnD rules are combat oriented it just takes too darn long (or unexpectedly short) to run a combat with more than a handful of players or creatures. At least in SR and WoD the threat of lethality can keep the combat fresh, instead of feeling like that dragon is a piece of cheese you have to whittle down a bit at a time. Again, EVERY RPG I've played has combat crawl, and as such this isn't a specific criticism, but it does explain why I prefer to DM low-level low-combat campaigns.

Separate section for 4e DnD:

While I've only played a few sessions, I love 4e for what it is, but it completely changed the nature of the game IMO. 4e is a wonderfully coherent streamlined system for tactical high fantasy combat with some roleplaying elements mixed in. With a good, coherent group the combat easily becomes relatively smooth and fast-paced, but the "block of cheese" factor still exists. I just don't care for all sorts of exotic races and ubiquitous magic in my campaign setting and the core rulebooks for 4e really fall apart without these present (yes, there are ways around them, but the system is built and balanced around certain assumptions.)

Phew, wall of text. Hope this is informative, if nothing else. My opinions can and will change with time and experience.

potatocubed
2011-05-24, 06:48 AM
Keep:
The Content. By which I mean the fluff. Planescape and Eberron and Golarion and owlbears and drow and beholders. World-cracking kobolds, psychic dragons, demons and devils and daemons and demodands, Dark Sun and Spelljammer, Asmodeus and Pelor and the entire bloated Forgotten Realms pantheon. D&D has this rich and storied history full of things that cry out to be used and reused and reinterpreted differently in every game they appear in. The million billion 'fixes' show that bad mechanics do little to diminish the appeal of the ideas beneath.

The Shared Experience. Which is a similar sort of idea. Some hill giants in a steading. The Sunless Citadel. The Tomb of Horrors. Moments of Crowning Awesome from a million different games. Love it or hate it, between gamers D&D is a guaranteed conversation. When someone decides to run a D&D game you pretty much know what you're going to get.

Drop:
Everything else.

Jay R
2011-05-24, 10:16 AM
And see, for a prepared wizard they are pretty solid mechanics. But what about the Sorcerer, and the Cleric, and the Druid, and even the Bard? Vancian magic is fundamentally wrong for that, which makes it screwy as a generic system.

Actually, I think Vancian magic is fundamentally right for bardic magic, based on years of experience as a (non-magical) bard in the SCA.

One thing I've learned is that I can perform a piece much better if I've rehearsed it several times today. I can hold a certain number of pieces in my head that I can reel off on a moment's notice and know I'll do a good job - no dropped lines, pauses for memory, etc.

And there are a few pieces that I know I cannot perform if I haven't practiced them -- those with complicated rhythms or long lists of names, for instance.

If the magic only works if I can do a perfect performance, I would spend a lot of time early in the day practicing those pieces to be ready. And there you have it - Vancian magic that makes sense.

The only modification I'd make would be to allow a bard to try an unpracticed piece, with a strong chance of blowing it and releasing the magic in an uncontrolled fashion, like a sorceror. That's because when somebody calls for a piece I haven't practiced, I can often pull it off, but I also might blow it.

Knaight
2011-05-24, 10:26 AM
One thing I've learned is that I can perform a piece much better if I've rehearsed it several times today. I can hold a certain number of pieces in my head that I can reel off on a moment's notice and know I'll do a good job - no dropped lines, pauses for memory, etc.
So, after you say these once, are you capable of saying them again, or are they somehow stricken from your mind? Because Vancian magic supports the second case, or the preparation beforehand with only a bit left concept.

The Big Dice
2011-05-24, 10:45 AM
So, after you say these once, are you capable of saying them again, or are they somehow stricken from your mind? Because Vancian magic supports the second case, or the preparation beforehand with only a bit left concept.
He's talking about the difference between long, short and middle term memory. And as a guitarist, I can totally relate to the idea that there are pieces that I can't perform without practise, and other things that I can reel off without thinking about it. Of course, 3rd edition D&D kind of misses the point with so-called Vancian casting. It's too safe, too easy and casters get too many spells. But that's another post for another time.

Knaight
2011-05-24, 10:53 AM
He's talking about the difference between long, short and middle term memory. And as a guitarist, I can totally relate to the idea that there are pieces that I can't perform without practise, and other things that I can reel off without thinking about it. Of course, 3rd edition D&D kind of misses the point with so-called Vancian casting. It's too safe, too easy and casters get too many spells. But that's another post for another time.

My point is that what he is saying is a better analog to, for instance, having a certain quantity of "short term memory points", that are distributed among active memories. The issue with Vancian as a comparison is that once you cast a spell you forget it, whereas something in your short term memory isn't pushed out by using that memory, it is reinforced. Do it enough, and it will eventually end up in middle and then long term memory.

Mastikator
2011-05-24, 11:08 AM
[snip]
And there are a few pieces that I know I cannot perform if I haven't practiced them -- those with complicated rhythms or long lists of names, for instance.

If the magic only works if I can do a perfect performance, I would spend a lot of time early in the day practicing those pieces to be ready. And there you have it - Vancian magic that makes sense.

[snip].

Err... if you just did the performance perfectly from practice, then you should be able to do it again, and again. It should be getting a tiny bit better each time, not run out of uses/day. :/
The rest I agree makes sense enough to justify preparing part, but you shouldn't run out. Instead you should have to practice for a while on a particular bardic song or spell, and then you can do it. A spell takes a round on average, good performers can play for at least an hour and succeeding most rounds, so that would be at least 3000 uses/day, not 3/day >_>

The Big Dice
2011-05-24, 12:06 PM
My point is that what he is saying is a better analog to, for instance, having a certain quantity of "short term memory points", that are distributed among active memories. The issue with Vancian as a comparison is that once you cast a spell you forget it, whereas something in your short term memory isn't pushed out by using that memory, it is reinforced. Do it enough, and it will eventually end up in middle and then long term memory.

You'd think, but that really isn't always the case. I find that I can retain something until I need it, then if it doesn't get re-enforced, it goes away. I've known actors with the same thing. They'll learn their lines, deliver them perfectly. But ask them a month after the final performance what they had to say and it's not there anymore.

That's mid term memory. And comparing anything about the way people act or react to anything that happens in D&D is going to be flawed at best and hopeless in most situations. D&D doesn't model life, it just models D&D.

Knaight
2011-05-24, 12:31 PM
You'd think, but that really isn't always the case. I find that I can retain something until I need it, then if it doesn't get re-enforced, it goes away. I've known actors with the same thing. They'll learn their lines, deliver them perfectly. But ask them a month after the final performance what they had to say and it's not there anymore.

Sure, but its not a matter of a month. Its a matter of whether you can, for instance, play a song on an instrument two seconds after having played that song. You should be able to, D&D casting isn't like that, as such it doesn't model bards well if that is how their magic should be.

Jude_H
2011-05-24, 12:31 PM
Short v. long term memory is silly in the first place, even without introducing a mid term. Not the time or the place. >_>

Vancian spellcasting is really hard for me to explain, and it seems incredibly arbitrary as a game mechanic. I'd be happy to see it leave. Maybe if I'd ever read a Jack Vance book, it would make sense. Maybe if anybody I explained the rules to knew his work, it would be less unintuitive. I couldn't name one of his works to save my life, so it's very uncomfortable, especially with 3e:

Edited into a spoiler-box, due to all-around Wrong:

"You can only memorize spells after you wake up. It takes an hour to memorize them.
"No, you can't shorten that time by memorizing fewer.
"No, you can't remember them after you cast them, no matter how high your Int or memory skill is.
"No, you can't just memorize more after your magic amnesia; you have to wait until the next day.
"Yes, that means you have to guess what I'm going to set against you later on.
"No, I will not pretend it makes any sense whatsoever."

potatocubed
2011-05-24, 12:31 PM
The thing is, the way Vancian magic works has nothing to do with memory. The spells go into your brain, then they stay there until you cast them, whereupon they burn themselves out again. It's not so much memorising formulas as it is chaining alien entities in your brain that can rewrite reality when released.

EDIT: Ninjaed, more or less.

J.Gellert
2011-05-24, 12:38 PM
My problem with Vancian magic is only about 50% fluff.

50% of it is the "Oh, I'm out of Magic Missile, let's go back and rest" issue.

It's a system that's supposed to cut the fun short!

Jude_H
2011-05-24, 12:43 PM
The thing is, the way Vancian magic works has nothing to do with memory. The spells go into your brain, then they stay there until you cast them, whereupon they burn themselves out again. It's not so much memorising formulas as it is chaining alien entities in your brain that can rewrite reality when released.
Whoa. I just skimmed the 1e and 3e PHBs, and neither uses the word "memorize" once. I guess it's just a part of my group's collective vocabulary. I also see that 3e does cut prep times for less than the full spell slot. That means the situation in my last post comes from me being basically completely incorrect.

I do think it's a bad setup for a generic system, but I just lost most of my complaints for it in a specific game.

I'll go fix that.

potatocubed
2011-05-24, 12:52 PM
Whoa. I just skimmed the 2e and 3e PHBs, and neither uses the word "memorize" once. I guess it's just a part of my group's collective vocabulary. I also see that 3e does cut prep times for less than the full spell slot. That means the situation in my last post comes from me being basically completely incorrect.

Oh, my groups have always used 'memorise' as well - I think the terminology is common, but possibly misleading, as spells don't operate on the same rules as memory. Like you said, they operate on an arbitrary set of game rules rather than attempting to simulate anything real.

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-05-24, 01:00 PM
I'm not sure if there was actually ever much "official" fluff on how wizard spells work, but I always saw it as somewhere between the "chaining alien entities" potatocubed mentioned and something I picked up on this forum here:
The suggestion was that spells actually take a long time to cast. Certainly more than a few seconds. So, what a wizard does is he casts the spells in the morning, then keeps them in a ready state inside his head.

I think I should pick up that homebrew caster class again I started once.

Chambers
2011-05-24, 01:18 PM
If you've read the later half of the Chronicles of Amber, Merlin talks about how he prepares and casts spells. If he wants to have spells prepared to cast he spends a decent amount of time preparing the spell(s) (about an hour, seems like). During that time he's actually casting all but the last bit of the spell. In a way he freezes the spell right before it's cast, and hangs it up on a metaphorical hook.

When he wants to cast the spell he says the command word and makes a few hand gestures, thereby completing the act of casting the spell. Once it's cast it's gone and he'd have to prepare it again some time later in order to cast it again.

J.Gellert
2011-05-24, 01:28 PM
Ultimately, it is the memorization that is important. To draw on magical energy, the wizard must shape specific mental patterns in his mind. He uses his spell books to force his mind through mental exercises, preparing to hold the final, twisted patterns. These patterns are very complicated and alien to normal thought, so they don't register in the mind as normal learning. To shape these patterns, the wizard must spend time memorizing the spell, twisting his thoughts and recasting the energy patterns each time to account for subtle changes - planetary motions, seasons, time of day, and more.

Once a wizard memorizes a spell, it remains in his memory (as potential energy) until he uses the prescribed components to trigger the release of the energy patterns. The mental patterns apparently release the energy while the components shape and guide it. Upon casting, the energy of the spell is spent, wiped clean from the wizard's mind. The mental patterns are lost until the wizard studies and memorizes that spell again.

This is the explanation I've always gone by.

It's halfway between memorization and pre-casting.

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 01:46 PM
Of course, none of that ever really explains why it can't be cast direct from the book.

Captain Six
2011-05-24, 06:09 PM
Of course, none of that ever really explains why it can't be cast direct from the book.

It could, but that quote was from 2e AD&D where preparing a spell took 10 minutes per spell level per spell, and that's without the stress of someone trying to kill you that very moment.

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 06:15 PM
It could, but that quote was from 2e AD&D where preparing a spell took 10 minutes per spell level per spell, and that's without the stress of someone trying to kill you that very moment.

Why would someone want to cast from a spellbook in combat? :smallconfused:

J.Gellert
2011-05-24, 07:38 PM
Of course, none of that ever really explains why it can't be cast direct from the book.

There's a bit about requiring a clear mind, "gained from a restful night's sleep", to prepare magic.

It's bogus, mostly, to preserve balance. But then I haven't read Vance, either. Maybe it makes more sense if you are a fan? :smalltongue:

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 07:43 PM
But then I haven't read Vance, either. Maybe it makes more sense if you are a fan? :smalltongue:

I have to wonder at the number of fans he has when his books aren't sold in stores and the only people I know of confirmed to have read his work are the designers of D&D through the ages.

Has anyone here even seen one of his books in real life? I'm starting to wonder if a man named Vance ever existed or if this is like the Morgenstern that was invented by the guy who wrote the Princess Bride... :smallconfused:

J.Gellert
2011-05-24, 07:49 PM
I have to wonder at the number of fans he has when his books aren't sold in stores and the only people I know of confirmed to have read his work are the designers of D&D through the ages.

Has anyone here even seen one of his books in real life? I'm starting to wonder if a man named Vance ever existed or if this is like the Morgenstern that was invented by the guy who wrote the Princess Bride... :smallconfused:

Even the related TVTropes page is rather short on tropes, which means it's not only obscure, it's not even "cult". :smalltongue: Was kinda hoping I'd find some details there.

Jay R
2011-05-24, 10:39 PM
Of course, none of that ever really explains why it can't be cast direct from the book.

Because I have to look at the target, I suppose. If somebody casts Fireball while looking at the book, the book will be fireballed.

(This is a made-up explanation, off the cuff, and with no backing from the books. It still makes sense from me. If I read a poem from a book, I'm not working the audience with my eyes.]

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 10:51 PM
Because I have to look at the target, I suppose. If somebody casts Fireball while looking at the book, the book will be fireballed.

(This is a made-up explanation, off the cuff, and with no backing from the books. It still makes sense from me. If I read a poem from a book, I'm not working the audience with my eyes.]

And you feel good with the basic position you had to take intellectually to do it?

DodgerH2O
2011-05-24, 11:13 PM
I have to wonder at the number of fans he has when his books aren't sold in stores and the only people I know of confirmed to have read his work are the designers of D&D through the ages.

Has anyone here even seen one of his books in real life? I'm starting to wonder if a man named Vance ever existed or if this is like the Morgenstern that was invented by the guy who wrote the Princess Bride... :smallconfused:

Ironically, I found an old paperback anthology a few months back called "Wizards" that had a rather good short story. I read it and went "Wow, this is how I want DnD magic to feel!", made a change to my campaign setting and mechanics, and forgot about it. I went to look just now and sure enough, Jack Vance is credited with the story.

It's called "Mazirian the Magician" and deals with a wizard's battle, of sorts, where the victor only used two spells vs the opponent's five. It made a single spell seem like the power that it would be if magic were "real" as such. Imagine just "Charm" or "Create Food" if you could cast it every day on Earth, heck, even a Light spell. Anyhow, wikipedia references the story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazirian_the_Magician and I can vouch for its existence.

potatocubed
2011-05-25, 01:12 AM
Further to Dodger's answer, I have also seen a collected book of Dying Earth stories by Jack Vance. I thought about buying it, then spent my money on D&D books instead; make of that what you will.

WhiteHarness
2011-05-25, 10:13 AM
My favorite parts? Armour.

What do I want to get rid of? Magic.

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 10:19 AM
What do I want to get rid of? Magic.You could play the Iron Heroes version of Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved. Low magic version of d20 Fantasy. Monte Cook's an excellent game designer. :smallbiggrin:

Chambers
2011-05-25, 10:28 AM
My favorite parts? Armour.

What do I want to get rid of? Magic.

If armor is your thing I recommend checking out Harnmaster. Decent system and excellent fan homebrew support.

hamlet
2011-05-25, 10:50 AM
Even the related TVTropes page is rather short on tropes, which means it's not only obscure, it's not even "cult". :smalltongue: Was kinda hoping I'd find some details there.

Or, it might simply be that his work is not popular with the nerd chic crowd that runs through tvtropes?

He's rather prolific, actually, and has published as recently as 2004 (a two part novela) and 2010 (his autobiography).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Vance

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jack+vance

That you are not familiar with his work, or that the TVTropes crowd does not have an extensive section on him, does not mean that he is not well read and well regarded.

If anything, it is a result of the fact that he writes in a style that is out of favor now, that of 50's pulp fiction.

some guy
2011-05-25, 10:58 AM
I have only played 3.5e (but I play the new ed. for Gamma World which uses 4e), so:

What I don't like about 3.5e:
1. gear bookkeeping: a part of me realizes there's a subgame hidden in managing your rations, potions, oil and such and such and thinks there something interesting to do with that, a part of me just thinks it bogs down the game.
2. rolling low for hitpoints: it sucks (but see below)
3. building characters is a lot of work for new players
4. slow combat (especially at higher levels)

What I like:
1. d20: try to do something? roll a d20, add numbers, compare. 3.5e can be boiled to this.
2. rolling for hitpoints: it's exciting!
3. building characters is fun
4. the tools for making monsters

(EDIT: if 4e monsters and encounters are like the new Gamma World, then I'd like how every monster has a neat attack and can do interesting things.


I have to wonder at the number of fans he has when his books aren't sold in stores and the only people I know of confirmed to have read his work are the designers of D&D through the ages.

Has anyone here even seen one of his books in real life? I'm starting to wonder if a man named Vance ever existed or if this is like the Morgenstern that was invented by the guy who wrote the Princess Bride... :smallconfused:

I read quite a few of his books, but only his science fiction. I have never read a fantasy book by Vance. My father has a Dying Earth book so maybe Ill borrow that some time from him.

As for Vancian magic:
In this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9527816&postcount=23) I link to some blogposts that have some Vance quotes and some other thoughts on it.

kyoryu
2011-05-25, 01:29 PM
Sure, its more interesting than "I have 20 points of magic in my head", but there are more options. One I've commonly seen is "This is how unstable I've made my connection to magic right now", where things can go wrong and the more you use magic the easier it is for them to go wrong and more severe the consequences are. There is "These are the spirits I've brought with me, and how much they can shake my control when things go wrong", where as one increases one's power one both makes it likely they will lose it and release a bunch of hostile entities they were siphoning power from. Vancian is boring, and a one dimensional point system isn't any better.

My favorite magic system for D&D-like games has always been the GURPS Unlimited Mana variant: http://www.io.com/~sjohn/unlimited-mana.htm

Knaight
2011-05-25, 02:28 PM
That you are not familiar with his work, or that the TVTropes crowd does not have an extensive section on him, does not mean that he is not well read and well regarded.

If anything, it is a result of the fact that he writes in a style that is out of favor now, that of 50's pulp fiction.

I wouldn't classify Vance's style as that of 50's pulp fiction. Categorizing it at all is difficult, Vance has a very unique prose that he employs to great effect, that is more reminiscent of work before the 1900's than anything else. I'd even say one could draw parallels to Russian literature in regards to the way it is written. Now, if one looks more at the content, 50's pulp can be seen as an influence. However, it also fits in well with pre-Tolkenien fantasy, particularly that of the 1920's and 1930's. Cugel's character is practically a sword and sorcery archetype, the setting of the Dying Earth is one that embraced wonder and whimsy, both of which strongly characterized non sword and sorcery pre-Tolkeinien fantasy, and both of which have fallen out of favor in modern works.

hamlet
2011-05-25, 02:32 PM
I wouldn't classify Vance's style as that of 50's pulp fiction. Categorizing it at all is difficult, Vance has a very unique prose that he employs to great effect, that is more reminiscent of work before the 1900's than anything else. I'd even say one could draw parallels to Russian literature in regards to the way it is written. Now, if one looks more at the content, 50's pulp can be seen as an influence. However, it also fits in well with pre-Tolkenien fantasy, particularly that of the 1920's and 1930's. Cugel's character is practically a sword and sorcery archetype, the setting of the Dying Earth is one that embraced wonder and whimsy, both of which strongly characterized non sword and sorcery pre-Tolkeinien fantasy, and both of which have fallen out of favor in modern works.

Indeed. I was generalizing.

The Big Dice
2011-05-25, 02:52 PM
My favorite magic system for D&D-like games has always been the GURPS Unlimited Mana variant: http://www.io.com/~sjohn/unlimited-mana.htm

Umana makes GURPS 3rd edition magic useable. Sure it's still going to take you three turns to build up a lightning bolt and a fourth to aim it before you miss on the fifth round. But that's what you get for not having Sterilize 21.

In general, I prefer skill based rather than use based magic. It's too easy in D&D type games where you just declare a spell is cast and it is. If there's an equal chance of failure between a spell and a melee attack, there's more balance between caster and non caster.

Jay R
2011-05-25, 03:52 PM
And you feel good with the basic position you had to take intellectually to do it?

After playing D&D for 36 years, I'm certainly accustomed to having to invent justifications for stupid rules.

Jay R
2011-05-25, 03:58 PM
So, after you say these once, are you capable of saying them again, or are they somehow stricken from your mind? Because Vancian magic supports the second case, or the preparation beforehand with only a bit left concept.

Simple, fun pieces I could repeat all night long.

But after a great performance of a long emotional piece, I'm often emotionally drained, and not up to repeating the same emotional drain again. That's not losing the memory, but it certainly makes me believe that with magic, it could be reasonable that the magical force I needed to hold onto is gone, since without magic, the emotional force I needed to hold onto is gone.

Coidzor
2011-05-25, 04:47 PM
After playing D&D for 36 years, I'm certainly accustomed to having to invent justifications for stupid rules.

Why though? You're even acknowledging they're stupid rules. :smallconfused:

J.Gellert
2011-05-25, 06:09 PM
Monte Cook's an excellent game designer. :smallbiggrin:

+1 to this, he's one of the people who seemed to learn something from "earlier 3rd" D&D and has something to show for it / has applied it successfully.

WhiteHarness
2011-05-25, 06:29 PM
If armor is your thing I recommend checking out Harnmaster. Decent system and excellent fan homebrew support.
While I do find some aspects of Harnmaster attractive, it fails to portray the later-period full-plate awesomeness that I crave. GURPS, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, and a few others are much better for that.

navar100
2011-05-25, 07:27 PM
I like that your character improves in what he can do over time in a signifcant and noticeable way.

I like that your character gets to do interesting cool stuff, "powerful" even with no apology,

I like the flexibility of choices in creating and building your character.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-25, 08:23 PM
Why though? You're even acknowledging they're stupid rules. :smallconfused:
Apparently people enjoyed a certain fantasy wargame supplement enough to not only make it better, but create an entire new industry. I guess it grows on one, like moss on a Discworld troll.

Coidzor
2011-05-25, 08:33 PM
Apparently people enjoyed a certain fantasy wargame supplement enough to not only make it better, but create an entire new industry. I guess it grows on one, like moss on a Discworld troll.

...So justifying them rather than improving upon them is the basis for the entire concept of roleplaying games? :smallconfused:

Color me skeptical.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-05-25, 08:47 PM
4e
Like: class balance, cool options for classes and races. Paragon paths and epic destinies are also good things.
Dislike: splatbooks are thinner and more expensive. Skills are bad.

3.5
Like: ToB, has more books out than Pathfinder, skills are good.
Dislike: Pathfinder is a bit better, class balance is awful.

Pathfinder
Like: ranger, rogue, and paladin got big boosts, and sorcerers get awesome bloodlines. Fighters got some improvement. Archetypes are good. Everything is free on the PFSRD.
Dislike: doesn't fix the major balance problems, less sourcebooks than 3.5.

3.P
Like: takes the good aspects from 3.5 and PF, allows use of 3.5 splatbooks.
Dislike: probably doesn't take all the good aspects of each.

Knaight
2011-05-25, 10:24 PM
While I do find some aspects of Harnmaster attractive, it fails to portray the later-period full-plate awesomeness that I crave. GURPS, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, and a few others are much better for that.
Are we talking about nigh invincibility? Because in the classic rules, we are looking at nigh invincibility, better even than historical full plate.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-26, 12:20 AM
...So justifying them rather than improving upon them is the basis for the entire concept of roleplaying games? :smallconfused:

Color me skeptical.
No, what I am saying is that objectively stupid rules you enjoy are better then objectively good rules you don't. Jay R is obviously having fun even with "stupid rules", so where is the bad?

Velaryon
2011-05-26, 03:06 PM
I will confine my comments to 3.X since that's the edition of D&D I play.

Likes:

1. Options. 50+ base classes, hundreds of prestige classes, entire books dedicated entirely to new spells and magic toys. The ability to play all kinds of weird monsters as characters.* What other game can let you play a half-iron golem minotaur wizard/warrior who specializes in using his magic to protect and enhance himself as he wades into swarms of baddies with his axe?

*Though I don't much care for the rules for monstrous characters, and feel that many of them have higher ECLs than they should.

2. Comparatively clear rules. Yes, the grapple rules are a mess. Yes, there are probably too many rules. But from my experience with other systems, some of them leave too much up to GM interpretation, to the point of being very unclear. I know it's a horrible exaggeration, but the first time I read the rules to Vampire: the Masquerade, my initial impression was "pick your clan, fill in some dots on your character sheet, then make up the rules to the game yourself." At least in D&D the game generally tells you how most things work.

3. The settings. Although I've never played in most of them, I like that you have a whole bunch of interesting, fully developed worlds in which you could set the game with a minimum of difficulty. My only gripe is that WotC chose not to update 90% of them to 3e, meaning that you either need to look for 3rd party (Ravenloft or Dragonlance) or fan-made material, or do a substantial amount of conversion yourself, if you want to play in any official setting other than Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

Dislikes:

1. The cost of books. It makes the hobby prohibitively expensive and encourages piracy. This doesn't help anyone. And from what I've seen in about 10 years of being a gamer, the problem only gets worse over time as the costs keep creeping upward. Unlike my other complaints, this one is about roleplaying games in general, not just D&D.

2. Casters being able to beat other classes at their own game. I don't like that clerics and druids can be equal to or better in melee than warrior classes. Let them have their spellcasting, but when it comes to mixing it up with weapons or claws, they should still fall short of a real Fighter or Paladin. Same goes for skills - Wizards shouldn't be able to make certain skills completely obsolete with simple spells like Knock.

3. The illusion of choice when it comes to being an effective melee fighter. I don't like that wielding a big sword two-handed is far and away better than any other style of melee combat (with the exclusion of silly tripper builds and so on). Sword and shield? Significantly limits you offensively, and the AC bonus you get from the shield is too small to matter beyond very early levels. Dual wielding? You have to spend twice as much money on weapons, a heavy investment in feats, and you're STILL not going to do any damage worth mentioning unless you're also sneak attacking every time.

4. The sheer amount of bad classes, feats, and magic items out there. Not only does this create traps for new players who are audacious enough to believe that they should pick Monk if they want an Eastern-influenced, vaguely supernatural martial artist character, but it renders certain character archetypes much harder to play.

5. Non-combat abilities being tied to combat prowess. I don't like that in order to advance, for example, one's ability to smith a sword, you have to advance in character level, which means your hit points, attack bonus, and so on have to advance as well. This means that any noncombatant expert type characters (master smiths, renowned experts in academic fields, and so on) are either required to be a high level and thus improbably more durable in combat, or have a cap on how good they can be in their chosen field.

I could come up with more, but let's leave it there for now.


Like:

Classes. What? I guess I'm alone in this preference. I think it's part of what makes D&D unique. The newer games I've played are almost all point based.

Why do I like classes? I think they spawn creativity. If I don't have a class that lines up quite right with my conception of a character, I have to figure out a way to express that character. From an optimization perspective, I like matching bundles of abilities. Buying a skill and putting points into it over and over bores me. Buying a set of skills, maxing out one or two, and then seeing what I can make out of the rest is a whole lot more interesting IMO.

Levels. Again, not so popular. I like having clearly defined jumps in power. It's not realistic and it never will be, but it's fun. Gaining a couple skill points per session just doesn't feel like my character is advancing very much.

I should point out that classes and levels are things that I feel are iconic to D&D. While I enjoy them I don't think all games should use them.

I generally agree with you here. If you took out classes and levels, it just wouldn't be D&D.


Ditch:

Dungeon Crawl Mentality. I have no problem with dungeon crawls. But I resent the idea that that's all D&D is good for. I've run a lot of social games with D&D. The system does not get in the way of roleplaying. The preconceived notion that D&D is only for monster slaying does though.

Specialization at the expense of versatility. When I imagine a heroic fantasy character, he should be capable on his own. No matter what character I play, he should be able to survive on his own in the woods for months on end. He should have all sorts of useful skills and abilities. When I make characters who have lots of stuff they can do, the specialists in the party overshine them. That's okay, specialists should be better. But being a jack of all trades shouldn't cost so much. I want to be able to do three different things at 90% capacity instead of one thing at 100%. Instead it feels like I'm cut down to 60% or so, and that's just not enough to bother.

I agree with these two as well. My group doesn't even like dungeon crawls, so we almost never do them, and when it does come up they're much shorter than what I think the "average" dungeon crawl is like.

As for the other point, you've expressed it perfectly. It drives me crazy since jack-of-all-trades is my favorite type of character.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-05-26, 05:59 PM
Like many above me, I have real experience only with 3.5, so I'll talk about that.

Like:
The class system. I guess some prefer classless games, but I really like the idea of having a frame to work with, and getting to work within it. There's enough customization for me through feats, skills, race, equipment, ability scores, multi-classing, etc. etc. to make it interesting. Prestige Classes: The way the DMG seems to have intended them to be. Prestigious, fluff prerequisite, organization specific. It seemed to just shout out that these classes were special. The d20 mentality: More or less anything that can be done in the real world, and undoubtably more, could be done in D&D, simply with a d20 roll, a skill (or ability if no skill applied) modifier, and a difficulty modifier. There's a sort of beauty in that simplicity and control. Vancian Magic (for Wizards, Clerics, and Druids): I had no idea the magic system had a name until now. But I find preparation to be a fascinating idea, and I think it lends well to the idea of magic as something you have to actively prepare. Psionics: I don't care for the bizarre sci-fi naming system, perhaps... I honestly wish they used the Psion as the sorcerer model in the player's handbook. The power point system, and augmentation, fits in my mind the things a spontaneous magic user should be able to do. The races: And I mean the monster races too. There isn't much you can't play as if you really wanted to. And some, like raptoran, thri-kreen, and warforged, offer enough of a change to the typical system to provide what I consider a lot of new options.

Don't Like:
The desire people have to balance magic and non-magic: Maybe I'm wrong, but in a world of magic I think people should use magic. I like the idea of pure martial fighters being NPCs, and the martial classes of PCs being represented by the many martially capable magic types, or just accepting that their value is somewhere else. Diplomacy: the variant made here is much better than the original diplomacy, but I don't like it anyway. Bluff I get, because I can't really roleplay too well what I as a DM already know, but some things are better off not made technical. A great many tactical feats, skill tricks, regular feats, etc etc: I feel like these take away from the game rather than enhance it. Before I learned about complete scoundrel, I just assumed you could jump into a climb if you took a penalty. It takes away from the game's very premise, which is essentially "roll the d20 to attempt whatever you want." If there are limits of what you can even attempt, than I'm not playing a character with freedom. The class system as it is: There are variant classes everywhere, and I feel many of them just take away from the places one used to have to be creative. The beguiler, for instance, is a really cool class, but I prefered it when I had to be a wizard/rogue or a sorcerer/rogue. I maintain that the cleric/fighter and the druid/fighter feel more elegant to me than the paladin or ranger. The ability system: Not too fond of how if I make a fighter who isn't really concerned with skill, and dumps int, than my character is seen as a drooling idiot. If I want a character who has great perception but is naiive, well that's pretty tough, because spot, listen, and sense motive are keyed off the same ability. SAD and the lack of variability between same classes stat-wise: Good wizards have int as their main priority, con as their second, and dex as their third. A monk shouldn't even think of not dumping charisma. Especially if you use point buy, you tend to get a group of people with hilariously imbalanced ability scores. I like imbalanced stats, to be honest... But I want the Mario type character, with very balanced stats, to be a viable option. I'd like to see a dexterity paladin made reasonable. Actually, that last bit is sort of a thing, with elf paladin and the ranged smite. But I want MAD characters to be no less effective than SAD characters... I have no idea how I'd go about that but it'd be really a big deal to me. Not sure how to label this, but I don't like the two handed weapon fighting imbalance. It's so clearly the best style for non-magics, but it shouldn't be. The sword and board is a famous archetype, as is the two weapon fighter, the archer, the umarmed combatant, and even the one handed single weapon fencing type. It sucks that one of these styles is well supported with power attack, knockback, power attack upgrades, etc. while the rest are either not supported or so feat intensive that it's not worth bothering. The fact that, even with the fighter's many bonus feats, trying to specialize in more than one style is a foolish goal. In the real world one could focus on many different arts. The splat-book exotic weapons: Some of them are really cool. I personally love the suuglin for its stylistic "a giant stick" qualities. But if you make an egypt-type warrior, do you really need exotic weapon proficiency (Khopesh)? Couldn't you just pick a longsword or shortsword or elven slimblade I guess (all of which are fairly generic, sans the elfsword) and call it a khopesh? The exotic weapons seem to be based partly on the idea that they'd be harder to use, partly on the idea that they'd be foreign and all the PCs came from Europe, and partly because they have better stats... Which is the ultimate problem for me: Splat book writers don't seem to be on the same page at all. Some add new Gods that directly interfere with the old Gods, even. Also the miniatures system: It's a great system and I love it, but... Let's say you purchase stormwrack and roll a hadozee character. Want to get a miniature for your official character race? There is none. And since you're a monkey dude, there probably will never be a miniature for your character. Ever. Of course, now that Wizards has cancelled the miniatures line, this isn't a problem, but I feel like it's a fix in the same way the fix for me craving taco bell is removing my tongue.

Whoops. That list is way longer than I meant.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 06:04 PM
Don't Like:
The desire people have to balance magic and non-magic: Maybe I'm wrong, but in a world of magic I think people should use magic. I like the idea of pure martial fighters being NPCs, and the martial classes of PCs being represented by the many martially capable magic types, or just accepting that their value is somewhere else.This confuses me. How would one play a character (in this hypothetical system) that doesn't use magic? Just take a magic class and waste a class feature? That seems...odd. :smallconfused:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-05-26, 06:14 PM
Don't Like:
The desire people have to balance magic and non-magic: Maybe I'm wrong, but in a world of magic I think people should use magic. I like the idea of pure martial fighters being NPCs, and the martial classes of PCs being represented by the many martially capable magic types, or just accepting that their value is somewhere else.

... I don't like this at all. Seriously, some people come to D&D wanting to play a wizard, or druid, or cleric. But there are other people who want to play a berserker, knight, thief, scout, acrobat or any of the other 1001 non-magic archetypes.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 06:25 PM
... I don't like this at all. Seriously, some people come to D&D wanting to play a wizard, or druid, or cleric. But there are other people who want to play a berserker, knight, thief, scout, acrobat or any of the other 1001 non-magic archetypes.
I'm with you on this one. I love playing the pirate, merchant prince, gunslinger, or second-story man archetypes. None of which need magic to function.

squeekenator
2011-05-26, 06:51 PM
Things I like about 3.5:

It's not a wargame, it's a fantasy world sim
3.5 is unbalanced. It has a trillionbillion different feats, eleventybillion classes, innumerable magic items. Most of this content adds little or nothing to the actual gameplay. But there mere fact that it exists is something I really like. Systems that revolve around making a balanced, streamlined and easily-understood game are great, but there's also a place for the labyrinthine mess of convoluted rules and options and variants and racial substitution levels and what have you. It's nice to have a system with a driving philosphy of "how much stuff can we let the players do?". This also leads to...

Imbalance! Imbalance everywhere!
As an optimiser, there's nothing better than having fifty different splatbooks full of stuff to look through. I can spend hours trying to find out how to improve my character, tossing up the benefits of five different feats to figure out which one would benefit me most, trying to adapt my build to fit everything I want into 20 levels.

Vancian casting
Does it make sense? I dunno, never really thought too hard about it. Does it work? Hells yeah. Prepared spells may not be the most elegant or intuitive way of making casters work, but it gives them an element of planning and strategy, rather than "I blast it until I run out of mana". That's not to say that other systems are bad, of course. I'm quite partial to the occasional mana-based caster. Which is why it's also nice that all the other kinds of spellcaster exist too. Don't like prepared spellcasting? Play a spontaneous caster. Play a psion. Play a truenamer (lulz).

Class imbalance
Now this is a rather sketchy one that I have mixed feelings on, but I'll list the positives here. Before I start, I'd like to note that I rarely play full casters and never play tier 1, so this is not because I like being the only useful member of the party while everyone else is my meat shield. I like that Bob the human fighter who's really really good at swinging a sword does not work at high levels. At high levels the characters are supposed to be heroes. They battle against demons and devils, they slay dragons, they destroy liches. All of these enemies are supernaturally powerful. Anyone who is only naturally poweful, therefore, should not stand a chance against them. When wizards who can kill with a word are fighting supernatural foes that have been hunting mortals since the dawn of time, 'really REALLY good at hitting people with a big stick' is not an acceptable superpower. One of the complaints about ToB is that it's too anime-esque, too wuxia. That's exactly what a high-level martial character should be. You cannot hope to slay a pit fiend if you're bound by the laws of physics, and expecting Bob to do so is both silly and gamey, which conflicts with my first point.

On the other hand...

Things I dislike about 3.5:

Lack of good martial classes
The fighter is a fine class. It's good for low-level campaigns. It's good for dips. It's good for NPCs. There is nothing wrong with having mundane classes around. The problem with 3.5 martial characters is that the magical martial classes are rare and generally bad. Monks? Paladins? Rangers? All magical martial classes. All pretty awful compared to a full caster, or even just a barbarian. The only proper magical martial classes are the martial adepts, and there's only three of them. For martial classes to be useful 3.5 would have needed more magical martial classes (but not necessarily martial adepts, that's only one kind), more useful magical martial classes and more support for those magical martial classes that worked (ie, martial adepts). With sufficient useful supernaturally-flavoured martial classes, any variation on 'dude who hits dudes with big stick' would be a viable character concept without sacrificing the verisimilitude and internal logic that makes 3.5 such a good fantasy world simulator.

Fortunately that's the only problem I have with it, 3.5 is a great system overall.

Dsurion
2011-05-27, 01:26 AM
I haven't played AD&D or 4th edition to comment much. Just a little 3.x, so all of these comments reflect that.

Like


The core mechanic of roll d20 + modifier vs. target DC is simple enough.
Feats were a cool idea. Essentially a point-buy system added on to a class system.
Class system. I've always been a fan of them for their simplicity.
Eberron. I didn't know it exists until I Magic's Ravnica came out and someone pointed out some similarities, and being a fan of Ravnica, I fell in love with the idea of Eberron, though I don't know if I'd want to run a game in it.
Deities. Some of them are cool, most of the ones that are just bloat are just that. I've always been fond of Pelor and Vecna.
Skills. I like all of them that aren't Craft, Profession, or Use Magic Device. Mostly because the first two were handled horribly. I like the idea of taking ranks in a craft and being able to create things. Profession just isn't worth it unless someone allows you to get other bonuses from it. I just don't like Use Magic Device in general. I really don't think it should be a skill to use half of the magic stuff out there. It should just be available to everyone (with a few exceptions maybe) in the first place.
Magic items. While I think there are way too many that are just the same thing but slightly different, and that they are also occasionally too rigidly defined, the occasional magic item for a character is awesome. A sword that lights on fire on command is awesome. Your "+x sword of this, that, and the other thing because it is level appropriate" is not.
Monsters. There are a lot of them. And a lot of them are really cool with interesting abilities. There are also plenty of asinine monsters that are one creature tacked onto another one that shoots some sort of goo at you. But they have their place occasionally, too.


Dislike


Prestige Classes. Honestly, I think the feat system would've worked for most of the abilities prestige classes grant.
Magic everything. Want to do something vaguely empowering? You need magic, or you suck.
Lawyer magic. Everything is strictly defined in what it can do. Except when it isn't. And there's a lot of that. There's very little mysticism to magic when everything is rigidly defined.
Vancian magic. Vancian magic is stupid. I agree with dsmiles that Slayers d20 had better magic. So did Conan d20.
Stupid prerequisites. I'm not even an optimizer and I can tell a lot of them suck hard. Most should've been boiled down to having a skill as a class skill, ability to cast spells period, and if necessary, also with a level prerequisite. Alignment prerequisites/restrictions are also pretty stupid in most cases.
Skill tricks. I used to like them, because they seemed to be cool things you could add on to your dudes at minimal cost. Then I realized you should have been able to do most of the things they talk about with a skill check (or two, or three) in the first place.
Books were boring compared to other systems, especially it's previous edition.
BAB doesn't mean anything. It's just a static bonus. I think a lot of combat maneuvers could have been dealt with better. For instance, instead of having to take a feat to not provoke attacks of opportunity for a single maneuver(!), I think if you have higher BAB, you simply shouldn't provoke. Also the lack of other options you have. Conan d20 handled this moderately well by adding a bunch of options you automatically have if you have you meet the prerequisites. Not far enough, but a step in the right direction. Frank and K went perhaps a little too far, but scaling feats based on BAB (and also skills) was an awesome idea.
Too many stupid and unnecessary penalties. If you invest a feat in two-weapon fighting, you should be able to do so. Just. Fine. Precise Shot? Really? I would think that would be part of your martial training.
X-per-day abilities. I prefer having features always available. If necessary, with drawbacks for spamming them. I really don't like "recharge" or "cooldown" mechanics, though.



AD&D had awesome settings and books though. Planescape, Ravenloft, and the various historical setting books were all very, very good. In general, the book quality was very, very good.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-05-27, 02:28 AM
I'm with you on this one. I love playing the pirate, merchant prince, gunslinger, or second-story man archetypes. None of which need magic to function.

I wrote it out all wrong. I like playing non-magic types as well. It's more that I'm ok with the idea that doing so would make me perform worse than the party's mage.

I also totally get that it's my opinion and naturally that doesn't apply to everyone or even most people.

Jay R
2011-05-27, 10:33 AM
Why though? You're even acknowledging they're stupid rules. :smallconfused:

Virtually all games, being constructs made by imperfect people, have stupid rules. Our choices are
1. to sneer at all games and quit playing,
2. to improve the rules (like all gamers, I have done this many times),
or most commonly,
3. to forgive them for not being perfect and enjoy playing them anyway.

One tool for enjoying playing under a stupid rule is to invent some sort of justification for it.

"The rule doesn't make sense as a simulation" is not synonymous with "the game is no fun to play."

I've even enjoyed playing a game in which castles can move farther than knights, and another in which the map shows Tennessee bordering New York.

Jay R
2011-05-27, 10:48 AM
...So justifying them rather than improving upon them is the basis for the entire concept of roleplaying games? :smallconfused:

Color me skeptical.

Nobody has said this, or anything like it. Nobody has suggested that we do not also change rules we find inaccurate, or that inventing justifications for the rules as simulation while playing the game as written is "the basis for the entire concept of role-playing games.".

In fact you even quoted Ravens_cry saying "... to not only make it better ...". What's the point of claiming this means not improving on them? You also quoted him saying that the basis for its growth was enjoyment. If you're going to make up something else, why quote the proof that it's not what he said?

I'm well aware that the purpose for Vancian magic is play balance, not simulation. That was explained in the first edition of D&D, which I've owned since 1975. While we played that aspect by the rules, we changed many other rules.

Yes, I do justify rules when I play by them.

Yes, I also change rules to improve games.

No, I have not claimed that either of these is "the basis for the entire concept of roleplaying games". The basis for it, as Ravens_cry said, is that people enjoy it.

Jude_H
2011-05-27, 11:55 AM
It's not a wargame, it's a fantasy world sim
I've seen this dozens of times, but it really doesn't make sense.

The rules are lovingly detailed on the wargame aspect and very brief/flippant on anything involving noncombat conflict resolution, the social consequences of the fantasy elements or motivation for PCs to do much besides fighting things.

Even the detailed combat mechanics are founded in abstractions that sacrifice simulation aspects (HP is the big one). A quarter of the PHB is illustrated with miniatures. Tippyverse threads, the Tome series, &c. do more to illustrate how to simulate a reasonable fantasy environment than anything published.

I'm not trying to attack the edition; it's not a bad thing; I just cannot begin to understand this sentiment.

MarkusWolfe
2011-05-27, 02:59 PM
I liked how all the melee classes worked in 3.5, with the possible exceptions of the monk and all of the classes lack of skills, as well as bards and favored souls. What I didn't like is how the high-tier spell casters worked at the higher levels. While I admit to the functionality of teleportation and buffing magic, it's painful when all of the obstacles are always dealt with by conveniently prepared spells and never by skill and ingenuity. I'd fix that, if I ever got the chance.

squeekenator
2011-05-27, 08:09 PM
I've seen this dozens of times, but it really doesn't make sense.

The rules are lovingly detailed on the wargame aspect and very brief/flippant on anything involving noncombat conflict resolution, the social consequences of the fantasy elements or motivation for PCs to do much besides fighting things.

Even the detailed combat mechanics are founded in abstractions that sacrifice simulation aspects (HP is the big one). A quarter of the PHB is illustrated with miniatures. Tippyverse threads, the Tome series, &c. do more to illustrate how to simulate a reasonable fantasy environment than anything published.

I'm not trying to attack the edition; it's not a bad thing; I just cannot begin to understand this sentiment.

The difference being that a wargame is designed to allow a balanced, tactics- and strategy-intensive battle between two sides, whereas 3.5 is a case of "Frenzied berserker? Sounds great, let's throw it in!". A wargame has a heavy emphasis on making the combat as skill-intensive and fair as possible, giving both sides a variety of options to increase the strategic depth. 4.0 is an example of a wargame. Every class has a combat role in mind and a specific set of abilities that allows it to fulfill that role. Keeping every class balanced is a very important part of the ruleset. 3.5, on the other hand, has rules that feel right and accurately represent how x class would actually work, even if it means it's grotesquely under/overpowered, even if it means that the barbarian's only option in combat is "I hit it with a stick". When you consider adding a new class in 3.5, you don't ask yourself "how does this change the flow of the game?", you ask "how cool is this?".

Jude_H
2011-05-27, 08:26 PM
3.5, on the other hand, has rules that feel right and accurately represent how x class would actually work, even if it means it's grotesquely under/overpowered, even if it means that the barbarian's only option in combat is "I hit it with a stick".
If the Barbarian's only option is "I hit it with a stick," the system is clearly not designed to accurately represent how the archetype would actually work.

3e's wargame is its central focus, just like Mechwarrior and its giant robot fisticuffs. Both are wargames. Both are fun. Both are horribly imbalanced. For some reason, only Mechwarrior admits that last part.

squeekenator
2011-05-27, 08:43 PM
If the Barbarian's only option is "I hit it with a stick," the system is clearly not designed to accurately represent how the archetype would actually work.

3e's wargame is its central focus, just like Mechwarrior and its giant robot fisticuffs. Both are wargames. Both are fun. Both are horribly imbalanced. For some reason, only Mechwarrior admits that last part.

You seem to be using a different definition of 'wargame'. Yes, technically a wargame is a game about some sort of combat. But if we use that definition, pretty much every game other than Barbie's Snip 'n' Style Salon is a wargame. Rather than using that definition, which is so broad that it becomes all but meaningless, I'm defining a wargame as a game focussed around providing a strategically rich, balanced combat system in which the player who better uses the units and options available to them wins. For example, tabletop wargames such as Warhammer. Would it be more realistic for Space Marines to have a rule that represents their acid-spitting abilities? Yes, but it wouldn't add to the balance or strategic depth, so it doesn't exist. 3.5 is absolutely not that.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-05-27, 08:44 PM
If the Barbarian's only option is "I hit it with a stick," the system is clearly not designed to accurately represent how the archetype would actually work.

3e's wargame is its central focus, just like Mechwarrior and its giant robot fisticuffs. Both are wargames. Both are fun. Both are horribly imbalanced. For some reason, only Mechwarrior admits that last part.

Yes, both 3.5 and 4e have a wargame focus, and if you haven't played 4e, don't dismiss it as a wargame because that's what it's best at. But 4e, unlike 3.5, is balanced.

Edit: ninja'd.



You seem to be using a different definition of 'wargame'. Yes, technically a wargame is a game about some sort of combat. But if we use that definition, pretty much every game other than Barbie's Snip 'n' Style Salon is a wargame. Rather than using that definition, which is so broad that it becomes all but meaningless, I'm defining a wargame as a game focussed around providing a strategically rich, balanced combat system in which the player who better uses the units and options available to them wins. For example, tabletop wargames such as Warhammer. Would it be more realistic for Space Marines to have a rule that represents their acid-spitting abilities? Yes, but it wouldn't add to the balance or strategic depth, so it doesn't exist. 3.5 is absolutely not that.
3.5 is exactly that. At least, not any less than 4e is.

Jude_H
2011-05-28, 04:18 AM
Rather than using that definition, which is so broad that it becomes all but meaningless, I'm defining a wargame as a game focussed around providing a strategically rich, balanced combat system in which the player who better uses the units and options available to them wins
I think my definition is very close to yours, minus the word "balanced." That was why I brought up MechWarrior.

Unless you honestly want to take the stance that MechWarrior isn't a war game, balance doesn't factor in.

Unless you want to disregard the central design decisions of D&D 3e (levels, classes, HP, movement mechanics, warriors who never learn to defend*, daily ability limits), it doesn't fit the role of a fantasy world simulator, either in intent or in delivery.

*Preemptive counterargument against "that's what HP are": Defensive skill is not represented by HP as anything but the most tenuous abstraction. If it were, ammunition destruction and weapon-delivered effects like poisons or harpoon barbs would make absolutely no sense, nor would the target-specificity of precision damage.

Eldan
2011-05-28, 06:19 AM
Yes, both 3.5 and 4e have a wargame focus, and if you haven't played 4e, don't dismiss it as a wargame because that's what it's best at. But 4e, unlike 3.5, is balanced.

3.5 is exactly that. At least, not any less than 4e is.

Not really. As he said, 3.5 does not even try to be balanced. Some options are blatantly better than other options, but they all represent how they would work in the given world. 4E does not represent an ability's effect on the world, instead trying to fit it in the balance framework provided by other abilities.

Eldariel
2011-05-28, 07:36 AM
1) Settings: D&D-based systems have brought us some of the richest settings written for any fantasy, or any RPG in general. The whole of Planescape, Dark Sun's post-magocaclyptic world, Ravenloft's horror, Spelljammer's...well, Spelljammer; even the new kid in the block, Eberron, are all extremely detailed, engaging, and quite believable (well, as much as Giant Space Hamsters can be) worlds with tons of history and billions on unique characteristics. Converting can certainly be done, but it would be quite the work.
2) Classes: When I play D&D, I want to play a game with classes. Period. There's plenty of solid classless systems out there; when I play D&D, I want a game with classes. I really like classes as they were in AD&D 2e (and indeed, earlier, but AD&D 2e was perhaps the most elaborate system that still kept the old dynamics); each a distinct role within which they are competent, each desirable for a party for a reason, each with different challenges and growing capabilities. Then I love what 3.X did with multiclassing. The idea of free multiclassing, the idea of tailored Prestige Classes, it's awesome. Of course, the execution sucked monkey balls since casters cannot really multiclass without gimping themselves (outside caster progressing PRCs) and non-casters got, in a word, screwed. And then there's the whole mess that is epic levels. I'm sad that this experiment scared WoTC enough to cause them to abandon the system entirely; my dream was simply a system with freeish multiclassing and no level caps done right. In short, I love the idea behind 3.X. It's everything I ever wanted.
3) Different Resource Models: I love the awesome extra system that 3.X bought us; functional and awesome Psionics, esoteric magic in Binding & Incarnum and more developed Warriors in Tome of Battle. They're just incredibly evocative and well written, and have a permanent place in most fantasy worlds I dream up.
4) Verisimilitude: The attempt to model a world with realistic rules, with magic. 3.X did great job matching up capabilities of mundane with what can be done in real world, while adding the option of magic (and high levels) boosting those capabilities way beyond even real world's toughest human. In a word, I love how it actually models physics quite well on a surface level, without needing excessive bookkeeping or a PhD in Physics to play.
5) Magic: More precisely, dangerous, mysterious magic. All older D&D editions did this really well. Rare magic items you defeat ancient monsters to get with various side effects, cursed items, spells each with a price to them, D&D really did the "incomprehensible magic you can wield...for a price" really well.

jseah
2011-05-28, 11:50 AM
Favourite parts of D&D:
Incredible variety in fluff and fantastic settings and monster information.

3.5's nearly classless system.
4e unified mechanics for powers and special abilities.
... um...
Skills? Maybe?


Disliked parts of D&D:
Lack of flexibility in the rules for spells and special abilities. 3.5 had it bad, 4e was worse.
- A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. Formulaic and inflexible. I'd take a flamethrower type spell over fireball any day. One that covers X squares forwards, sets stuff on fire and reflects on walls, pushes things around with air pressure, that kind of thing. It's real and far more tangible in the game world than just Xd6 damage in Y radius

d20 resolution. Ought to really have been d% with an inverse scaling wrt to difficulty, (stat / difficulty = chance to success), rather than linear.
Linear scaling makes games go off the deep end once you exceed an arbitrary limit.

Aricandor
2011-05-29, 04:48 PM
Like
- The feel of magic being very powerful. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that once you come to a certain point, the guy with the sharp piece of metal is just not going to have even a snowball's chance in hell against the one that can set the first guy's skin on fire with a mere thought.
- The core mechanic of d20/3d6+x vs. difficulty, even though I think the difficulty should be set by rolls a bit more often in combat than they are (see below in dislikes).

Dislike
- Magic is powerful without any sort of difficulty of having achieved the power. The flavour mentions it as hard to learn, yet this is not reflected in the mechanics, which I feel would be largely necessary to justify the raw mechanical power of magic such as it is.
- (Pre-ToB) Melee combat is very rigid and lacking in general. I prefer it if you actively choose the means of defense (dodging/parrying/blocking/whatever) with varying possible side effects and counter attacks opening up if you defend yourself well enough. Even with ToB the fundamental mechanic of just asking "What's your AC?" is a little boring to me.
- The armour system. It just doesn't feel... Armoury to me in the end. What I do enjoy is the thought of heavy armour being sturdy enough that the blows of mortal men matter little, necessitating instead the force of gravity and a hard surface behind to breach it with a straight blow. I.e. making pushing foes prone or up against walls a great strategy to deal with such armour. I don't know if this is actually half-way how it works in real life, but it seems that it'd be pointless with all that armour if it isn't really really tough. :smalltongue:

randomhero00
2011-05-29, 04:51 PM
Fav: making complex characters.

Hated: penalties/losing severely. I just built up that character and story. It shouldn't be for nothing.

oxybe
2011-05-29, 05:44 PM
Fav parts of D&D:


-Distinct classes & roles that fit certain archetypes:
the one main reason i play D&D is the classes. i have WoD, GURPS, etc... for classless gaming. leveling in D&D is pretty effortless: + to most checks and a feat every even level, pick or replace a power as required. in classless games you tend to "level" in short bursts but done more frequently.

roles go hand in hand with the first point, where rather then try to shoehorn any given ability onto a class, you should decide on what you want to do and pick the class that fits that mould best.

i rather disliked the way 3.5 did the free-form multiclassing and i much prefer 2nd ed's multiclassing and 4th ed hybrid classes.

-balanced power between classes:
a level X character of class Y should have options and abilities more or less equal in power to another level X character of class Z.

if you want to simulate wizards being more powerful then warriors, use higher level wizards rather then setting up a false expectation that fighters and wizards are on the same (power) level.

note that i use "power" to signify not simply damage, but the overall scope of options available. there's a link lower in the post where i talk about this in greater detail

-the pulp action-adventure feel:
D&D, to me at least, was always about being the larger then life heroes. the Hercules, Perseus, Conan, etc... characters. brave adventurers who go about righting wrongs and saving the princess against vile necromancers and evil dragons.

they should be able to take a few good solid hits, pick themselves up and push onward.

i'm perfectly happy playing a character who's capable of heroic acts from the get-go, rather then wait until level 5 to name my PC due to the high chance of low-level death due to random happenstance.

-the push for a more streamlined system:
less subsystems the better IMO. this makes the transition between not just characters, but also classes, much easier.

i know in 3.5 several mechanics that weren't used often due to how unwieldily they generally were (grapple... and this was actually IMPROVED over the 2nd ed rules) or how random they seemed in earlier editions (2nd ed's unarmed combat... ugh).

i know a few players who would have liked to try the different casters, but the whole "prepare your spell list" of prepared casters like the wizard/cleric/druid or worse, how few chances you had to change your sorcerer's spell list, turned a few guys i know away from those classes.

i don't see the need for different mechanics between classes if each class has it's own focus.

least favorite parts:

-linear fighters, quadratic wizards:

or specifically the lack of options non-casters have VS the ludicrous options. see the first half of this link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9548763&postcount=28) for a deeper explanation of what i mean.

-skills:

this is something i don't think D&D ever did entirely correctly. it could be because of i recently realized i have a bias against the d20 for task resolution, but i generally find that people supposedly trained in their respective field fail WAY too often.

-the d20 used for task resolution:

this is entirely a bias for my love of GURPS's 3d6 bell curve. but after playing GURPS i've come to the conclusion that the d20 is far too random. in GURPS, 80% of your rolls will be somewhere between 7-14, with the highest frequency between 10 & 11... 25% of all rolls!

in D&D that same 80% frequency would be somewhere between 3-18, a much larger spread, and each number having the same chance to roll.

i've been thinking of adding a houserule where we use 3d6 instead of d20, where you crit on 16-18 (about the same 5% frequency of a nat 20)

-random deaths:
not only the old "roll a fort save or die" but also how low level PCs could be killed by a single lucky blow.

while i have a few good memories of 2nd ed (where i cut my teeth) they were built on a foundation of largely disposable PCs. 3rd ed made it a wee bit more bearable with the auto-max-HD at level 1 and the standardized use of the "death's door" rule at -1 to -9 HP.

the laundry list of immunities or min-max'ed saves are an annoying legacy i'm glad to see gone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is probably more but i can't think of it right now

Jay R
2011-05-30, 05:59 PM
I've seen this dozens of times, but it really doesn't make sense.

The rules are lovingly detailed on the wargame aspect and very brief/flippant on anything involving noncombat conflict resolution, the social consequences of the fantasy elements or motivation for PCs to do much besides fighting things.

Even the detailed combat mechanics are founded in abstractions that sacrifice simulation aspects (HP is the big one). A quarter of the PHB is illustrated with miniatures. Tippyverse threads, the Tome series, &c. do more to illustrate how to simulate a reasonable fantasy environment than anything published.

I'm not trying to attack the edition; it's not a bad thing; I just cannot begin to understand this sentiment.

It's left over from a deliberate attempt in the early eighties to deny that D&D was part of the wargaming industry, for public relations purposes. TSR (or rather, Tactical Studies Rules) was a wargaming company that published miniatures wargames. Then they had a surprise hit on their hands when their medieval game Chainmail was incredibly successful, primarily because of the two page appendix on fantasy units - elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons, etc. D&D came afterward, and was designed around miniature combat. The first real one-on-one fighting rules were not in the original game, but in the first supplement book.

It was undeniably a wargame from a wargame company, but unlike most wargames, it was incredibly popular with kids, whose moms didn't like the idea of their kids playing a wargame, so they started referring to "adventure gaming" to make it sound nicer.

Gamers either ignored it or laughed at it. I used to go to conventions wearing a button that said, "I'm not an adventure gamer. I'm a WARGAMER.

What I liked least about D&D included the silly and obvious publicity stunts that TSR used, often to try to hide from what they were really selling. Their ridiculous claims in support of the game were occasionally as bad as the ridiculous claims being made against it.