PDA

View Full Version : White Wolf vs. Dungeons and Dragons: Character building.



Tanuki Tales
2012-05-07, 09:45 AM
I'm just personally curious to which of the two character building concepts do people prefer.

Do you (as a player or DM/GM/ST/etc.):

A) Prefer selecting some form of archetype and then having a resources pool to customizes each aspect of your character, from attributes to "skills" to "abilities"? [The White Wolf mindset]

Or

B) Prefer a plethora of classes (and possibly prestige classes) to select from, each of them inherently unique and offering options that other classes do not. [The d20 mindset]



In short do you prefer the kind of gaming experience that games made by White Wolf (like Exalted or World of Darkness) offer or do you like the gaming experience offered by the many d20 options out there?

Scots Dragon
2012-05-07, 10:26 AM
Depends on my mood and the context. If I'm itching for a fantasy game, I usually like the class/level system because Dungeons & Dragons ticks all the right nostalgia boxes.

Wings of Peace
2012-05-07, 10:26 AM
I feel like these questions are too simple. For example, A. fails to account for White World classes (in NWoD at least) being much more versatile in terms of what can be done with them than D&D 3.5 classes.

Scots Dragon
2012-05-07, 10:27 AM
Depends on my mood and the context. If I'm itching for a fantasy game, I usually like the class/level system because Dungeons & Dragons ticks all the right nostalgia boxes.

In superhero or sci-fi contexts, I generally tend to prefer point-based systems, though admittedly I dislike White Wolf's system.

hamlet
2012-05-07, 10:32 AM
Well, it's not really a fair comparison in the end.

Originally, D&D never had a "character build" kind of mechanic going. You rolled your abilities, bought your equipment, and walked into the dungeon. It wasn't until the later parts of 2nd edition that "builds" even remotely became relevant, and not until 3.0 that it became a central part of the game.

All that said, I will say I much prefer the older version of D&D character "build" style. Broad based archetypes that, mechanically, are broad and generic enough to support what I'm looking for and the individuation is done as an exercise of role play. I do not equate specialized mechanics with character customization.

Tanuki Tales
2012-05-07, 10:53 AM
I feel like these questions are too simple. For example, A. fails to account for White World classes (in NWoD at least) being much more versatile in terms of what can be done with them than D&D 3.5 classes.

How does A fail to account for it? A is speaking about the d20 mindset while B is more the White Wolf mindset.

Or did you think that since the title was White Wolf v. DnD then A was White Wolf and B was DnD? Because if so, I can go switch them around to avoid future confusion.

Roland St. Jude
2012-05-07, 10:57 AM
How does A fail to account for it? A is speaking about the d20 mindset while B is more the White Wolf mindset.

Or did you think that since the title was White Wolf v. DnD then A was White Wolf and B was DnD? Because if so, I can go switch them around to avoid future confusion.I would recommend that. I knew which was which, but it did seem needlessly confusing to have switched them between title and text. Also, you may just want to label them in the text to really clarify things.

Tanuki Tales
2012-05-07, 11:03 AM
I would recommend that. I knew which was which, but it did seem needlessly confusing to have switched them between title and text. Also, you may just want to label them in the text to really clarify things.

Done, but that's what happens when you make a thread at half past 10 before your cup of Joe for the day, my bad. :smallredface:

The Troubadour
2012-05-07, 11:44 AM
I prefer a sort of middle ground: broad archetypes refined with choice of attributes, skills and special abilities, but with special abilities restricted to certain archetypes. For instance, a Mage-type character could still buy up his physical and combat abilities, but he wouldn't have access to the Warrior-type's exclusive abilities - like, just for an example, additional melee attacks, for instance.

Hmmm... This actually seems to be closer to White Wolf's model than I thought at first.

Sidmen
2012-05-07, 01:22 PM
I am strongly in favor of the "just buy what you want" style of character creation. While yeah, I can choose from hundreds of classes, and choose a few feats from thousands of those, I can never really get the character I want with DnD classes - not in the way I can get him by just picking the stats and abilities I want.

Over time, i have constantly grown more and more annoyed at the lackings of class-based systems. When I want to get better at fighting with swords for whatever reason - say my magic failed me - I can't just do that, no, my strength cannot be increased until level 4, and only by such an insignificant amount that I'll never become a competent swordsman.

Sorry, its kinda hard to explain. Whenever I try to play a game in Pathfinder or DnD 3.5 I always feel like the engine is slamming its fist into my face saying "no, you can't make that character, not without reading 1,000,000 pages of paid-for material to find the tiny little prestige class that can make it work."

Shadowknight12
2012-05-07, 01:55 PM
I have to say both creation styles have something I like and something I don't. I like WW's "the things you can do" customisability. Everyone has the same skill/attributes/merit dots to distribute, which makes it very fair and balanced regardless of the splats you end up using (also, WW splats are like D20 classes, the only difference is that WW assumes you'll all be playing the same class, while D20 assumes you'll all be different). However, I dislike the lack of options, since most of them are very splat-specific. Don't like vampires? Too bad, that's 50% of all the options in the system out the window. Do you like a splat with little support, like Geist? Get used to the same options over and over.

From D20, I like the variety of options and how easy it is to multiclass or take options from many different sources, but I dislike how difficult it is to properly customise a character. Most of the time, yeah, the options are there, but there's usually only one or two paths that are actually playable in any given class, and trying to mix and match ends up ruining your character.

The Glyphstone
2012-05-07, 02:24 PM
I prefer a sort of middle ground: broad archetypes refined with choice of attributes, skills and special abilities, but with special abilities restricted to certain archetypes. For instance, a Mage-type character could still buy up his physical and combat abilities, but he wouldn't have access to the Warrior-type's exclusive abilities - like, just for an example, additional melee attacks, for instance.

Hmmm... This actually seems to be closer to White Wolf's model than I thought at first.

I've heard that Anima:Beyond Fantasy does something like this - you choose an archtype/template like Mage or Warrior, which gives you a discount when using build points or XP to purchase abilities related to that. So a Mage can buy combat skills and physical stat increases, but they'll be more expensive for him than a Warrior, just like the Warrior will pay a premium to learn magic spells.

Arbane
2012-05-07, 03:43 PM
Can I take option C: Freeform point-buy character design (GURPS, HERO) or D: description-based character design (HeroQuest, FATE), instead?

Yora
2012-05-07, 03:52 PM
I have a lot of problems with both, but generally I tend a lot more towards class and level based systems.

Character Point based systems require a lot of work and bookkeeping, for what I consider a very small gain. You don't need to assign tiny modifiers to every small detail. Just the rough outline and the rest is done through narrating your actions.
Class based systems, and especially d20, often feature a very steep power curve as characters gain levels. However, that's not really an inherent feature of class based systems in general, but mostly a mistake shared by all class based systems I know. Also, d20 has way to many rules for minor things.

Dragon Age RPG is probably closest to a good middle way. Basic numbers like ability score, equipment proficiencies, and number of special abilities are based on classes and levels, but you get to chose a special ability and a new skill at every level.

The Troubadour
2012-05-07, 04:30 PM
I've heard that Anima:Beyond Fantasy does something like this - you choose an archtype/template like Mage or Warrior, which gives you a discount when using build points or XP to purchase abilities related to that.

Oh, some systems do it. For instance, "Cyberpunk 2020" was a point-buy system, but each Profession had a single special ability which was exclusive to it. Likewise, "Dragonlance Fifth Age" had no classes and your attributes, skills and proficiencies were defined by a combination of randomness and point-buy, but in later sourcebooks a concept similar to AD&D's kits showed up, each with their own special abilities as well (though many were basically variations on "gain a bonus to a specific set of skills/spells/maneuvers").

Kaun
2012-05-07, 06:58 PM
I am not a massive fan of class/level based games, played plenty of them but i generally prefer alternatives.

eggs
2012-05-07, 08:10 PM
I'm not a huge fan of either, but I can stand Storyteller.

Just to nitpick further, d20 and class-based are somewhat different. Class-based systems tend to be restrictive (in that only members of X archetype get the cluster of benefits Y and Z), but those tend to be constrained to a specific archetype, using the restrictions to reinforce the genre staples. d20, on the other hand, is a weird amalgam of point-buy traits and class archetypes, in which abilities are bought with a jumbled mess of currencies including feats, skills, levels and wealth, which simultaneously maintains the archetypal purposes of classes and seems to make every effort to slough that baggage through multiclassing mechanics and archetypal alterations.

Can I take option C: Freeform point-buy character design (GURPS, HERO) or D: description-based character design (HeroQuest, FATE), instead?
But to be honest, I really want to say D.

Sir_Mopalot
2012-05-07, 10:08 PM
I think that both are equally valid, and say something important about your game and the world it exists in. I think it's incredibly elegant that creating a character in NWoD means creating a vanilla human in his or her totality, and then dropping the supernatural hammer on them. NWoD creates a world that is very much supposed to be regular people who, at some point along the line, got dropped into a highly irregular environment.
You can then contrast it with D&D, where one's class inherently marks them as different and more than the average person, since they're are (presumably) playing as a PC class. This creates the inherent assumption of a world where heroes and villains clash, with the common man just trying to stay out of the way.
Both systems work really well to create a world that feels a certain way, and it's up to the GM to figure out how he wants his world to feel. As an example, I actually was considering this question recently. I have a game based on Mass Effect in the works, and since I'm going to have to hack something up regardless of what system I use, I had some choices to make. I actually found Mass Effect hacks for both NWoD and Diaspora, both good games, but the presumptive setting I'm going for is the party being a highly trained, well equipped team of operatives, closer to a Delta Force game than a game of political intrigue or exploration. That plus the very swingy nature of a d20 appealing to me in a game where characters can overperform to a surprising degree, meant that I started hacking up D20 Modern to fit the game I was looking to run.

Gemini Lupus
2012-05-07, 11:17 PM
As has been said before, it depends on my mood. If I want the epic fantasy, I generally go with D&D. If I want something where I'm closer to mundane and the game is going to be more story/character driven, give me WW. And before I start a flame war, I know that D&D can host a wide variety of gaming styles, it does lend itself to combat.

Knaight
2012-05-07, 11:42 PM
I generally favor option A, though if I can bypass the archetypes entirely it's an improvement. With that said, I generally dislike White Wolf's products specifically (with the exception of part of their fluff). Also, if I can push points around between the different parts of a character, instead of only within each part, that is for the better. Think ORE, or to some extent GURPS.

TheOOB
2012-05-08, 03:42 AM
I like something of a middle ground, but I tend to prefer class and level based systems over classless systems.

They both have their advantages. A classless system offers unlimited versatility. You can build your character any way you want, and can do things your way. You are free to make whichever kind of character you can think up. On the downside, it's hard to make your character truly unique, as any ability that is useful enough every player will get, and oftentimes the only difference between characters is how many dice they roll on certain tests(and that difference will lessen, as characters will inevitably advance what skills are useful in a given game).

Class and level based systems give you a way of having unique abilities. A D&D bard can use bard songs, and no other character can. Only a rogue can sneak attack, and so on. It makes every character different, and have a unique role in the group. The fighter fights, the wizard casts spells, and the bard sings. Of course, as a disadvantage, a pure class and level based system has no customization, you are forced to play one of the classes available.

Naturally, most good systems do a little of both. V:tR allows you to pick a Clan and Covenant, which helps determine what disciplines you can learn, but is otherwise has an organic character advancement system. D&D is a class and level based system, but you can use multi-classing, feats, skills, and magic items to customize your character.

I think one of my favorite mixes of the two is Legend of the Five Rings 4e. Each player has a school, which gives them a series of unique abilities, and a few starting skills. These abilities get more powerful as your character advances, and mean a lot(A courtier won't be able to stand up in a fight aginest a bushi, only a shugenja can cast spells, ect). The beauty is that the game uses an organic character advancement system, and you don't have to spend xp to raise your school directly, it just gets better as you advance your character. So you can have a fighter who paints, and you become a stronger character by doing so.

Knaight
2012-05-08, 03:51 AM
They both have their advantages. A classless system offers unlimited versatility. You can build your character any way you want, and can do things your way. You are free to make whichever kind of character you can think up. On the downside, it's hard to make your character truly unique, as any ability that is useful enough every player will get, and oftentimes the only difference between characters is how many dice they roll on certain tests(and that difference will lessen, as characters will inevitably advance what skills are useful in a given game).

You need to find some better classless systems, as it is absolutely trivial to include likely unique abilities that not everybody will get in a classless system. See: REIGN, which has a bunch of abilities that come to exactly that, where almost all of them are useful but only a few can be had by any one character due to all being conditionally useful, and where not being unique is actively difficult to achieve.

Morph Bark
2012-05-08, 05:13 AM
Combine A and B and you get Dungeons: The Dragoning. :smalltongue:

SiuiS
2012-05-08, 05:24 AM
I'm just personally curious to which of the two character building concepts do people prefer.

Do you (as a player or DM/GM/ST/etc.):

A) Prefer selecting some form of archetype and then having a resources pool to customizes each aspect of your character, from attributes to "skills" to "abilities"? [The White Wolf mindset]

Or

B) Prefer a plethora of classes (and possibly prestige classes) to select from, each of them inherently unique and offering options that other classes do not. [The d20 mindset]



In short do you prefer the kind of gaming experience that games made by White Wolf (like Exalted or World of Darkness) offer or do you like the gaming experience offered by the many d20 options out there?

I'll be honest and say that I find the difference between the two to be mostly in the eye of the beholder. I can do anything - literally anything - I want for a character in D&D. The few times it's not directly in the rules I can "file off the serial numbers" of something 90% similar.

WoD is interesting because in the newest iteration, morality MUST be a part of your character. This is nice, since some people just don't know how to handle it. And I find at the levels I most often play D&D (ungodly high or gritty low) the white wolf line does about the same job of representing things. I am actually going to run my players through a medieval nWoD game and play it basically like D&D, and let the mechanics generate the feel for me.


I prefer a sort of middle ground: broad archetypes refined with choice of attributes, skills and special abilities, but with special abilities restricted to certain archetypes. For instance, a Mage-type character could still buy up his physical and combat abilities, but he wouldn't have access to the Warrior-type's exclusive abilities - like, just for an example, additional melee attacks, for instance.

Hmmm... This actually seems to be closer to White Wolf's model than I thought at first.

aye, there is a lot of overlap. You're right though; it depends on the game. White wolf products just sort of fail in general at the level of minion-stomping badassery that D&D can foster, so heroics feel different. And D&D can't quite make a low level game work, because everyone is chomping at the bit for their next few levels or magic items, and ignores the inherent role play of getting to know the psychopath you're traveling alone in the wilderness with, armed to the teeth. I guarantee that, despite what D&D tells you, you don't match for twelve hours a day without small talk.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-05-08, 09:38 AM
You need to find some better classless systems, as it is absolutely trivial to include likely unique abilities that not everybody will get in a classless system. See: REIGN, which has a bunch of abilities that come to exactly that, where almost all of them are useful but only a few can be had by any one character due to all being conditionally useful, and where not being unique is actively difficult to achieve.

Not to mention that the law of comparative advantage is still in place: If a system only allows you to be really good at a handful of things, then the optimal way to build a party is to have everyone specialize in different things, then have the party specialist handle each situation. E.g., you're better off if only one person has a high lockpicking skill, and you just have them pick the locks every time, than trying to give everyone in the party a lockpicking skill.

The only time freeform systems resemble his conception is if the system requires something of all characters, all the time, so it's always better to invest in this one thing as much as possible at the expense of your specialty. (In which case, the system is just poorly designed and giving you false choices, which is a problem that can occur anywhere.)

bokodasu
2012-05-08, 01:26 PM
It's odd - I like point-buy systems, but I play class-based systems. I mean, I've been reading the Exalted book for two weeks now and I'm only through the first chapter. I just don't have the time to really understand all the options, and I like feeling like I know what I'm doing, which is easier in a more restricted system. (Whether it's actually true or not is an entirely different thing.)

Hiro Protagonest
2012-05-08, 09:59 PM
It's odd - I like point-buy systems, but I play class-based systems. I mean, I've been reading the Exalted book for two weeks now and I'm only through the first chapter. I just don't have the time to really understand all the options, and I like feeling like I know what I'm doing, which is easier in a more restricted system. (Whether it's actually true or not is an entirely different thing.)

...The first chapter doesn't have a thing to do with the mechanics. That's WW's trademark amazing fluff. And it took you two weeks? Really? I can probably shorten that. Hell, I can shorten that and give you MORE information.

bokodasu
2012-05-09, 10:35 AM
...The first chapter doesn't have a thing to do with the mechanics. That's WW's trademark amazing fluff. And it took you two weeks? Really? I can probably shorten that. Hell, I can shorten that and give you MORE information.

Well, yeah, I know that now, but I had to read it first to find that out. Anyway, I was just pointing out that if I had infinite leisure time, I'd play point-buy systems, but I don't - I barely have 10 or 15 minutes a day that isn't spoken for, so systems where you can pick a character first and then just read those bits are the way it's going to have to be for now.

(Seriously, I cannot wait to move to the retirement home. Eight hours a day with nothing to do but play tabletop RPGs! The campaigns will be truly epic.)

The Glyphstone
2012-05-09, 10:39 AM
Well, yeah, I know that now, but I had to read it first to find that out. Anyway, I was just pointing out that if I had infinite leisure time, I'd play point-buy systems, but I don't - I barely have 10 or 15 minutes a day that isn't spoken for, so systems where you can pick a character first and then just read those bits are the way it's going to have to be for now.

(Seriously, I cannot wait to move to the retirement home. Eight hours a day with nothing to do but play tabletop RPGs! The campaigns will be truly epic.)

Yeah, but you'll only be able to play one-shots, since you'll forget everything by the next day.:smallsmile: Or maybe not, but the young'uns will still be amused by your solid-paper, non-HUD character sheets and complete lack of 3-d holographic renderings like 9.5 uses for its modules.

Morty
2012-05-09, 10:40 AM
I agree that the choice presented here is too simplistic, but I definetly prefer option A. Either give me wide archetypes, like World of Darkness, or just let me build my character as I please, like GURPS or other systems. The classes as D&D use them don't really have any benefits to them as far as I'm concerned.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-05-09, 12:29 PM
There really are pros and cons to both. Point-buy customization is wonderful, and allows for a very unique character... but it requires a lot more system mastery to make good choices, and it's harder to regulate power. In, say, D&D, most of your abilities come from your classes, for better or worse, and it's generally hard to screw them up. I mean, feat choices and such can have a big effect, but even a barbarian who takes crappy feats will be reasonably useful in-game. A point-buy character who buys the wrong abilities will be absolutely useless.

As for the second point... it's easy to tell approximately what a D&D character can do, given how easily classes can be summarized. I can look at a sheet and say "oh, he's a rogue/barbarian. He's going to have some stealth skills, can flip out and hit things in combat, and probably will spend a lot of time flanking and such for sneak attack bonuses." It takes a lot more system mastery to look at, say, an Exalted character's list of charms and tell the same thing.

Weimann
2012-05-09, 05:40 PM
Between these two, I'd take White Wolf's model.

Misery Esquire
2012-05-09, 05:50 PM
Yeah, but you'll only be able to play one-shots, since you'll forget everything by the next day.:smallsmile: Or maybe not, but the young'uns will still be amused by your solid-paper, non-HUD character sheets and complete lack of 3-d holographic renderings like 9.5 uses for its modules.

Bah, 9.5 is overrated. 8 made proper use of dyadic movement and the nonlinear self-randomizing preference based magic knowledge system let warriors do something other than swing a sword with thier quickened second swift action during the parry phase. I mean, sure, sorcerer had a tendancy to SUDDENLY DRAGONS, but you could just houserule the Emergent Bloodlines into what they should've read. I mean cyborg Monty Cook II's digital basilisk-head obviously had a memetic virus installed to erase the serial lines during the errata phase. :smallannoyed:

TheOOB
2012-05-09, 06:03 PM
You need to find some better classless systems, as it is absolutely trivial to include likely unique abilities that not everybody will get in a classless system. See: REIGN, which has a bunch of abilities that come to exactly that, where almost all of them are useful but only a few can be had by any one character due to all being conditionally useful, and where not being unique is actively difficult to achieve.

Perhaps, the organic systems I've played include nWoD, Shadowrun 4e, 7th Sea, L5R 4e, and Paranoia, and all of them(save Paranoia and mortal nWoD), include some basic semblance of a class system. Mortals in nWoD get boring after a few sessions, and if you live through a few sessions of Paranoia your GM is doing it wrong.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 06:03 PM
Bah, 9.5 is overrated. 8 made proper use of dyadic movement and the nonlinear self-randomizing preference based magic knowledge system let warriors do something other than swing a sword with thier quickened second swift action during the parry phase. I mean, sure, sorcerer had a tendancy to SUDDENLY DRAGONS, but you could just houserule the Emergent Bloodlines into what they should've read. I mean cyborg Monty Cook II's digital basilisk-head obviously had a memetic virus installed to erase the serial lines during the errata phase. :smallannoyed:

Bah! 8e was too videogamey! We old grognards stick to 7e, the one true edition of D&D, which was broken as hell, but was launched during the multi-nanoprocessor boom and everyone had a computer with a ton of processing power, so we could afford the seven point sixty-three trillion tables compiled for every single thing you could possibly roll for. Ahhh, the old "Chased by a rabid possum on the 895th layer of the Abyss while the party paladin is a techno-ghost and the rogue turned half-celestial thanks to the Mirror of Random Transformation" table. After all, it was the edition's tagline! "We have a table for that."

Hiro Protagonest
2012-05-09, 06:37 PM
Bah! 8e was too videogamey! We old grognards stick to 7e, the one true edition of D&D, which was broken as hell, but was launched during the multi-nanoprocessor boom and everyone had a computer with a ton of processing power, so we could afford the seven point sixty-three trillion tables compiled for every single thing you could possibly roll for. Ahhh, the old "Chased by a rabid possum on the 895th layer of the Abyss while the party paladin is a techno-ghost and the rogue turned half-celestial thanks to the Mirror of Random Transformation" table. After all, it was the edition's tagline! "We have a table for that."

7e had so many spelling errors. For example, they spelled opossum wrong. :smalltongue:

But all this D&D stuff is crap. Exalted 6e and World of Darkness 7.5 are much better, White Wolf's finally getting a grasp for this mechanics stuff.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 06:45 PM
7e had so many spelling errors. For example, they spelled opossum wrong. :smalltongue:

I beg the entirety of your pardon (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possum?s=t)! :smalltongue:


But all this D&D stuff is crap. Exalted 6e and World of Darkness 7.5 are much better, White Wolf's finally getting a grasp for this mechanics stuff.

At the expense of fluff! After the Third World War, it's all been gloom, doom and grimdark from that company! WW has always been headline-chasing since like, last century.

Tanuki Tales
2012-05-09, 10:37 PM
These last few posts are full of so much win. :smallbiggrin:

Jack of Spades
2012-05-10, 12:17 AM
(The OP)

I tend to prefer WoD style character building, of the two, simply because my tendency to build the character in my head leads me to end up with something that could only make sense as a mix of two or three DnD classes. On the other hand, in WoD and similar systems I can just go for it. Also, DnD's progression just doesn't feel right to me. It goes in jumps and starts, and the things that really matter (attributes, feats) only change in small amounts and over long periods of time. If I want to raise my character's strength in DnD, I have to wait until an arbitrary level. If I want to do the same in WoD, I save up a chunk of XP, mention to my ST that my character is hitting the gym lately, and I'm golden.

However, my favorite character creation/progression model is the one found in Deadlands, because it has a good mix of the fate/destiny point mechanic and the points-based XP framework, as well as being one of the few systems in which a day one character doesn't make a complete fool of himself if he tries to do something he wasn't specifically built for. That, and who can avoid the allure of drawing from a poker deck and throwing around chips as central play mechanic? :smallbiggrin:

horngeek
2012-05-10, 12:27 AM
Agreed on the win.

That said, I really like the FATE system more than anything else, although part of that is certainly the fact that I got the DFRPG as my first FATE book. It's in universe with the titular character making comments. :D

That said, FATE is very flexible, and creates complex interactions with very simple rules. Fudge dice take a bit of getting used to, but it's a very good system.

The Glyphstone
2012-05-10, 06:46 AM
At least we 7th-through-9th editioners won't have to put up with how 16th Edition dumbed the game down in 2833. It's nothing but a set of very expensive dice. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2007-11-11)

Tanuki Tales
2012-05-10, 12:08 PM
At least we 7th-through-9th editioners won't have to put up with how 16th Edition dumbed the game down in 2833. It's nothing but a set of very expensive dice. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2007-11-11)

Win, just win.

Scowling Dragon
2012-05-10, 12:42 PM
I prefer levels. Their just more exiting to reach towards. Even though point buy is better.

Emmerask
2012-05-10, 04:40 PM
As a dm I very much prefer point buy based systems, you can hand out small rewards that are actually tangible in d&d you either hand out enough xp to level up or the "reward" is pretty much a waste.

Actually the same holds true as a player, getting 3000xp when 6000 are needed to level up is a let down, getting xyz <insert points for the system>, yep I can do something with them, increase a skill weapon ability or a spell or statpoint...

As a dm in d&d you either have the option to give your pcs very very little, which in turn leads to slow or even worse stagnant character progression which most players donīt really like... or you give them enough to progress reasonably well (ie every second to third session) but then you reach the god destroying kill moonsized amoeba that eat the sun levels way to early to tell any kind of none super ultra powered story...

russdm
2012-05-10, 05:40 PM
I have played Old World of Darkness and found its point buy system fine. I have also played 3.5 quite a bit. I would personally say that they are equal in my eyes. I can make characters just as easily in one as the other, if i remember that no matter how many points/options i have, the fact is i can't make any crazily insanely powerful character. Each party member needs to be able to contribute just as much as my character could in the situation.

I have found that when you don't have any character idea in your head, it won' matter what system you are using because it won't work. You need to have a character idea first, then you can see who well it works to make real. How effective the systems are at doing so is dependent on your own experiences at making characters. For me, its easy to use both. For others, it will be different.

As for power levels, in D&D, they happen to be out of whack anyway. The various spellcasting classes can be anywhere from 50% more powerful to 100% more powerful to 50% weaker or worse. For non-spellcasters, it tends to fall to about 75% to 95% in actual effective power level. Then throw in the magic items and it gets more off. And the D&D game assumes that you quickly reach the 'fighting god destroying kill moonsized amoeba' point and continue on from there. After all, Epic is viewed as a good stopping point.

Fable Wright
2012-05-10, 05:56 PM
As a dm I very much prefer point buy based systems, you can hand out small rewards that are actually tangible in d&d you either hand out enough xp to level up or the "reward" is pretty much a waste.

Actually the same holds true as a player, getting 3000xp when 6000 are needed to level up is a let down, getting xyz <insert points for the system>, yep I can do something with them, increase a skill weapon ability or a spell or statpoint...

As a dm in d&d you either have the option to give your pcs very very little, which in turn leads to slow or even worse stagnant character progression which most players donīt really like... or you give them enough to progress reasonably well (ie every second to third session) but then you reach the god destroying kill moonsized amoeba that eat the sun levels way to early to tell any kind of none super ultra powered story...

Counterpoint: Loot. Every few encounters gives you some form of loot, which can be used to save up for big things, like upgrading your weapon to the next enhancement bonus, or some small utility thing like Anklets of Transportation or a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor. Heck, there's even the option of custom loot that you can't find in the books that the DM made for your character specifically, if your character can figure out how it works. There's always something you can do with loot in 3.5, regardless of how much or how little it is. At the very least, you can buy some alchemical items to give your sword a special weapon property, in case you didn't want to have a silvered weapon the whole game, or something like Alchemist's fire or getting a Permanencied buff applied. Or, you could pay to get a new spell in your spellbook or invest in a few scrolls for a rainy day. Just saying, level-based systems aren't just composed of waiting for the next level. On the other hand, in Exalted, you can't really hand out magic items that have cool effects all willy-nilly; your characters need to invest the points to be able to wield that Daiklaive that you included in the loot, while they instead they choose to invest their points in just about anything but that.

Personally, I prefer level-based systems. I checked out Exalted, and it seems fairly solid. You can do quite a lot. Almost anything, really. The problem with that, though, is that there are more limits on what you can safely do and what you can't than you initially think. You could try to invest in those martial art charms... but if you try to get too far in the chain too quickly, then you skimped out on some necessary Ox-Body Techniques that your character needs to stay alive. You can invest in all sorts of things... but really you can't, because there are all these Excellencies that you need to invest in that are much more important. While I like the concept, I can't really get behind the system. Level-based systems, though, have a basic framework to start with and make sure that you have most of the bases covered, such as getting more hit points, keeping up your attack bonuses, and so on, while giving you interesting abilities based on your class that you want your character to work towards and giving you enough customization to have your character do the things you want them to, outside of their class's specialization. Of course, this doesn't really hold up for things like second edition that are a more pure distillation of the class-based character mechanic, to which I would probably prefer a more point-buy oriented system. However, I would usually prefer a level-based system like D&D 3.5 or Legend to a White Wolf game like Exalted or World of Darkness.

erikun
2012-05-10, 11:13 PM
Ah, the old point-buy vs level discussion. I don't think I've seen one of these since D&D4 came out.

My preference depends on what kind of a game I'll be playing. If we're talking about a game where I'm expected to create a complex and nuanced character, then I prefer the point buy system where I can tailor to my preferred talents and faults. If we're talking about a quick game without a lot of background to characters, then I prefer a level-based system for the quick character generation and ability-packages.


This is also why I don't like D&D3's character creation method. Like, at all. It just takes too long to put a character together, and you have to comb through a half-dozen section (and possibly multiple sourcebooks) looking for all the details. What you want to make is frequently disallowed, and while the game seems to have no problem with starting wizards possessing 7+ spells per day, a monk flurrying a katana isn't something that the system allows until mid-levels with a prestige class.

Vizzerdrix
2012-05-11, 01:05 AM
I've always found the class system to be confining at the best of times.

WHat I prefer is something more akin to how Shadowrun 4e lets you build characters.

Lord Raziere
2012-05-11, 01:09 AM
Combine A and B and you get Dungeons: The Dragoning. :smalltongue:

Or, Dungeons of Darkness

DnD…..given the WoD treatment. *Evil Laugh*

much different from Dungeons: The Dragoning.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-11, 01:15 AM
Or, Dungeons of Darkness

DnD…..given the WoD treatment. *Evil Laugh*

much different from Dungeons: The Dragoning.

Another portmanteau, equally valid, would be World of Dragons.

The Troubadour
2012-05-11, 07:13 AM
Another portmanteau, equally valid, would be World of Dragons.

If there isn't a system out with that name yet, there should be. :-)

MReav
2012-05-11, 08:11 AM
If there isn't a system out with that name yet, there should be. :-)

Yes. There absolutely should.

Emmerask
2012-05-11, 08:39 AM
Counterpoint: Loot. Every few encounters gives you some form of loot, which can be used to save up for big things, like upgrading your weapon to the next enhancement bonus, or some small utility thing like Anklets of Transportation or a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor. Heck, there's even the option of custom loot that you can't find in the books that the DM made for your character specifically, if your character can figure out how it works. There's always something you can do with loot in 3.5, regardless of how much or how little it is. At the very least, you can buy some alchemical items to give your sword a special weapon property, in case you didn't want to have a silvered weapon the whole game, or something like Alchemist's fire or getting a Permanencied buff applied. Or, you could pay to get a new spell in your spellbook or invest in a few scrolls for a rainy day. Just saying, level-based systems aren't just composed of waiting for the next level. On the other hand, in Exalted, you can't really hand out magic items that have cool effects all willy-nilly; your characters need to invest the points to be able to wield that Daiklaive that you included in the loot, while they instead they choose to invest their points in just about anything but that.


True, though for me I really prefer for my character to get better at what he does and not the things I carry around to make me better (yes I make a distinction between that^^).
So for me as a player getting new loots is fine but I donīt really count it as my character progressing.

TheOOB
2012-05-11, 05:05 PM
I've always found the class system to be confining at the best of times.

WHat I prefer is something more akin to how Shadowrun 4e lets you build characters.

I don't know, I really don't like shadowrun character creation. It's one of the easiest systems to break out there, and it encourages you to literally min/max your stats.

DragonclawExia
2012-05-12, 06:00 PM
Well, imo, the White Wolf is better if you don't want to spend too much time on Character Building and more time role-playing.

No offense to DnD Class Systems, but making a viable Build can be rather difficult on your own without outside help, especially if your GM is out to get you and your party.

There is alot more substance to DnD Classes though, but to the average gamer, it's rather complicated to pick up and play easily.



On the flip side, White Wolf is kinda awkward as it's sorta stuck inbetween trying to be a Choose your own Horror Novel and an Actual Role-Playing Game.

The Point System also gets old fast, as Metagaming causes people to basically make a Point-Based "Class" anyway.

But in my experience, trying to play DnD tends to involve Class Struggles and Killer GMs and WoD tends to involve Bad Roleplaying and Railroading GMs.

So...ummm...yeah.

Ironvyper
2012-05-13, 06:01 PM
I much prefer the WW way of doing things. Classes feel very limiting to me and levels just dont feel right. One minute your one way then you kill a few orcs and suddenly your better at everything. Or near enough as not to matter. I really prefer upping things a few at a time so i can organically create my character.