PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy Heart Breakers - mechanics that break the heart



Pages : [1] 2 3

Tanarii
2018-12-27, 06:36 AM
Shamelessly doing that thing where I want to post about something, and trying to generalize a thread out of it. :smallwink:

I have a collection of old Plladium books, and sometimes when I'm smoking a cigar I browse through one for nostalgic reasons. Palladium is one of my favorite Fantasy Heart Breakers. It's a series of wonderfully evocative settings, all with Siembieda's clunky Palladium system rammed down them.

I was going through Beyond the Supernatural, a book about Supernatural Horror, and using your carefully build Palladium System Martial Arts Physical Program Modern Weapons master to shoot up a series of eldritch abominations. Or at least, that's how we played it when I was a teenager.

Palladium system has many mechanics that break the heart, from the slow and buggy combat system, to the kludged together skill system, to horrific balance issues.

But the mechanic that really breaks my heart is how poorly ability scores were done. There are 8 of them, you're supposed to roll old school with 3d6, and on a 16+ you roll another d6 and add it on. In the vast majority of Palladium games, other than 17+ scores, and whatever scores you need to qualify for a class, only three scores matter. Physical Strength for carrying capacity, Physical Endurance for HPs, and Speed for ... well, running speed.

Unlike older D&D (which I gather the system was derived from), there are a plethora of % based skills for doing things. I've never seen a hint you're supposed to roll d20 under an ability score to do something, unlike AD&Ds NWPs later formalized for that system. So you can literally erase any of the other 5 ability scores that are 16 or less off your character sheet once you pick a class.

To wrap up this ramble, the general question: what's your favorite fantasy heartbreaker poorly designed mechanic?

Erulasto
2018-12-27, 07:53 AM
Shamelessly doing that thing where I want to post about something, and trying to generalize a thread out of it. :smallwink:

I have a collection of old Plladium books, and sometimes when I'm smoking a cigar I browse through one for nostalgic reasons. Palladium is one of my favorite Fantasy Heart Breakers. It's a series of wonderfully evocative settings, all with Siembieda's clunky Palladium system rammed down them.

I was going through Beyond the Supernatural, a book about Supernatural Horror, and using your carefully build Palladium System Martial Arts Physical Program Modern Weapons master to shoot up a series of eldritch abominations. Or at least, that's how we played it when I was a teenager.

Palladium system has many mechanics that break the heart, from the slow and buggy combat system, to the kludged together skill system, to horrific balance issues.

But the mechanic that really breaks my heart is how poorly ability scores were done. There are 8 of them, you're supposed to roll old school with 3d6, and on a 16+ you roll another d6 and add it on. In the vast majority of Palladium games, other than 17+ scores, and whatever scores you need to qualify for a class, only three scores matter. Physical Strength for carrying capacity, Physical Endurance for HPs, and Speed for ... well, running speed.

Unlike older D&D (which I gather the system was derived from), there are a plethora of % based skills for doing things. I've never seen a hint you're supposed to roll d20 under an ability score to do something, unlike AD&Ds NWPs later formalized for that system. So you can literally erase any of the other 5 ability scores that are 16 or less off your character sheet once you pick a class.

To wrap up this ramble, the general question: what's your favorite fantasy heartbreaker poorly designed mechanic?

Oh god. I got my RP start on Rifts, and as much as I have a nostalgic love for everything Palladium (especially Nightbane, mostly because I loved the complexity of options that you could use to put together a character), it really isn't a great system. And I will always love the Adventure in the Northern Wilderness book because of the adventure: The Forest of Broken Wings.

Loved the idea of players getting cancer from fighting a radioactive dragon in a fantasy setting. Hehe

I used to use Hero's Unlimited for all my superhero needs, up to and including within the last year or two. But that's because I'd been living under a rock and hadn't heard of Mutants and Masterminds yet.

I think the MDC > SDC = HP system was one that bothered me a lot. The idea that a vagabond with a Wilks Ion Pistol (1d4 mega-damage, IIRC) could absolutely vaporize any normal human who was caught with their proverbial (or literal) pants down sucked.

I always appreciated Physical Prowess as well as a stat, however, because of the bonus to hit/parry/dodge.

Friv
2018-12-27, 12:19 PM
Years ago, one of my first RPGs was the Advanced Fighting Fantasy (First Edition) roleplaying game. It was designed to take the solo player game, and turn it into a multi-player game.

The core system was almost beautifully simple, aside from one glaring disaster. You had scores for Skill, Stamina, and Luck. Skill determined how good you were at taking action, Stamina determined your ability to survive battle and hardship, and Luck determined your ability for random things to go your way. To further differentiate players, you had individual Skills - things like Climb, or Swords, which boosted your Skill rating for that specialty. Magic was in the game, but taking it reduced your Skill rating for every non-spell action, and casting spells cost you Stamina, so while it was very powerful, you couldn't do a lot of it. It was a pretty good trade-off.

Except that the game also had random character creation. Skill 1d6+6, Stamina 2d6+12, Luck 1d6+6. And you got skill specialty points equal to your Skill rating.

The result was that if one player rolled Skill 7, and another player rolled Skill 12, the Skill 12 player was better than the Skill 7 player at literally everything. It was theoretically possible for the Skill 7 player to put all seven skill points into one category in order to have a single thing they were better at than the Skill 12 player, who was still crushing it everywhere else. It was also possible for the Skill 7 player to also have a lower Luck than the Skill 12 player, making them worse always for the whole game.

(The sample pre-created characters all had balanced stats, on the assumption that 1 Skill = 1 Luck = 2 Stamina. This was the first house rule I ever created for a game - point-buy character creation.)

gkathellar
2018-12-27, 12:46 PM
Can I just nominate Exalted 2E's entire combat system? The game's writing does such a good job of selling you the idea that this is going to be something kinetic and exciting and then ... ten-step attack resolution. Motes as HP. The mistakes just pile on, ad infinitum.

Standing above all are the Sidereal Martial Arts in Scroll of the Monk, which are visually exciting, thematically and metaphorically rich, take a wide variety of anime fightan mans tropes and gives them a real context, and are completely nonfunctional. Worst (best?) of all is the capstone charm for Border of Kaleidoscopic Logic Style, which basically forces everyone to resolve combat through an awful minigame.

Particle_Man
2018-12-27, 12:53 PM
I can’t remember which version, but one of them for Usagi Yojimbo managed to break the rock-paper-scissors mechanic such that one of the three options guaranteed that you would win or tie no matter which option your opponent used. I mean, how can you mess up this mechanic?

Kaptin Keen
2018-12-27, 01:42 PM
To wrap up this ramble, the general question: what's your favorite fantasy heartbreaker poorly designed mechanic?

Anything in Shadowrun. Magic doesn't work, matrix doesn't work, vehicle combat doesn't work, game balance doesn't work, target number 7 doesn't work - it just basically never ends. For all that, it's the system I've played 2nd most after D&D.

Tanarii
2018-12-27, 03:45 PM
Except that the game also had random character creation. Skill 1d6+6, Stamina 2d6+12, Luck 1d6+6. And you got skill specialty points equal to your Skill rating.

The result was that if one player rolled Skill 7, and another player rolled Skill 12, the Skill 12 player was better than the Skill 7 player at literally everything. It was theoretically possible for the Skill 7 player to put all seven skill points into one category in order to have a single thing they were better at than the Skill 12 player, who was still crushing it everywhere else. It was also possible for the Skill 7 player to also have a lower Luck than the Skill 12 player, making them worse always for the whole game.
Oh yeah, that's a bad one. The odds of someone having significantly higher Skill and Luck when there are only two d6 involved total is fairly high. It sounds like it's more the opposite problem of my OP, in that the ability score rolling stage matters way too much. :smallyuk:

Florian
2018-12-27, 04:00 PM
Ok, we already had RIFTS. So cool, so damned flawed....

L5R is using a roll and keep mechanic. Basically, you build a pool of d10s based on the sum total of your Attribute + Skill (roll), then you take a number of those d10s equal to the sum of Attribute points you have and discard the rest (keep). The flaw here is very obvious, EXP spent on Attributes are vastly more effective than EXP spent on Skills.
At least hey partially fixed this in the 4th edition by A) directly mentioned this as an unwanted side effect and B) Adding some small boons to actually advancing a skill.

Pendragon has one of the most beautiful "Alignment"-Systems I've ever seen. You have a mirrored pair of each seven Virtues and seven Sins. Basically, should a scene come up that deals with one of the Virtues or Sins (the higher, so "dominant" of the two), you make a check by rolling under to see if your character will automatically act according to his nature. Should you fail at this roll, you check the counterpart to see what happens. Should you check, the player may choose freely. You mark the one that "won" and at the end of the session, make a special check to see if your Virtue/Sin will change one point up or down.

All in all, it is such a beautiful approach to the whole topic, it flaws are what is so heart-breaking here: At character creation, when you set a Virtue/Sin pair to absolute min/max 20/0, there is no way in hell that "Sir Florian the Chaste" is ever falling for the seducing witch. At the same time, a straight 10/10 gives you the most flexible options and you can pretty much choose your result and ignore the dice.

Hunter Noventa
2018-12-27, 04:44 PM
Ah yes RIFTS, the system where your supposedly competent pilot has a 20% chance to properly fly their plane. We had some great times with it in college but we haven't touched it in years in my group.

And I echo Shadowrun being kludgy, but for different reasons. The real problem with it is that it's basically three games in one. You have the regular combat that everyone participates in, in theory. then you have the Matrix, where everyone sits around while your decker does their thing. Then you have astral projection/combat where everyone sits around while the mage does their thing.

Florian
2018-12-27, 05:44 PM
The real problem with it is that it's basically three games in one. You have the regular combat that everyone participates in, in theory. then you have the Matrix, where everyone sits around while your decker does their thing. Then you have astral projection/combat where everyone sits around while the mage does their thing.

Back in the days of SR 1st/2nd, we actually had a very good *cough* house rule to deal with the situation.
Our weekly gaming club met at a italian restaurant, so we had the simple arrangement that the Deckers and Mages got their spotlight and everyone else was busy with food while they were at it, then we switched when the more "physical characters" went to work. In addition, should one of them still stick along for the physical part of the run and garner even more spotlight, they had to pay for either a Pizza Pane or desert. All in all, that worked out rather well and no-one really was bored. (Oddly, we had a rotating group of around 13 players and all we ever ate over some years while playing was Salade Nicoise, Pizza Margherita and Pizza Pane with extra garlic)

Arbane
2018-12-28, 01:38 AM
Any game which makes you spend your Experience Points to use them as Luck Points. I hate that mechanic, as it pretty much guarantees that if your character has a run of bad luck, they'll end up even further behind everyone else burning XP trying to survive. (IIRC 7th Sea did this, and I've seen other games with it. My preferred fix is to say that you HAVE to use up Luck Points to make them into Experience Points.)

OutOfThyme
2018-12-28, 03:28 AM
Can I just nominate Exalted 2E's entire combat system? The game's writing does such a good job of selling you the idea that this is going to be something kinetic and exciting and then ... ten-step attack resolution. Motes as HP. The mistakes just pile on, ad infinitum.

Standing above all are the Sidereal Martial Arts in Scroll of the Monk, which are visually exciting, thematically and metaphorically rich, take a wide variety of anime fightan mans tropes and gives them a real context, and are completely nonfunctional. Worst (best?) of all is the capstone charm for Border of Kaleidoscopic Logic Style, which basically forces everyone to resolve combat through an awful minigame.I'm not really sure how I feel about Exalted 2E's Martial Arts charms. I dug the idea, but it always kinda fell flat mechanically, IMO. It seemed to me that you're better off not investing in a martial art if you were a non-Sidereal Celestial Exalt. Maybe there's something wrong with my understanding of the system (and it's also been years since I've looked at Exalted 2E/2.5E), but it always seemed like you were better off just investing in charms from your native selection.

As for Sidereal Martial Arts, they're so poorly made it's laughable. At worst, they're unusable. At best, you get Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick.

gkathellar
2018-12-28, 07:28 AM
I'm not really sure how I feel about Exalted 2E's Martial Arts charms. I dug the idea, but it always kinda fell flat mechanically, IMO. It seemed to me that you're better off not investing in a martial art if you were a non-Sidereal Celestial Exalt. Maybe there's something wrong with my understanding of the system (and it's also been years since I've looked at Exalted 2E/2.5E), but it always seemed like you were better off just investing in charms from your native selection.

IIRC, the premise was always explicitly, "these should be roughly Celestial-level, and so the only reason a Solar would ever have to invest in them is versatility."

Unfortunately, versatility in combat didn't really matter at all So Yeah.


As for Sidereal Martial Arts, they're so poorly made it's laughable. At worst, they're unusable. At best, you get Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick.

FWIW, though, you can punch someone into a duck.

Anonymouswizard
2018-12-28, 08:34 AM
Hit points in D&D and it's ilk. It's a great mechanic in wargames, where you measure a unit's fighting spirit instead of remaining strength, and translating that to the roleplaying arena makes sense. The problem comes when you combine treating hp as meat with rapidly increasing totals, so that a 10th level Fighter can survive multiple Fireballs.

4e gets a pass, as it's built around hp not being meat, but 5e doesn't due to removing most of 4e's 'morale boosting restores hp' abilities.

Talakeal
2018-12-28, 10:16 AM
Sorry to be that guy, but I am pretty sure this is the opposite of what the term "fantasy heart breaker," is intended to mean.


Iirc it refers to genuinely good ideas wasted on games that are attempting to compete with D&D and thus will be ignored and quietly forgotten.



On the topic of mechanics that drive me up the wall:


How in White Wolf character point costs are linear at creation but exponential over the course of play, so that someone who starts out incredibly min-maxxed and then flushes their character will be significantly stronger than someone who starts out well balanced and then decides to specialize.

Particle_Man
2018-12-28, 10:18 AM
Any game which makes you spend your Experience Points to use them as Luck Points. I hate that mechanic, as it pretty much guarantees that if your character has a run of bad luck, they'll end up even further behind everyone else burning XP trying to survive. (IIRC 7th Sea did this, and I've seen other games with it. My preferred fix is to say that you HAVE to use up Luck Points to make them into Experience Points.)

+1. I loved 7th Sea but it has some flaws, to say the least.

Another, shared with Exalted and other point buy systems, is to make the point-cost at char gen different from point-cost for character improvement, leading to some lop-sided characters at char gen (that then "even out" and surpass characters that were more realistic at char gen).

Another was the "legion of knacks", when the roll and keep (mentioned above) emphasized abilities scores over knacks, you add an extra kicker that there are so many knacks you can't possibly spend well on them and are pretty much coerced into increasing ability scores (again, at chargen this is far easier to do!).

And yet I love 7th Sea 1st edition . . .

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-28, 10:52 AM
FWIW, though, you can punch someone into a duck.


So, you punch them so hard they end up trapped inside a duck, or you punch them so hard they become a duck?

Tanarii
2018-12-28, 10:53 AM
Sorry to be that guy, but I am pretty sure this is the opposite of what the term "fantasy heart breaker," is intended to mean.


Iirc it refers to genuinely good ideas wasted on games that are attempting to compete with D&D and thus will be ignored and quietly forgotten.I've never seen it used that way. Always for games that seem like they have such awesome promise, until you get down to the nuts and bolts, and then they break your heart. Usually because they're D&D derivatives that tried to "fix" D&D ... but failed.

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-28, 10:55 AM
Sorry to be that guy, but I am pretty sure this is the opposite of what the term "fantasy heart breaker," is intended to mean.

Iirc it refers to genuinely good ideas wasted on games that are attempting to compete with D&D and thus will be ignored and quietly forgotten.


My understanding has always been that it was a system that was supposed to "fix" everything that was wrong with past systems, or that had mechanic(s) that looked brilliant on the surface, but either way it ended up being deeply flawed, a big letdown. Thus, a heartbreaker.

BWR
2018-12-28, 11:08 AM
L5R is using a roll and keep mechanic. Basically, you build a pool of d10s based on the sum total of your Attribute + Skill (roll), then you take a number of those d10s equal to the sum of Attribute points you have and discard the rest (keep). The flaw here is very obvious, EXP spent on Attributes are vastly more effective than EXP spent on Skills.
At least hey partially fixed this in the 4th edition by A) directly mentioned this as an unwanted side effect and B) Adding some small boons to actually advancing a skill.


Actually, Mastery abilities were added in 3e. There were generally more of them and they did more than the 4e variants. And you could call Raises equal to your Skill rating, not just Void. Also, 3e introduced Emphases (though handled differently than in 4e). So all in all, there was a good reason to spend xp on Skills instead of just Traits, apart from them being a significantly cheaper and faster way of getting good at something. We never had any problem with people advancing Traits at the expense of Skills.

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-28, 11:14 AM
Actually, Mastery abilities were added in 3e. There were generally more of them and they did more than the 4e variants. And you could call Raises equal to your Skill rating, not just Void. Also, 3e introduced Emphases (though handled differently than in 4e). So all in all, there was a good reason to spend xp on Skills instead of just Traits, apart from them being a significantly cheaper and faster way of getting good at something. We never had any problem with people advancing Traits at the expense of Skills.

On the flip side, the paired Traits with the "element" being pegged at the lower one, seemed like it would put a lot of pressure on people to raise Traits to get that Fire, Water, etc, up for various reasons.

Of course, at this point, FFG is doing their own edition using their circus dice from their Star Wars games.

Talakeal
2018-12-28, 11:43 AM
My understanding has always been that it was a system that was supposed to "fix" everything that was wrong with past systems, or that had mechanic(s) that looked brilliant on the surface, but either way it ended up being deeply flawed, a big letdown. Thus, a heartbreaker.

The original essay that coined the term can be found here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

Upon rereading it, it seems to have elements of both.

LibraryOgre
2018-12-28, 11:44 AM
Unlike older D&D (which I gather the system was derived from), there are a plethora of % based skills for doing things. I've never seen a hint you're supposed to roll d20 under an ability score to do something, unlike AD&Ds NWPs later formalized for that system. So you can literally erase any of the other 5 ability scores that are 16 or less off your character sheet once you pick a class.

To wrap up this ramble, the general question: what's your favorite fantasy heartbreaker poorly designed mechanic?

Oh, man, so much I can say about how Palladium breaks my heart.

My bonafides. (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/253899/PFRPG-17-Mysteries-of-MagicTM-One-The-Heart-of-MagicTM-for-Palladium-Fantasy-RPGR-2nd-Edition?affiliate_id=315505)

I mean, let's start with their hand to hand system, which is in some ways revolutionary, from a 1e AD&D perspective. You can have a variety of different martial arts styles! You can emphasize combat and get better scores! You can learn different techniques! But, in the end, there's just a few points of difference between them.

Levelling is either vitally important for your class (psychics) or mostly irrelevant (the difference between a 1st level Juicer and a 15th level Juicer is roughly 45 HP out of hundreds and maybe +5 to a few different things).

The HP/SDC divide, which still had you gaining HP per level instead of SDC.

Having a fungible resource like skills built into your system and then using them for so few things.

Having a mechanic like "Spend two skills to make Domestic Skills professional quality and get a +10%" and then applying it nowhere else.

Just so goddamn much that they left on the table because they play fast and loose with the rules at their own table, and they don't write or edit with rigor.

The Glyphstone
2018-12-28, 11:49 AM
So, you punch them so hard they end up trapped inside a duck, or you punch them so hard they become a duck?

Yes.tenletters

Talakeal
2018-12-28, 12:05 PM
Actually, upon rereading the original article more closely, I think the definition of Fantasy Heartbreaker is a product that hit the market 10-15 years too late before the OSR made throwback games cool.

BWR
2018-12-28, 02:14 PM
On the flip side, the paired Traits with the "element" being pegged at the lower one, seemed like it would put a lot of pressure on people to raise Traits to get that Fire, Water, etc, up for various reasons.


This varied between Schools, but in general you are correct. Most Courtiers would only use Rings for Insight, for instance, so they could focus on the necessary Traits and easily have a ton of skills to be good at without sacrificing effectiveness. Shugenja were pretty much forced to increase Rings because spell slots and casting were directly tied to them. Bushi would want a high Earth in any case, but other than some Void, the other Rings varied from good-for-nothing-but-Insight to really-really-useful (mostly due to adding X Ring to Y roll). 3e actually increased the value of Skills compared to editions 1 and 4, and XP wasn't really common enough in most games (IIRC) that people could afford to just dump it all in Traits at the expense of Skills. There was some serious math done to determine the usefulness of Skill vs. Trait and how to get most bang for your XP-buck when increasing either.
Then you had 2e where you rolled Skill and kept Trait, so you couldn't skimp on Skills if you wanted to be good at something.

The point is that while Traits and Rings are important, there are good reasons not to neglect Skills.

Lapak
2018-12-28, 02:21 PM
My understanding has always been that it was a system that was supposed to "fix" everything that was wrong with past systems, or that had mechanic(s) that looked brilliant on the surface, but either way it ended up being deeply flawed, a big letdown. Thus, a heartbreaker.
I had always understood it to be this, with the understanding being that it wasn't a commercial product but one of the umpty-zillion labors of love that individuals worked on - "I love D&D, but it could be so much better if [X] and [Y]!" where X and Y can be anything from tweaks to full restructures. With the inevitable heart-breaking realization that there is no such thing as a perfect design; fixing a problem with how the world is simulated may end up being mechanically clunky, fixing a problem with the mechanics of gameplay may lead to exploits in character construction, and so on.

Yora
2018-12-28, 02:36 PM
Of course you can't possibly call the original a fixup, but the most painful mechanic I ever encountered is TSR style attack rolls in D&D.

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-28, 02:40 PM
This varied between Schools, but in general you are correct. Most Courtiers would only use Rings for Insight, for instance, so they could focus on the necessary Traits and easily have a ton of skills to be good at without sacrificing effectiveness. Shugenja were pretty much forced to increase Rings because spell slots and casting were directly tied to them. Bushi would want a high Earth in any case, but other than some Void, the other Rings varied from good-for-nothing-but-Insight to really-really-useful (mostly due to adding X Ring to Y roll). 3e actually increased the value of Skills compared to editions 1 and 4, and XP wasn't really common enough in most games (IIRC) that people could afford to just dump it all in Traits at the expense of Skills. There was some serious math done to determine the usefulness of Skill vs. Trait and how to get most bang for your XP-buck when increasing either.
Then you had 2e where you rolled Skill and kept Trait, so you couldn't skimp on Skills if you wanted to be good at something.

The point is that while Traits and Rings are important, there are good reasons not to neglect Skills.


RINGS, thank you, I knew there was an official name, but I'm away from the books and it just wasn't clicking.

gkathellar
2018-12-28, 06:29 PM
So, you punch them so hard they end up trapped inside a duck, or you punch them so hard they become a duck?

So as Glyphstone said, yes. More specifically, the Charcoal March of Spiders style was a Sidereal Martial Art focused on imitating pattern spiders, the divine clockwork guardians and maintenance crew of the Loom of Fate. That style’s penultimate charm, Pattern Spider Touch, was a hit that allowed you to turn the victim into an animal or any of the five elements, poofs them out of existence, or makes them an entirely different person via cosmic retcon. It’s actually pretty fitting for the power level it shows up at, and it does jive with the setting’s internal rules, but it’s also extremely silly and the only way to undo its effects is with another Pattern Spider Touch.

I love 2E’s Sidereal Martial Arts almost unreservedly for their high-concept nonsense (another style includes the ability to karate chop off someone’s short-term memory) and how well they utilize Creation’s fluff, but they’re also extremely stupid and variously unusable, undefeatable, or completely useless in practice.

Knaight
2018-12-28, 06:34 PM
The original essay that coined the term can be found here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

Upon rereading it, it seems to have elements of both.

I've always read it as that one mechanic based on a genuine flash of inspiration, which maybe isn't implemented well because the game is dragged down by clearly being a D&D clone made without knowledge of other systems. This thread has been using a pretty weird definition.

That said, using this thread's definition - I really wanted to like Rivers and Lakes. There's so much about it which is just really cool, there's excellent mechanical ideas in it, and it all eventually collapses because the combat system just doesn't work well. That's an entirely forgivable issue in some genres, but wuxia isn't one of them.

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-28, 08:15 PM
So as Glyphstone said, yes. More specifically, the Charcoal March of Spiders style was a Sidereal Martial Art focused on imitating pattern spiders, the divine clockwork guardians and maintenance crew of the Loom of Fate. That style’s penultimate charm, Pattern Spider Touch, was a hit that allowed you to turn the victim into an animal or any of the five elements, poofs them out of existence, or makes them an entirely different person via cosmic retcon. It’s actually pretty fitting for the power level it shows up at, and it does jive with the setting’s internal rules, but it’s also extremely silly and the only way to undo its effects is with another Pattern Spider Touch.

I love 2E’s Sidereal Martial Arts almost unreservedly for their high-concept nonsense (another style includes the ability to karate chop off someone’s short-term memory) and how well they utilize Creation’s fluff, but they’re also extremely stupid and variously unusable, undefeatable, or completely useless in practice.

So the same thinking behind some of the oWoD Vampire Disciplines, but with the "governor" torn off the engine and stomped to bits, and the fuel replaced with antimatter.

Jay R
2018-12-28, 11:14 PM
Chivalry and Sorcery, from FGU. This highly developed medieval fantasy RPG had everything - realistic fighting (distinguishing fatigue from body damage), realistic clerical advancement, including bishops, archbishops, etc., and more styles of magic than any other system.

It was the most lush, detailed, realistic, complete, immersive, and compelling unplayable mess ever produced.

Knaight
2018-12-28, 11:22 PM
It was the most lush, detailed, realistic, complete, immersive, and compelling unplayable mess ever produced.

One of these days someone needs to introduce you to Phoenix Command.

Particle_Man
2018-12-29, 12:02 AM
Of course you can't possibly call the original a fixup, but the most painful mechanic I ever encountered is TSR style attack rolls in D&D.

Do you mean the tables or THACO?

Particle_Man
2018-12-29, 12:05 AM
FWIW, though, you can punch someone into a duck.

I suddenly find myself wanting something that I never knew that I wanted.

Quertus
2018-12-29, 01:12 AM
Pendragon has one of the most beautiful "Alignment"-Systems I've ever seen. You have a mirrored pair of each seven Virtues and seven Sins. Basically, should a scene come up that deals with one of the Virtues or Sins (the higher, so "dominant" of the two), you make a check by rolling under to see if your character will automatically act according to his nature. Should you fail at this roll, you check the counterpart to see what happens. Should you check, the player may choose freely. You mark the one that "won" and at the end of the session, make a special check to see if your Virtue/Sin will change one point up or down.

All in all, it is such a beautiful approach to the whole topic, it flaws are what is so heart-breaking here: At character creation, when you set a Virtue/Sin pair to absolute min/max 20/0, there is no way in hell that "Sir Florian the Chaste" is ever falling for the seducing witch. At the same time, a straight 10/10 gives you the most flexible options and you can pretty much choose your result and ignore the dice.

So, here's what I'm hearing: if you want to roleplay your character, you put a "10" in everything. If you want to say something about your character, you put a "20" in something*. And, if you like the Gamist mechanics, you put absolutely anything else in the stats.

Sounds to me like it allows the player to both communicate and choose their playstyle. What's not to like?

* Also, I've known some GMs where I'd expect everybody would be putting a "20" to communicate their character's unsettling chastity...


Ah yes RIFTS, the system where your supposedly competent pilot has a 20% chance to properly fly their plane. We had some great times with it in college but we haven't touched it in years in my group.

Ah, thanks for reminding me: I have a dislike of such things, what I call "system of fail". I usually point to Warhammer games for that.

So, in the various Warhammer systems, your stats are, what, 2d10+20 or +30? Then you get a handful of skills where you're "trained", which means that you have a % chance equal to the corresponding stat to succeed. Then another batch of skills which can be used untrained, which gives you half your stat as your % chance to succeed. Everything else, you automatically fail.

Perception can be used untrained, so everyone probably at least has something in the teens % chance to notice anything, except (in Fantasy) the one "lucky" guy who rolled a random profession with Perception, who maybe has a ~30% chance to notice things. Except that's base chance - modifiers range from a +30 bonus to a -60 penalty.

Some day, I want to run a 1- shot of "meeting in a tavern and ordering a meal", where everyone actually makes rolls for everything. The waitress only noticed some of the patrons, only successfully uses her native language to take maybe half their orders, only correctly remembers maybe a 6th of that.

Oh, and then, every time you roll, there's a 5% chance of a botch. So the cook probably burns or poisons at least one meal, the waitress probably breaks her arm trying to carry one of the items to some random table, where she speaks some random gibberish and accidentally summons a great old one something nasty.

You get the picture. Just taking the rules dysfunction to 11 for a humorous 1-shot.


And I echo Shadowrun being kludgy, but for different reasons. The real problem with it is that it's basically three games in one. You have the regular combat that everyone participates in, in theory. then you have the Matrix, where everyone sits around while your decker does their thing. Then you have astral projection/combat where everyone sits around while the mage does their thing.

ShadowRun is, IMO, primitive spotlight sharing through absolute niche protection - everyone gets a chance to shine, because no-one else can really interact with their "thing".

Florian
2018-12-29, 01:32 AM
@Quertus:

The central premise here is to simulate "character/personality" growth of your Knight (in contrast to growth in ability of power). The system is set up in such a way that it can and will happen that you, as the player, will have to concede quite a bit of control over your character to the mechanics (You also begin to develop "skills" like "Hates Normans +3d4" or "A Weakness for Redheads +2d4"). Intentionally finding a way the "game" that system is strictly against everything it was set up to simulate.

... aaaaaand, the usual error when it comes to WH systems. The important part is looking up the task difficulty table first, which ranges from -100 to +100. Character skills are actually a modifier used when rolling on this table. Ride +20 might look measly, but when your task (Riding along that road) is easy and the base score is +80 anyways, you can´t fail.

Yora
2018-12-29, 05:17 AM
Do you mean the tables or THACO?

Both. Neither offers any benefit over base attack bonus.

Komatik
2018-12-29, 08:19 AM
Level Adjustment. The second one would probably be the plain attack roll.

Yora
2018-12-29, 08:31 AM
Speaking of 3rd edition, multiclass XP penalties. But only for certain combinations. And only at certain differences in levels.

This was a rule so rarely talked about that I assume everybody forgot it even existed.

Anonymouswizard
2018-12-29, 09:55 AM
Speaking of 3rd edition, multiclass XP penalties. But only for certain combinations. And only at certain differences in levels.

This was a rule so rarely talked about that I assume everybody forgot it even existed.

To be fair I do prefer the 3.5 version of Favoured Classes to the Pathfinder version. Sure, I literally don't know anybody who used XP penalties, but at least it didn't feel like the designers were trying to push the races towards certain classes. In 3.5 a straight classed Dwarven Wizard didn't lose anything until multiclassing comes into play, while in 3.5 he has less Skill Points* than a Human or Elven Wizard.

If Pathfinder just had made favoured classes a character thing I'd love to have extra skill points equal to my highest class level.


* Yes, I know you can take hit points instead, but honestly the skill point is probably better, especially with the characters I play.

gkathellar
2018-12-29, 10:05 AM
To be fair I do prefer the 3.5 version of Favoured Classes to the Pathfinder version. Sure, I literally don't know anybody who used XP penalties, but at least it didn't feel like the designers were trying to push the races towards certain classes. In 3.5 a straight classed Dwarven Wizard didn't lose anything until multiclassing comes into play, while in 3.5 he has less Skill Points* than a Human or Elven Wizard.

If Pathfinder just had made favoured classes a character thing I'd love to have extra skill points equal to my highest class level.


* Yes, I know you can take hit points instead, but honestly the skill point is probably better, especially with the characters I play.

As of the Advanced Player’s Guide, favored classes were redone to be chosen on character creation, rather than locked to particular races. They also allow you to choose a third benefit specific to the class/race combo in place of HP or skill points. This doesn’t entirely ameliorate the issue you’re talking about (for instance, half elf is extremely attractive in combination with Summoner because its third bonus grants a small amount of the Summoner’s main resource), and it acts as yet another disincentive to multiclassing, but it does allow for somewhat more variety.

Quertus
2018-12-29, 10:26 AM
... aaaaaand, the usual error when it comes to WH systems. The important part is looking up the task difficulty table first, which ranges from -100 to +100. Character skills are actually a modifier used when rolling on this table. Ride +20 might look measly, but when your task (Riding along that road) is easy and the base score is +80 anyways, you can´t fail.

To be fair, I don't own the books, and am going off memory - though that is a bad thing, given my memory. But I don't remember modifiers (other than "masterwork weapon - +5%", "autofire - +30%", or distance penalties) ever coming into play in the time I played any Warhammer systems. Also, I suppose edition matters.

But I do remember that the task difficulty table in the specific edition of the specific version that I looked at only had a range of +30 to -60, which, iirc, was an update from the core book's +30 to -30 range.

So, having a 20 in agility(?) meant that you had at best a 50% chance to succeed even the easiest of agility-based skills (like riding down the road).

Sure, if your character survived the harsh worlds of Warhammer, they could theoretically eventually earn enough XP to get amazing skills like "ride +20", which would give them the awesome ability to succeed 70% of the time at the easiest of ride checks, and still 0% of the time at the hardest.

SimonMoon6
2018-12-29, 10:58 AM
I remember playing the original Call of Cthulhu game. It's another game where you roll for your ability scores. One of those ability scores is "Appearance". Appearance literally does nothing. There is nothing in the rules that is ever based on your Appearance stat. Theoretically, it could affect role-playing a little bit if you're incredibly attractive or ugly, I suppose, but there are no rules for that or even suggestions about that in the rulebook. There is no point to this ability score at all.

Another otherwise great game is Mayfair's old DC Heroes RPG, which is practically perfect at emulating comic-book superheroes from the weakest to the most powerful (most RPGs suck badly at representing powerful superheroes). The one sad part of the official rules (which everyone changes with a house rule) is that if you have almost any power, the damage value of the power and the accuracy of the power are the same number. So, if you have an incredibly powerful energy blast capable of demolishing mountains, you can almost never miss with that attack. It's an easy thing to change but it is a very weird rule. (Also, character creation has to be monitored very carefully as, as with most decent superhero games, it is easy to make a ridiculously powerful character.)

Original Torg was an incredible system but it had a "glass ninja" problem. The idea was that you used one die roll both for determining if you hit and for determining how much damage you did. The idea was that the better your hit, the more damage you would do. The problem was that if an agile character (like a ninja) was hard to hit, then they could only be hit with a huge die roll, but any huge die roll also did huge damage, so every time that such a character would be hit, they would take a huge amount of damage. Fortunately, this problem seems to have been fixed in the new version of Torg (Torg Eternity) which has also fixed some character creation imbalances... but I'm worried that it may have gone a bit far in taking out all the cool stuff to make things more balanced (like Pathfinder's second edition).

Quertus
2018-12-29, 11:13 AM
Fortunately, this problem seems to have been fixed in the new version of Torg (Torg Eternity) which has also fixed some character creation imbalances... but I'm worried that it may have gone a bit far in taking out all the cool stuff to make things more balanced (like Pathfinder's second edition).

Or like D&D 3e (IMO tried to be).

**** "Balance", give me cool stuff!

I would rather play a game with cool stuff where the group had to work to create as much of whatever balance as they desire, than an uncool game no matter how well balanced it may be.

Anonymouswizard
2018-12-29, 11:44 AM
As of the Advanced Player’s Guide, favored classes were redone to be chosen on character creation, rather than locked to particular races. They also allow you to choose a third benefit specific to the class/race combo in place of HP or skill points. This doesn’t entirely ameliorate the issue you’re talking about (for instance, half elf is extremely attractive in combination with Summoner because its third bonus grants a small amount of the Summoner’s main resource), and it acts as yet another disincentive to multiclassing, but it does allow for somewhat more variety.

Yeah, that does sound better. Tbh I think the one time I considered running Pathfinder I was going to houserule everybody getting the standard favoured class bonus at every level, because I just wanted more Skill Points in play. I'll be doing that if they're still a thing in Starfinder (which I might be getting for as a late Christmas present and have plans to run).

Tanarii
2018-12-29, 08:26 PM
Some day, I want to run a 1- shot of "meeting in a tavern and ordering a meal", where everyone actually makes rolls for everything. The waitress only noticed some of the patrons, only successfully uses her native language to take maybe half their orders, only correctly remembers maybe a 6th of that.

Oh, and then, every time you roll, there's a 5% chance of a botch. So the cook probably burns or poisons at least one meal, the waitress probably breaks her arm trying to carry one of the items to some random table, where she speaks some random gibberish and accidentally summons a great old one something nasty.

You get the picture. Just taking the rules dysfunction to 11 for a humorous 1-shot.Most Warhammer systems, or at least the later ones, told you under that the GM Running the Game section should only call for a roll when it's important, dangerous, or something that has a real possibility of failure, etc. Of course, it kinda sucks when your attack rolls all are low probability and your enemies are parrying and dodging some fraction of them. Conversely it totally doesn't suck when the same happens with enemies trying to attack you, because getting hit more than once or twice in Warhammer is often brutally lethal.

gkathellar
2018-12-30, 05:55 AM
Most Warhammer systems, or at least the later ones, told you under that the GM Running the Game section should only call for a roll when it's important, dangerous, or something that has a real possibility of failure, etc. Of course, it kinda sucks when your attack rolls all are low probability and your enemies are parrying and dodging some fraction of them. Conversely it totally doesn't suck when the same happens with enemies trying to attack you, because getting hit more than once or twice in Warhammer is often brutally lethal.

I always thought that having everything go horribly wrong all the time was the point of WHFRP.

Tanarii
2018-12-30, 09:24 AM
I always thought that having everything go horribly wrong all the time was the point of WHFRP.
The same way that the point of Call of the Cthulhu the inevitable descent into insanity as your party slowly gets picked off by eldritch horrors in search of a light snack?

Yeah, life being brutally short and fairly cheap not is at least partially, the point. But slapstick comedy failures isn't. The trick is for the GM to know which rolls will produce which. :smallwink:

Quertus
2018-12-30, 10:12 AM
Yeah, life being brutally short and fairly cheap not is at least partially, the point. But slapstick comedy failures isn't. The trick is for the GM to know which rolls will produce which. :smallwink:

Thus the one-shot spoof, where the GM calls for a roll for everything.

(EDIT: personally, I'm not a fan of Narrative rules of "only call for a roll when dramatically appropriate". If a rule works, it should just work. So I'm hitting the system with Simulationist logic, and showing just how hilariously badly the simulation falls apart.)

Tanarii
2018-12-30, 10:23 AM
(EDIT: personally, I'm not a fan of Narrative rules of "only call for a roll when dramatically appropriate". If a rule works, it should just work. So I'm hitting the system with Simulationist logic, and showing just how hilariously badly the simulation falls apart.)
So you've never played D&D? Even 3e said that's how to handle rolls. Everyone just ignored it because the example tables provided implied a simulation.

In fact, I'm not sure there's any RPG system where the resolution rules are intended to be used in a simulation fashion.

Edit: correction, you appear to specifically be referencing it as a narrative thing. I'm not saying that at all, I don't really like narrative mechanics or doing things because dramatically appropriate. I'm saying only use it when a resolution mechanic is needed: when it's important, or failure matters. That's pretty much the opposite of "dramatically appropriate". For things where there's no point in wasting table time on a resolution mechanic, don't have a resolution mechanic.

Grim Portent
2018-12-30, 11:00 AM
The later FFG WH systems upped the range to +/-60 either direction, with +60 representing awkward but very easy tasks like lighting campfires in good conditions or following a tanks tracks through soft dirt, and slightly upped the base stats of characters. It was still possible to fail a task that's theoretically incredibly easy, but usually only by a tiny margin if you have any training at all, and skills had no autofail/autopass rules so if you could get your modified skill over 100 you basically just passed. On top of that they still had the 'don't roll for everyday normal stuff' guideline as well.

The main issue I have with the later versions was the way melee attacks and parrying worked, which basically wound up being a straight roll off for two characters to see if the one going first obliterates the other with a dozen hits with a high powered weapon. The game started to break down as combat stats got closer to 100 really, especially the Weapon Skill stat.

Florian
2018-12-30, 11:01 AM
I always thought that having everything go horribly wrong all the time was the point of WHFRP.

Not really. Systems like L5R or WH just put front and center the horrible price you have to pay to keep the darkness away, the ability of Humanity to deal with an overpowering force and still come out on top, albeit bloodied and with terrible losses.

Anonymouswizard
2018-12-30, 11:38 AM
The same way that the point of Call of the Cthulhu the inevitable descent into insanity as your party slowly gets picked off by eldritch horrors in search of a light snack?

Yeah, life being brutally short and fairly cheap not is at least partially, the point. But slapstick comedy failures isn't. The trick is for the GM to know which rolls will produce which. :smallwink:

To be fair, the two times I tried to run Dark Heresy it descended into a parody of the setting. I fully believe that there's people out there willing to run it straight and able to pull it off, and I'd love to play in those games (I've got a bunch of serious WH40k characters I'd love to play, and would equally love to try WFRP), but when your players aren't bringing serious character concepts or decide to goof off it can be better for everybody to downplay the grimdark in favour of the black comedy, in which case the occasional slapstick moment for contrast is welcome.

Or to be more specific, I run WH40k games like they're Paranoia with a slightly straighter face (which honestly isn't that inaccurate come to think of it). Instead of throwing a bunch of undercover chaos cultists everywhere I broaden the definition of Heresy to be deliberately vague and make sure that any PC Clerics are from a different cult to whatever cult is dominant on the planet, then throw a bunch of unrelated Chaos cultists everywhere.


The later FFG WH systems upped the range to +/-60 either direction, with +60 representing awkward but very easy tasks like lighting campfires in good conditions or following a tanks tracks through soft dirt, and slightly upped the base stats of characters. It was still possible to fail a task that's theoretically incredibly easy, but usually only by a tiny margin if you have any training at all, and skills had no autofail/autopass rules so if you could get your modified skill over 100 you basically just passed. On top of that they still had the 'don't roll for everyday normal stuff' guideline as well.

IIRC standard stat was 30, and basic training simply let you use your full stat, so by taking a little bit of extra time your average character trained in survival could get a campfire started with a 100% chance, slightly faster for each additional level of training. Although that was WH40kRP, WFRP might have been different in that regard, and I remember 'heroic' humans beginning with an additional 5 points in every Attribute.

(On that note, how are Wrath and Glory and WFRP4e? Either worth picking up?)

Grod_The_Giant
2018-12-30, 12:03 PM
So the same thinking behind some of the oWoD Vampire Disciplines, but with the "governor" torn off the engine and stomped to bits, and the fuel replaced with antimatter.
That's a pretty fair description of all of Exalted, too be honest. (Or at least 2e; I'm more familiar with 3e, which is a bit less absurd)

The Glyphstone
2018-12-30, 12:50 PM
Thus the one-shot spoof, where the GM calls for a roll for everything.

(EDIT: personally, I'm not a fan of Narrative rules of "only call for a roll when dramatically appropriate". If a rule works, it should just work. So I'm hitting the system with Simulationist logic, and showing just how hilariously badly the simulation falls apart.)

I vaguely remember someone proposing this idea with D20 a long time ago. Wake up, roll a Constitution save to not have a stroke while getting out of bed. Roll a Dexterity check to not trip and break your neck going down the stairs. Roll a Wisdom check to sit on the chair instead of the axe head, then an Intelligence check to not mix poison into your breakfast. Keep going until someone rolls a 1, at which point they critical fumble and die.

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-30, 01:09 PM
Thus the one-shot spoof, where the GM calls for a roll for everything.

(EDIT: personally, I'm not a fan of Narrative rules of "only call for a roll when dramatically appropriate". If a rule works, it should just work. So I'm hitting the system with Simulationist logic, and showing just how hilariously badly the simulation falls apart.)


I vaguely remember someone proposing this idea with D20 a long time ago. Wake up, roll a Constitution save to not have a stroke while getting out of bed. Roll a Dexterity check to not trip and break your neck going down the stairs. Roll a Wisdom check to sit on the chair instead of the axe head, then an Intelligence check to not mix poison into your breakfast. Keep going until someone rolls a 1, at which point they critical fumble and die.

Not only is that sort of thing a caricature, it's not even a caricature directed at actual simulationism, but instead at the strawman that certain sorts have repeatedly propped up to attack simulationism.

Talakeal
2018-12-30, 01:43 PM
Not only is that sort of thing a caricature, it's not even a caricature directed at actual simulationism, but instead at the strawman that certain sorts have repeatedly propped up to attack simulationism.

I don't know about that.

A lot of people suggest that fumble rules don't work because if you rolled for every little thing it would produce ridiculous results and that any decent rule has to apply equally to hitting a training dummy ten thousand times in a gym as it does to a climactic battle against an ancient dragon.

Cluedrew
2018-12-30, 02:46 PM
On Fumbles: That is one main issue though, a lot of fumble systems don't take into account how difficult the task is. The simplest "fumble on a 1" for instance means you have a 5% chance of disastrous failure, even if you have a 95% chance of success. Now others do and that is an improvement. And now for what was supposed to be the second post.

It depends on your exact definition of "heart breaker" but I would like to nominate D&D spell slots. I have heard some impassioned defences of the system, weaving together lore to create a good image of what is going on. Except no one I know actually uses that stuff. I've read tones of D&D books and I can think of 1 mention of spell slots or memorization in the books I read. Everyone else, including elsewhere in that book, dropped it. And even the rulebooks don't seem to present a full picture of any of the full versions I have hear. I forget if the memorization or preparation version is the correct one at this point.

Mechanically it puts spell casters on a different power curve than everyone else (attack & skill based characters). Both over the adventuring day, leading to the 15 minute adventuring day issue which can be addressed other ways, and over levels leading to the linear-fighter quadratic-wizard thing. I also think it is excessively complicated way to have spell casters with different options and the "predict challenges ahead" aspect I think can go now that D&D has change from the fantasy adventure dungeon crawler it started life as.

Some of those might be subjective, but one the whole I feel the reason D&D uses spell slots is because previous editions used spell slots. So it fits the D&D emulation aspect of fantasy heart breaker too.

Max_Killjoy
2018-12-30, 02:55 PM
On Fumbles: That is one main issue though, a lot of fumble systems don't take into account how difficult the task is. The simplest "fumble on a 1" for instance means you have a 5% chance of disastrous failure, even if you have a 95% chance of success. Now others do and that is an improvement. And now for what was supposed to be the second post.

It depends on your exact definition of "heart breaker" but I would like to nominate D&D spell slots. I have heard some impassioned defences of the system, weaving together lore to create a good image of what is going on. Except no one I know actually uses that stuff. I've read tones of D&D books and I can think of 1 mention of spell slots or memorization in the books I read. Everyone else, including elsewhere in that book, dropped it. And even the rulebooks don't seem to present a full picture of any of the full versions I have hear. I forget if the memorization or preparation version is the correct one at this point.

Mechanically it puts spell casters on a different power curve than everyone else (attack & skill based characters). Both over the adventuring day, leading to the 15 minute adventuring day issue which can be addressed other ways, and over levels leading to the linear-fighter quadratic-wizard thing. I also think it is excessively complicated way to have spell casters with different options and the "predict challenges ahead" aspect I think can go now that D&D has change from the fantasy adventure dungeon crawler it started life as.

Some of those might be subjective, but one the whole I feel the reason D&D uses spell slots is because previous editions used spell slots. So it fits the D&D emulation aspect of fantasy heart breaker too.

That's actually a good one.

Yeah, I have no idea what they're trying to do with wizards and spells known and spells prepared and so on... other than make them "feel like D&D wizards".

Tanarii
2018-12-30, 08:32 PM
Some of those might be subjective, but one the whole I feel the reason D&D uses spell slots is because previous editions used spell slots. So it fits the D&D emulation aspect of fantasy heart breaker too.Spell slots still work fine in the original war gamer context: limited use big! abilities that can only be used X number of times one scenario. Or in D&D context, one adventuring session.

The 15 minute workday isn't a problem in a large open table campaign where if you end early, the adventuring session ends for the night, and you don't complete any objectives. And either someone else gets to take advantage of the hard work you done before you get to play again (shared dungeons / west marches) or you just flat out fail the single session module (DDEX style).

When they don't work nearly as well is in a typical single party table not operating under those assumptions.

Of course, there's a variety of our ways it could have been handled.

Also worth noting "linear fighters vs quadratic wizards" wasn't really as huge problem until they removed all the checks and balances on wizard spellcasting in 3e. Or people ignored them in earlier editions (rather common IMX).

LibraryOgre
2018-12-31, 10:27 AM
Also worth noting "linear fighters vs quadratic wizards" wasn't really as huge problem until they removed all the checks and balances on wizard spellcasting in 3e. Or people ignored them in earlier editions (rather common IMX).

And they just kinda plowed through ALL of them. Spellcasters were limited by relatively few spell slots, the long recharge time, and the relative unavailability of magic items. In 3e, they just blitzed them. Instead of taking days for a high level wizard to rememorize all his spells, it took an hour. For a relatively minimal investment, 3e wizards could scribe any scroll they wanted, and eventually make any magic they wanted to allow nigh-infinite castings of everything. Tired of memorizing detect magic? Make a wand. Or a potion. Or a scroll. Your effective spell slots went through the roof, at the same time that your daily spell slots increased simply because you could cast every spell slot every day.

At the same time, they started charging fighters feats to do EVERYTHING. Power attack was a feat. Expertise was a feat. Both could've reasonably been made a default combat option (sacrifice accuracy for damage or defense, or ones to sacrifice defense for accuracy or damage), but they made them a feat, making later things in the feat chain more expensive.

3.x was such a charlie foxtrot in so many ways, because they didn't seem to understand the impact of the changes they made in the core game. Even with the 3.5 revision, they didn't address stuff like this.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-12-31, 10:30 AM
And they just kinda plowed through ALL of them. Spellcasters were limited by relatively few spell slots, the long recharge time, and the relative unavailability of magic items. In 3e, they just blitzed them. Instead of taking days for a high level wizard to rememorize all his spells, it took an hour. For a relatively minimal investment, 3e wizards could scribe any scroll they wanted, and eventually make any magic they wanted to allow nigh-infinite castings of everything. Tired of memorizing detect magic? Make a wand. Or a potion. Or a scroll. Your effective spell slots went through the roof, at the same time that your daily spell slots increased simply because you could cast every spell slot every day.

At the same time, they started charging fighters feats to do EVERYTHING. Power attack was a feat. Expertise was a feat. Both could've reasonably been made a default combat option (sacrifice accuracy for damage or defense, or ones to sacrifice defense for accuracy or damage), but they made them a feat, making later things in the feat chain more expensive.

3.x was such a charlie foxtrot in so many ways, because they didn't seem to understand the impact of the changes they made in the core game. Even with the 3.5 revision, they didn't address stuff like this.

And then those changed mechanics became the most fixed and powerful sacred cows, to the point that any deviation from them is seen as "not D&D."

I blame the internet :smallbiggrin: (is there a color for not sure if joking or serious?)

Florian
2018-12-31, 12:25 PM
3.x was such a charlie foxtrot in so many ways, because they didn't seem to understand the impact of the changes they made in the core game. Even with the 3.5 revision, they didn't address stuff like this.

It´s interesting to compare the DMG, designer interviews and notes between 3E and 3.5E.

The stance they took for 3.0E was actually quite reasonable: It is far easier to add some limitations as a house rule than to fine-comb the system and remove something unwanted as a house rule. The original DMG actually adresses things like moving spells up and down in level to suit the campaign, or how to re-introduce something like the system shock roll.

3.5E is way more problematic.

LibraryOgre
2018-12-31, 12:34 PM
And then those changed mechanics became the most fixed and powerful sacred cows, to the point that any deviation from them is seen as "not D&D."

I blame the internet :smallbiggrin: (is there a color for not sure if joking or serious?)

Personally, I kinda blame Baldur's Gate, where the "8 hour rest completely refreshes all your spell slots" became standard. The Gold Box had the old standard.

Lapak
2018-12-31, 01:35 PM
Personally, I kinda blame Baldur's Gate, where the "8 hour rest completely refreshes all your spell slots" became standard. The Gold Box had the old standard.
For me the instant recharge is an issue but not the main one; a party ok with 15 minute adventuring days would probably not be
put off by 15 minute adventuring weeks, particularly with the accelerated leveling pace in 3.x.

For me the killer change was how they first let spellcasters off the hook with regard to initiative and the action economy and then started adding ways for them to break it. The AD&D method of actions in combat (declare, then roll initiative) made casting in combat MUCH more uncertain - especially with casting times added in, which was made the fast spells like Power Words so valuable. Making casting a relatively safe action did a lot to break the power balance; adding Quickened spells and [multiple] Contingent Spells and things like Nerveskitter and Foresight shattered it altogether.

Tanarii
2018-12-31, 04:47 PM
For me the killer change was how they first let spellcasters off the hook with regard to initiative and the action economy and then started adding ways for them to break it. The AD&D method of actions in combat (declare, then roll initiative) made casting in combat MUCH more uncertain - especially with casting times added in, which was made the fast spells like Power Words so valuable. Making casting a relatively safe action did a lot to break the power balance; adding Quickened spells and [multiple] Contingent Spells and things like Nerveskitter and Foresight shattered it altogether.
Yup. That's what made spellcasting far less dangerous. Safer casting. Even a high level AD&D caster had to have several fighters around to have a chance of getting a spell off. Archery also had a large power up, as soon as firing into melee wasn't a crapshoot with target determined randomly.

Anonymouswizard
2018-12-31, 06:57 PM
It´s interesting to compare the DMG, designer interviews and notes between 3E and 3.5E.

The stance they took for 3.0E was actually quite reasonable: It is far easier to add some limitations as a house rule than to fine-comb the system and remove something unwanted as a house rule. The original DMG actually adresses things like moving spells up and down in level to suit the campaign, or how to re-introduce something like the system shock roll.

3.5E is way more problematic.

Now you mention it, I remember when I was originally reading the 3.5 DMG and thinking that something had changed from the 3e one. I distinctly remember having trouble finding the optional rules and character customisation that I knew was in the old book, I remember finding it all again eventually but stuff like the race and class design sections felt relatively out of place. I actually found the 4e DMG to be better because I felt it was a lot more about how to get the most out of the system, and because the system was solid enough that little GM-balance work was required.

Although I do tend to find a lot of GM books/sections are really bad and not great resources for running or altering systems. It's really disappointing, I've even seen some that would have been better if they were literally 'this is the one true way to run the game'.

Quertus
2018-12-31, 08:46 PM
And then those changed mechanics became the most fixed and powerful sacred cows, to the point that any deviation from them is seen as "not D&D."

I've not seen that. I've seen "that's not 3e", which is probably a fair criticism, but, as far as I can remember, I've not had anyone at my tables claim that 2e and earlier were "not D&D".


For me the instant recharge is an issue but not the main one; a party ok with 15 minute adventuring days would probably not be
put off by 15 minute adventuring weeks, particularly with the accelerated leveling pace in 3.x.

For me the killer change was how they first let spellcasters off the hook with regard to initiative and the action economy and then started adding ways for them to break it. The AD&D method of actions in combat (declare, then roll initiative) made casting in combat MUCH more uncertain - especially with casting times added in, which was made the fast spells like Power Words so valuable. Making casting a relatively safe action did a lot to break the power balance; adding Quickened spells and [multiple] Contingent Spells and things like Nerveskitter and Foresight shattered it altogether.

Balance to the table. If a caster without any ranks in concentration, or a caster with nothing but direct damage spells, or a caster without Quicken etc is what it takes to be balanced to the table, then that's what the player should run.


Yup. That's what made spellcasting far less dangerous. Safer casting. Even a high level AD&D caster had to have several fighters around to have a chance of getting a spell off. Archery also had a large power up, as soon as firing into melee wasn't a crapshoot with target determined randomly.

So... First off, iirc, 2e archers could just choose to take a -4 penalty to hit order to hit their chosen target (or to avoid people in the way?), no surgical training or feats required. Hilariously, despite that fact, almost no-one in 2e ever took the penalty. And I loved how the random target determination was based on the size of the target.

Personally, I felt like archery (ranged attacks general) got a stealth downgrade in 3e, as you could no longer so easily disrupt a caster with well-timed fire.

Tanarii
2018-12-31, 09:47 PM
So... First off, iirc, 2e archers could just choose to take a -4 penalty to hit order to hit their chosen target (or to avoid people in the way?), no surgical training or feats required. Hilariously, despite that fact, almost no-one in 2e ever took the penalty. And I loved how the random target determination was based on the size of the target.
When I say AD&D I'm always referring to 1e. 2e clearly wasn't D&D any more.

2D8HP
2018-12-31, 11:34 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CUGACO3WRXE/To5KSQ7_8_I/AAAAAAAAguo/aLnlf1ehXgg/s400/rpg-Stormbringer.jpg

Chaosium's old Stormbringer! (http://siskoid.blogspot.com/2011/10/rpgs-that-time-forgot-stormbringer.html?m=1) game had a "magic system" based on summoning and attempting to control demons and elementals. It was completely BADASS! and I thought it was truer to Swords and Sorcery than D&D, and most every RPG I'm familiar with.

The main flaw as a game was that it's random character creation method typically generated PC's from different nations and backgrounds with very wide power-levels (more so than old D&D) so you'd wind up with a party of one mighty sorcerer and four drooling beggar "sidekicks".

I think a Melee/Wizard/The Fantasy Trip or Champions poinr-buy-ish system would have improved the game.

PC balance matters, and "caster supremacy"is lame.

Luccan
2019-01-01, 01:34 AM
I seem to recall playing a magic user was a pain in the butt before 3e. Not that 3e didn't introduce/encourage some glaring flaws, but given the shift away from pure dungeoneering, I think things like shorter memorization/preparation times made sense. I think the real problem was action economy and feat bloat. Specifically, a wizard in 3.X could be "doing" several things with magic (thanks to concentration, other spells, etc) on a single turn and a fighter could... hit something and run or hit something a lot. Or if he was feeling really ambitious, hit something and pull a lever (remember kids, it takes as long to push a button as it does to run 30ft!). Add to that anything cool you want to do in melee combat is worse unless you take specific feats and then purposefully restrict those feats to... give the fighter more feats and you get the 3e fighter/wizard disparity. It doesn't help that, as one of the lead designers admitted, some feats sucked on purpose as a sort of "git gud" mentality on character building.

Edit: So, actually, I'll nominate 3.X feats. They were either worthless, mostly worthless but you had to take them, would be worth more without the 5 others you have to take before hand, or so incredibly good that not taking them is actively making you worse and probably more of a drain on the party. What should have been a system about adding cool new abilities to a character without specific class restrictions was instead a system that actively punished you for not knowing it well enough and at best made your character competent at what they do.

Quertus
2019-01-01, 07:49 AM
When I say AD&D I'm always referring to 1e. 2e clearly wasn't D&D any more.

Ah, I feared you might only be including the ancestor to the greatest system ever, which is why I specified "2e".

I technically have some earlier works, but I'm not up to reading through them all to see if a similar rule about actually hitting your target existed back before the perfection that is 2e, or if that was just one of its many improvements.

Oh, and as long as we're edition warring, can I just list "all of 4e" as a heartbreaker? I mean, 3e was bad enough, making casters playable by the masses while removing lots of cool stuff in the name of "balance" (which was such a resounding success - 3e is known throughout the multiverse as the paragon of balance), and other cool stuff in the name of "playability" and the unified d20 system. But 4e took "taking out cool stuff in the name of balance", and turned it up to 11, churning out the type of bland paste that I'd expect from the most generic of point buys, and the math still did not "just work"! And I'm not exactly a fan of the Forgotten Realms or anything, but even I felt sorry for FR fans given how 4e butchered the setting.

I'll consider paying for a new edition when its fans agree with its boasts of

* More cool stuff than 2e

* More content & options than 3e

And, for the love of Gork, less ambiguous text than either, and

* More active support than PF

Florian
2019-01-01, 08:05 AM
I've not seen that. I've seen "that's not 3e", which is probably a fair criticism, but, as far as I can remember, I've not had anyone at my tables claim that 2e and earlier were "not D&D".

3.5E had tremendous pull and more or less a whole generation of gamers was socialized with the system, not really knowing anything else. I've encountered it quite often that those understand D&D only in 3.5E terms and everything else is simply "not D&D2, including older editions and retro clones.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 09:22 AM
3.5E had tremendous pull and more or less a whole generation of gamers was socialized with the system, not really knowing anything else. I've encountered it quite often that those understand D&D only in 3.5E terms and everything else is simply "not D&D2, including older editions and retro clones.

That's the default on these boards themselves--"D&D", with out edition qualification, is dominantly understood to mean D&D 3.5. And it dramatically inhibits communication. It's as if (except for the grognards here) history started with 3.5E.

As far as the casting buffs, each individual change, in isolation, was justified from a game-play perspective and wasn't too bad. The sum total was brutal, especially when the more "locked-down" structure meant that non-casters were getting hammered by locking everything interesting behind (loads of crappy) feats and insufficient skill points (not that skill points are enough, but they are something). They kept the broken spells (and added hundreds more, because adding spells is easy) but removed all limiters. If you want to remove the limitations, you have to tone down the spells themselves. Maybe by shifting some of the more exotic stuff into class features or class-independent "rituals". I like 4E's idea for rituals. Not the exact implementation, but the core idea. That's where I'd put things like teleport, plane-shift, raise dead, etc. Rituals gated by power and by cost that anyone can access.

3E could never decide what it wanted to be and so teeters between two extremes. At least Exalted (from what I understand) accepts its broken-as-can-be/gonzo-to-the-max nature and runs with it. 3E D&D never made that leap. It tried to be universal, and failed at doing so.

Quertus
2019-01-01, 09:38 AM
Maybe by shifting some of the more exotic stuff into class features or class-independent "rituals". I like 4E's idea for rituals. Not the exact implementation, but the core idea.

Did you like / how did you feel about 3e's rituals?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 09:54 AM
Did you like / how did you feel about 3e's rituals?

I'm not familiar with them and can't find anything official on a cursory search. If they merely made another option available to non-casters (but usually nerfed or expensive) while keeping them standard for casters, that's insufficient in my eyes.

My ideal would be to take a steamroller to the spell lists. Move the vast majority of "utility" spells such as transport, adaptation (water breathing, etc), divination, creation (fabricate and the like), summoning, etc over to "rituals" instead of being spells that can be cast out of slots. Casters can get thematic bonuses/new options for using them through class features, so that a cleric may be able to raise dead more effectively/efficiently/with smaller drawbacks/cheaply or a wizard can teleport more accurately or planeshift with less risk, etc.

Then enforce specialization. Not by spell school, because those are meaningless. But by theme. Each character would have to pick from a pool of thematic lists--which lists are available may vary by class, domain, school, etc. No more clerics of a war god getting their "hey guys, let's all be peaceful" prayers answered. No more pyromancers who pick up "summon ice clone" because it's just that broken. I've done a preliminary effort on this line for 5e, but it's neither complete nor perfect.

And then, once you've stripped down the spell lists and enforced opportunity cost you can give martials (non-casters) equivalent fantastic abilities without requiring them to be all "anime" about it. Because the bulk of the problematic stuff is already class-neutral.

hamishspence
2019-01-01, 10:03 AM
Did you like / how did you feel about 3e's rituals?

Do you mean Savage Species's rituals for changing creature type etc, or Unearthed Arcana's Incantation system:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

which is basically a nerfed version of Epic Spellcasting, orientated around making lots of Skill checks, like 4e's Skill Challenge system was?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 10:10 AM
Do you mean Savage Species's rituals for changing creature type etc, or Unearthed Arcana's Incantation system:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

which is basically a nerfed version of Epic Spellcasting, orientated around making lots of Skill checks, like 4e's Skill Challenge system was?

Those Incantations sound like "we can't let non-spellcasters have nice things because then the spellcasters would just steal them as well." Seriously, that was painful to read.


To keep incantations under control in your campaign, avoid creating incantations with skill check DCs lower than 20. Furthermore, you should emphasize how much faster, easier, and safer spells are than incantations. Every incantation you create should have at least one component that’s difficult for the caster to deal with, such as an XP cost, an expensive material component, or a significant backlash component. Because incantations don’t require spell slots—or even spellcasting ability—you need to make sure that characters can’t simply cast incantations repeatedly, stopping only to sleep.

Spells are better! Spells are cheaper! Since giving these worse, slower, more expensive things to players would break things....wait, what? If spells are better and cheaper then they're already breaking things as we see already.

The idea is to not give an additional way, but make the rituals be the only way to do certain things. Once you do that, you don't need punitive measures to keep things in line.

hamishspence
2019-01-01, 10:12 AM
I think they were imported direct from D20 Modern Urban Arcana - which has vastly nerfed spellcasting, and incantations as the only way for anybody, spellcasters included, to wield really powerful magical effects.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 10:17 AM
A lot of the higher-level non-combat spells (and some of the stuff that gets used in combat) should be ritual-only instead.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-01, 10:20 AM
3.5E had tremendous pull and more or less a whole generation of gamers was socialized with the system, not really knowing anything else. I've encountered it quite often that those understand D&D only in 3.5E terms and everything else is simply "not D&D2, including older editions and retro clones.

The OGL did amazing things to establish 3.x as the lingua franca of gaming. Even such terms like "stacking" have become simple parts of the vocabulary


I seem to recall playing a magic user was a pain in the butt before 3e. Not that 3e didn't introduce/encourage some glaring flaws, but given the shift away from pure dungeoneering, I think things like shorter memorization/preparation times made sense.

While I largely agree with you, I would also add that many spells were simply unbalanced... if you speed up memorization times, but leave all the spells at the same power, then you greatly increase power. Now, as many have observed, direct damage spells had an effective decrease in power (since almost everyone had more hit points, from a combination of Con bonuses, higher HD, and more HD), but a lot of other spells saw a significant increase, and they were always willing to add new spells, sometimes with minimal consideration to what level they should be.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 10:32 AM
A lot of the higher-level non-combat spells (and some of the stuff that gets used in combat) should be ritual-only instead.

Very much agree.


I think they were imported direct from D20 Modern Urban Arcana - which has vastly nerfed spellcasting, and incantations as the only way for anybody, spellcasters included, to wield really powerful magical effects.

Which goes to my point--the D20 system tried to be universal with things that aren't universal. Strongly-restricted powerful effects work great if that's the only way to get those effects. But if spellcasters can do that 6 times before needing a rest, while the incantation version takes forever and is expensive....it's the illusion of an option.

Choose one:
* Powerful magic
* routine magic

Things that can be cast easily cannot be that powerful. Things that are powerful should be hard to cast for everyone.

This gives dials for the setting-designer to turn--in a high-magic setting, use of these rituals (and the components needed) are routine--teleport circles that reduce the strain/allow perfect precision are found in every major city. In a lower-magic setting, the components are more expensive/rarer/more risky or things might require a full circle of casters instead of a single person. If it takes an entire choir of trained voices 3 days to sing someone back to life and costs them each a share of their lifespan (one life-year for every year the person lived), raise dead would be a significant expense and a major thing. If, on the other hand, it only takes a handful of phoenix feathers (and those are raised commercially) and 10 minutes of chanting...

Tanarii
2019-01-01, 11:17 AM
I technically have some earlier works, but I'm not up to reading through them all to see if a similar rule about actually hitting your target existed back before the perfection that is 2e, or if that was just one of its many improvements

Oh, and as long as we're edition warring,.I lolled :smallamused: I actually played 2e for twice the time I played Classic/AD&D, but it will always be "2e" to me. Heck I played C&T + S&P for the same amount of time I played Classic/AD&D, and that was the root of most of the combat system changes made in 3e.

I've loved every new editin of D&D and embraced it eagerly with an attitude of "look at all these awesome improvements they've made!"

Even when I can see in 18 years of retrospect where they broke something with a new edition. Like the balance of Spellcasters.



While I largely agree with you, I would also add that many spells were simply unbalanced... if you speed up memorization times, but leave all the spells at the same power, then you greatly increase power.
Oh! You reminded me of the other thing: leveling generally became incredibly faster, making high level (10+) gaming and those powerful spells far more accessible. Of course, given how often people, at least IMX, jumped to higher levels without earning them (even in Gary's time) I'm not sure that really counts. :smallwink:

LibraryOgre
2019-01-01, 11:20 AM
I lolled :smallamused: I actually played 2e for twice the time I played Classic/AD&D, but it will always be "2e" to me. Heck I played C&T + S&P for the same amount of time I played Classic/AD&D, and that was the root of most of the combat system changes made in 3e.

I've loved every new editin of D&D and embraced it eagerly with an attitude of "look at all these awesome improvements they've made!"

Even when I can see in 18 years of retrospect where they broke something with a new edition. Like the balance of Spellcasters.

I think my "eagerly embrace" faded about 3.5.

I started with 1e, then a 1e/2e mix (we had the 1e PH and the 2e DMG and the Dark Sun Campaign book), then 2e. When 3e came along, I eagerly embraced it. 3.5 took me by surprise (I first saw it driving back from my honeymoon), and by 4e, I was looking at things a lot more critically. I've looked at 5e, but my interests have drifted, and now I look at different games a lot.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 11:22 AM
Now that I have a night's sleep and some coffee in me, I think I can post this coherently.

I think the crazy progression that wizards had to go through was part of the impetus for the "overnight recovery" change... but then also became part of the problem with the overnight recovery. Used to be, the wizard started out with crap for spell slots and cantrips were not a thing, so after a couple spells they were that guy with no armor and some darts. So if you at least gave them back their slots without a giant hassle, that was fair. But then at higher levels it became nearly a case of unlimited ammo with a supply drop every night just in case. Add in cantrips and rituals, and the wizard is doing fine.

I'd the very least I think I'd refluff and tweak wizards in 5e...

Spells in the book -- everything the wizard has figured out and detailed in their spellbook. The wizard needs their book to to cast these, unless they're "studied".
Spells "studied" -- spells the wizard has been studying a lot, can be cast without the book, would take a long rest per spell to swap out.
Spell slots -- just represents magical endurance / how much the wizard can cast without rest, refreshes a little with a short rest and a lot with a long rest. A little more at lower level, a little less at higher level, than the current progression.
Rituals, optional -- more spells need the ritual tag.
Rituals, obligatory -- a lot of the world-warping higher-level stuff should be ritual-only, thus very hard to cast off-the-cuff or in combat.

That would just about purge the Vancian silliness out of the system without rewriting it from scratch or blowing up "resource management balance". No more "spell prep", no more "holding the spell in your mind at the point just before the final casting", no more of any of that.

Tanarii
2019-01-01, 11:36 AM
I'd the very least I think I'd refluff and tweak wizards in 5e...

Spells in the book -- everything the wizard has figured out and detailed in their spellbook. The wizard needs their book to to cast these, unless they're "studied".
Spells "studied" -- spells the wizard has been studying a lot, can be cast without the book, would take a long rest per spell to swap out.That sounds very much like preparing spells in 5e to me.


That would just about purge the Vancian silliness out of the system without rewriting it from scratch or blowing up "resource management balance". No more "spell prep", no more "holding the spell in your mind at the point just before the final casting", no more of any of that.
Many 5e casters don't have spell prep, and those that do just use it to mean "chose a small subset of a bigger list you can cast this day". And "holding the spell in your mind at the point just before the final casting" doesn't exist any more in 5e. The spell is not lost from your mind (spells known/prepared) just because it is cast. You just spend a slot to power it.

From what I can see, they've already removed what you seem to be calling vancian casting in 5e.

What remains is spell slots. You choose a spell you want to cast, then cast a slot of a minimum level to spend as a resource to use it. Most people still consider that vancian casting, meaning "resource slots of different levels that recharge on a specific timer"

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 11:40 AM
That sounds very much like preparing spells in 5e to me.


Many 5e casters don't have spell prep, and those that do just use it to mean "chose a small subset of a bigger list you can cast this day". And "holding the spell in your mind at the point just before the final casting" doesn't exist any more in 5e. The spell is not lost from your mind (spells known/prepared) just because it is cast. You just spend a slot to power it.

From what I can see, they've already removed what you seem to be calling vancian casting in 5e.

What remains is spell slots. You choose a spell you want to cast, then cast a slot of a minimum level to spend as a resource to use it. Most people still consider that vancian casting, meaning "resource slots of different levels that recharge on a specific timer"

Can the wizard cast a spell they don't have prepped from their spellbook, or do they need to wait to swap it out later?

Tanarii
2019-01-01, 12:05 PM
Can the wizard cast a spell they don't have prepped from their spellbook, or do they need to wait to swap it out later?
If it has the ritual tag they can cast as a ritual if it's in their book, they don't need to prepare it. Special benefit for Wizards specifically. Other casters need it prepared (or known inthecase of Bards) to cast as a ritual.

There are relatively few rituals though. Increasing the number might work if "ritual only" was introduced as a thing for spells.

Florian
2019-01-01, 12:06 PM
Did you like / how did you feel about 3e's rituals?

PF Occult Rituals are an evolved version of the old Incantations.

(Ok, to prevent a potential misunderstanding: German RPG publishes have a history of not only getting a license and throwing a simple translation on the market, but instead reworking, adapting and improving the base material. The most prominent cases here are Call of Cthulhu and Shadowrun, which tend to be very different between the language-based "editions". Ok, I mention that because it might be that the source I will use as a comparison point could be entirely different in english.)

Basically, they are very close to Arcana Cthulhiana/Necronomicon of CoC 2nd Edition and build similarly, with elaborate rituals, a lot of components and some skill-based checks, with the optional addition of more "traditional" elements, like going for human sacrifice to power the ritual. The effects are surprisingly powerful and, with the right setup, available at a very low level, at least when you are willing to get you hands dirty/pay the price.

In a way, they actually beat regular PF/D&D magic on any level that counts: They are highly thematic, they cover very unique effects and magic can´t replicate what they do, even 9th level spells don't pack that kind of punch (which, incidentally, kills the Tippyverse for PF, some thing I'm glad about).

For example, the Dream Quest for Unknown Kadath is an occult ritual, the Harvest Ritual to bless an entire region is a occult ritual and becoming a Lich has also been moved over to be a occult ritual, replacing the BS from the template entry of the Bestiary....

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 12:17 PM
If it has the ritual tag they can cast as a ritual if it's in their book, they don't need to prepare it. Special benefit for Wizards specifically. Other casters need it prepared (or known inthecase of Bards) to cast as a ritual.

There are relatively few rituals though. Increasing the number might work if "ritual only" was introduced as a thing for spells.

So the answer is, no, they can't just cast from the book, they have to have it "prepared" or use a ritual if it's tagged as such.

Florian
2019-01-01, 12:40 PM
3E could never decide what it wanted to be and so teeters between two extremes. At least Exalted (from what I understand) accepts its broken-as-can-be/gonzo-to-the-max nature and runs with it. 3E D&D never made that leap. It tried to be universal, and failed at doing so.

Hm... Nah, it´s a bit different. Exalted more or less simply skips the "zero to hero" part of D&D and has you start at the "Hero Level" right away. It drops all pretense that any kind of exalted should be measured on human terms and that things like being powerful enough as an individual to just go and conquer a kingdom single-handedly are feats below the notice of the powerful and not worthy doing or mentioning.



I think my "eagerly embrace" faded about 3.5.

I started with 1e, then a 1e/2e mix (we had the 1e PH and the 2e DMG and the Dark Sun Campaign book), then 2e. When 3e came along, I eagerly embraced it. 3.5 took me by surprise (I first saw it driving back from my honeymoon), and by 4e, I was looking at things a lot more critically. I've looked at 5e, but my interests have drifted, and now I look at different games a lot.

I grew up in a time when my country was still occupied and in a city quarter that was attached to an U.S. Army base.
Chainmail/oD&D and Traveller was a thing that some of the war veterans/G.I.s got into as a pastime and they started to play scenarios with us kids.

That heavily influenced my early perception of how to role-play, because of the heavy emphasis on how things actually work, concrete knowledge being a thing and you only fall back to using the rules level when trying to simulate something that no actually knowledge/experience can be leveraged on, like fantasy races or spells.

The transition from B/X to 1st and 2nd was rather more a refinement of the tools available to do this, while 3E was more or less really a hard change in the underlying paradigm and 3.5E went on an really facilitated the "RAW fetish", which I came to loath.

Truth be told, I would rather play very different game systems, but the mainstream simply is the mainstream and it´s rather hard to find players outside of DSA, D&D and WoD.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 12:48 PM
Hm... Nah, it´s a bit different. Exalted more or less simply skips the "zero to hero" part of D&D and has you start at the "Hero Level" right away. It drops all pretense that any kind of exalted should be measured on human terms and that things like being powerful enough as an individual to just go and conquer a kingdom single-handedly are feats below the notice of the powerful and not worthy doing or mentioning.


That's what I meant, roughly. The designed power level for Exalted starts at super-hero and scales from there, gleefully reaching "punch the enemy into a duck" levels of absurdity on purpose. So being super powerful and having broken (by reference to either the setting or the other players) abilities is the norm.

3e D&D tries to play it both ways--both the people stuck at "mundane+" levels and "world-altering, 5d-chess-playing demigods" levels at the same supposed power level. All while claiming through the encounter system that they're playing on the same field.

Komatik
2019-01-01, 12:51 PM
That would just about purge the Vancian silliness out of the system without rewriting it from scratch or blowing up "resource management balance". No more "spell prep", no more "holding the spell in your mind at the point just before the final casting", no more of any of that.

Some Dragonlance books at least put is so that you learn the actual procedure of casting the spell from the book, but when you cast the spell the procedure vanished from your mind so you have to hit the books again. Works out nicely except makes no damn sense with multiple prepper copies of the same spell.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 12:51 PM
I always used incantations for spells above fourth level when playing E6 D&D. I actually had it in my head that it was actually how e6 was intended to be played until I mentioned it on this forum and someone pointed out to me that those rules were not included as part of regular E6.



3e D&D tries to play it both ways--both the people stuck at "mundane+" levels and "world-altering, 5d-chess-playing demigods" levels at the same supposed power level. All while claiming through the encounter system that they're playing on the same field.

I don't think there is any "demi" about it. Most mythological or fantastic full fledged gods would be envious of the powers that a TO 3.5 character wields.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 12:55 PM
I don't think there is any "demi" about it. Most mythological or fantastic full fledged gods would be envious of the powers that a TO 3.5 character wields.

True enough, although most TO tricks rely on strained interpretations or very permissive DMs. But moany PO builds are still in the "a god is angry? Oh, well, guess it's Tuesday" power range.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 12:56 PM
Some Dragonlance books at least put is so that you learn the actual procedure of casting the spell from the book, but when you cast the spell the procedure vanished from your mind so you have to hit the books again. Works out nicely except makes no damn sense with multiple prepper copies of the same spell.

That's straight-up Vancian, and IMO it doesn't make any sense regardless of the context.

Florian
2019-01-01, 01:05 PM
3e D&D tries to play it both ways--both the people stuck at "mundane+" levels and "world-altering, 5d-chess-playing demigods" levels at the same supposed power level. All while claiming through the encounter system that they're playing on the same field.

It works, at least as long as you know and understand what makes it break and you go out of your way to avoid that. It is more a thing of the player empowerment mentality that got into the game with 3E and went into full swing with the crowd that got socialized into it with 3.5E that makes the game break.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 01:15 PM
It works, at least as long as you know and understand what makes it break and you go out of your way to avoid that. It is more a thing of the player empowerment mentality that got into the game with 3E and went into full swing with the crowd that got socialized into it with 3.5E that makes the game break.

The fact that you have to go out of your way to avoid the breakage is the problem. Being able to break things through hard work and system mastery is normal, being able to break things accidentally, by choosing the seemingly-obvious choices (ie druids) is a problem. Especially if someone else, also making the seemingly-obvious choices (ie toughness) breaks things the other direction.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-01, 03:10 PM
Some Dragonlance books at least put is so that you learn the actual procedure of casting the spell from the book, but when you cast the spell the procedure vanished from your mind so you have to hit the books again. Works out nicely except makes no damn sense with multiple prepper copies of the same spell.

That's D&D/AD&D "memorization". In essence, your memorization didn't just imprint the instructions, but created a disposable copy of the spell in your mind.... the full energy required to complete the spell and everything.

Morty
2019-01-01, 03:53 PM
Spell slots lose what balancing capacity they had when you leave the constraints of a dungeon and the GM can't control the pacing quite as much. Or will not, because the story they have planned doesn't involve constantly pushing the PCs and forcing them to allocate resources. They might work if everyone in the party had to use them, but this has never been the case. Then again, it's always been D&D's assumption that spellcasters, mages/wizards in particular, are the ones who matter, and the others are there to get them to high level and then carry their bags.

Quertus
2019-01-01, 04:00 PM
Do you mean Savage Species's rituals for changing creature type etc, or Unearthed Arcana's Incantation system:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

which is basically a nerfed version of Epic Spellcasting, orientated around making lots of Skill checks, like 4e's Skill Challenge system was?

Unearthed Arcana's Incantation system.


My ideal would be to take a steamroller to the spell lists. Move the vast majority of "utility" spells such as transport, adaptation (water breathing, etc), divination, creation (fabricate and the like), summoning, etc over to "rituals" instead of being spells that can be cast out of slots. Casters can get thematic bonuses/new options for using them through class features, so that a cleric may be able to raise dead more effectively/efficiently/with smaller drawbacks/cheaply or a wizard can teleport more accurately or planeshift with less risk, etc.

Then enforce specialization. Not by spell school, because those are meaningless. But by theme. Each character would have to pick from a pool of thematic lists--which lists are available may vary by class, domain, school, etc. No more clerics of a war god getting their "hey guys, let's all be peaceful" prayers answered. No more pyromancers who pick up "summon ice clone" because it's just that broken. I've done a preliminary effort on this line for 5e, but it's neither complete nor perfect.

And then, once you've stripped down the spell lists and enforced opportunity cost you can give martials (non-casters) equivalent fantastic abilities without requiring them to be all "anime" about it. Because the bulk of the problematic stuff is already class-neutral.

I mean, I personally loved how 2e (and earlier) gave Wizards 0 spells known, and no Magic Mart - all spells known were found as random treasure, no two Wizards were the same. So much better, IMO, than 3e, the dawn of predictability and sameness which worked so well to produce game balance.

But, regardless, you'd prefer to let everyone have (un)equal access to utility magic, force specialization, and boost muggles?

Well, I personally fell in love with the Generalist Wizard, who can do anything, if he can figure out how. So I'm personally not interested in thematic specialists, especially not in D&D. And I think such "oh, it's undead/constructs, the Enchanter is useless" is just as bad as "oh, it's undead/constructs, the Rogue is useless", or "oh, it's flying opponents, the idiot melee-only Fighter is useless" - but at least that's the Fighter's (player's?) fault, whereas there rest are the game designer's fault.

Otherwise, despite my harsh criticism and personal dislike, I must admit, it sounds quite playable. I'm especially fond of the idea of gods granting more thematic spell access - I often played specialty priests in 2e. At the right tables, you changes would be an excellent set of fixes to the game. Erm, that probably come across as sarcastic, but I mean it seriously - I could see many of my friends raving about such a system as you describe, if it existed.

Tanarii
2019-01-01, 04:07 PM
Then again, it's always been D&D's assumption that spellcasters, mages/wizards in particular, are the ones who matter, and the others are there to get them to high level and then carry their bags.
Not always.

In early editions, Wizards were Artillery. Incredibly powerful, valuable as all get out, but limited ammunition and very vulnerable. Any sane Fighter would protect them with everything they had, but they had their work cut out for them. They certainly weren't holding any bags, any more than a motorized infantryman is holding an artilleryman's bags.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-01, 05:08 PM
Some Dragonlance books at least put is so that you learn the actual procedure of casting the spell from the book, but when you cast the spell the procedure vanished from your mind so you have to hit the books again. Works out nicely except makes no damn sense with multiple prepper copies of the same spell.


That's straight-up Vancian, and IMO it doesn't make any sense regardless of the context.


That's D&D/AD&D "memorization". In essence, your memorization didn't just imprint the instructions, but created a disposable copy of the spell in your mind.... the full energy required to complete the spell and everything.

Vancian casting makes sense, but the books never properly explain it. The original books assumed you had read the Vance stories. Later D&D books just continued to assume you knew (if they were written by old guys) or copied the old books like a cargo cult.

When you "memorize" a spell, you shape and load the magical energy into your brain. When you cast the spell, you unleash that energy and "forget" it. You're not memorizing and forgetting any information. You're storing and discharging energy.

Memorizing a spell is like loading a crossbow.
Study the spellbook= read and follow the instructions for operating the cranequin, locking the string into the trigger mechanism, removing the cranequin, and putting a bolt into the slot.
Holding a spell in memory= carrying a loaded crossbow
Casting the spell= pointing the crossbow and pulling the trigger

After you shoot, you still remember how to shoot the crossbow, but it isn't loaded anymore. Unlike loading a crossbow, the process for memorizing a spell is too complicated to do by rote.

Casting a cantrip is like reciting pi to a hundred places. If you have the book, you can just read it. If you lose the book, you can sit down and calculate it by hand then read it out. If you study it a lot, you can eventually remember all those digits so you can recite it by heart without a book.

First level spells are more like "recite pi divided by today's date on the Persian calendar to a hundred places". It's complicated and it's different every time so you can't just learn the digits by heart. Your spellbook has the formula and a conversion chart from your calendar to the Persian one but you need to plug in the variables and calculate the results every time you use it. Higher level spells just get more complicated.

You can learn the principles of magic, but actually doing magic requires a lot of reference materials because you can't keep all those details in your head.

Florian
2019-01-01, 05:19 PM
It´s also good to keep in mind that the act of memorizing the spells is the main part of casting the spell. Before 3E managed to ruin those aspects of vancian casting, it more or less took ages of downtime to get a mid-level spell caster back into shape once he ran out of spells. If memory serves right, it was 1 hour per level of the spell with no way to quicken that. (I was pretty baffled when they came up with the sorcerer class, because that doesn't really make sense in the context of vancian magic)

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 05:59 PM
It´s also good to keep in mind that the act of memorizing the spells is the main part of casting the spell. Before 3E managed to ruin those aspects of vancian casting, it more or less took ages of downtime to get a mid-level spell caster back into shape once he ran out of spells. If memory serves right, it was 1 hour per level of the spell with no way to quicken that. (I was pretty baffled when they came up with the sorcerer class, because that doesn't really make sense in the context of vancian magic)

The remnant parts of "Vancian magic" in D&D are all just momentum now. That's how wizards cast because that's how wizards cast, mechanically. There's no underlying reasoning or "in fiction" nature of magic upon which the mechanics of the system are built. (Despite comments about "the weave" in the 5e books, all of which are based on retroactive explanation.)

So the sorcerer is just another set of mechanics for spellcasting, and so is the warlock, and so is the cleric, and so is... etc.

Another sign that these are purely mechanical building blocks the monk's "internal energy" and the sorcerer's "internal energy" don't mix at all -- those are just words tacked on to mechanical blocks, the mechanics aren't based on the "fiction" at all.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-01, 06:01 PM
Vancian casting makes sense, but the books never properly explain it. The original books assumed you had read the Vance stories. Later D&D books just continued to assume you knew (if they were written by old guys) or copied the old books like a cargo cult.

When you "memorize" a spell, you shape and load the magical energy into your brain. When you cast the spell, you unleash that energy and "forget" it. You're not memorizing and forgetting any information. You're storing and discharging energy.

Memorizing a spell is like loading a crossbow.
Study the spellbook= read and follow the instructions for operating the cranequin, locking the string into the trigger mechanism, removing the cranequin, and putting a bolt into the slot.
Holding a spell in memory= carrying a loaded crossbow
Casting the spell= pointing the crossbow and pulling the trigger

After you shoot, you still remember how to shoot the crossbow, but it isn't loaded anymore. Unlike loading a crossbow, the process for memorizing a spell is too complicated to do by rote.

Casting a cantrip is like reciting pi to a hundred places. If you have the book, you can just read it. If you lose the book, you can sit down and calculate it by hand then read it out. If you study it a lot, you can eventually remember all those digits so you can recite it by heart without a book.

First level spells are more like "recite pi divided by today's date on the Persian calendar to a hundred places". It's complicated and it's different every time so you can't just learn the digits by heart. Your spellbook has the formula and a conversion chart from your calendar to the Persian one but you need to plug in the variables and calculate the results every time you use it. Higher level spells just get more complicated.

You can learn the principles of magic, but actually doing magic requires a lot of reference materials because you can't keep all those details in your head.


Sorry, still bonkers.

At least ongoing editions of D&D clinging to the mechanics of Vancian casting while not really understanding where they came from... has a certain ironic appropriateness.

Knaight
2019-01-01, 06:19 PM
That's the default on these boards themselves--"D&D", with out edition qualification, is dominantly understood to mean D&D 3.5. And it dramatically inhibits communication. It's as if (except for the grognards here) history started with 3.5E.

At least in the context of criticism D&D is routinely used to refer to commonalities in every or at least most editions, then gets interpreted by people to exclude their preferred edition, especially if it can be pinned on the 3.x family in particular.

Cluedrew
2019-01-01, 06:37 PM
Oh, and as long as we're edition warring, can I just list "all of 4e" as a heartbreaker?I don't know. It tried to break away from D&D of yesteryear. It didn't have a horrendous base that dragged down interesting ideas. Nor any other of the common traits of fantasy heart breakers I can think of.

Some people disagree with me on this, but I honestly think 4e is actually the best designed edition of D&D. Its not perfect, but I think it had a clearer set of goals and better achieved those goals than any other edition. The issue was they were the wrong set of goals. It was the stunning new tactical board game no one knew they wanted because... almost no one actually wanted it.

If that makes it a fantasy heart breaker, I guess it is.


That's the default on these boards themselves--"D&D", with out edition qualification, is dominantly understood to mean D&D 3.5. And it dramatically inhibits communication.More than that, I have seen people assume from "role-playing" that we are talking about D&D 3.5. That assumption even has a name: The Playgrounder's Fallacy.


So I'm personally not interested in thematic specialists, especially not in D&D. And I think such "oh, it's undead/constructs, the Enchanter is useless" is just as bad as "oh, it's undead/constructs, the Rogue is useless", or "oh, it's flying opponents, the idiot melee-only Fighter is useless" - but at least that's the Fighter's (player's?) fault, whereas there rest are the game designer's fault.I object, I think a well built melee-only fighter should be able to jump well enough to fight winged enemies.

OK, that is a joke, but I do believe specialists have a role. Mostly because real people do specialize in things and so it makes sense that imaginary people would as well. The main thing I feel is not the "max" but the "min". In that the base competence is really low in a lot of systems. A specialist out of their area should still be able to contribute something, not as much as a generalist or a specialist in their area or even someone who put it as a secondary speciality, but it shouldn't be nothing.

My socialite characters can hold their own in a fight (maybe not very well, but they can) and my combat characters can talk to people (although they may resort to intimidation).

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 07:00 PM
At least in the context of criticism D&D is routinely used to refer to commonalities in every or at least most editions, then gets interpreted by people to exclude their preferred edition, especially if it can be pinned on the 3.x family in particular.

That's because most bad things in the D&D family can be pinned on 3.X :smalltongue:

Again, not sure if that should be blue...


Sorry, still bonkers.

I have to agree with Max_Killjoy here. The original Vancian "partially-prepared munitions" model makes very little sense, especially when applied to non-wizard casters (including clerics and druids).

Fortunately, my preferred edition (5e) did away with that in all but name. I still don't like the model as presented in the PHB and instead came up with my own model, presented in spoilers below.


Spells are patterns that resonate with the ambient magical field that pervades reality. A pattern, empowered by the right amount of energy, produces a coherent effect on reality. The details of this pattern differ from practitioner to practitioner, but some things are constant. One is that it is difficult to hold many of these patterns in memory simultaneously. Another is that these patterns can be grouped into specific "spells" which differ only in the (to adventurers) irrelevant details. Thus, one person's chromatic orb may be different in shape, size, and color than another's, but all go about the same range have about the same effect.

Different magical traditions approach learning and applying these patterns differently.

Bardic magic (currently only bards) use musical harmonies to directly pluck at the fabric of magic. The effects that are most closely aligned with this style affect the minds of their hearers, since what is a singer without an audience?

Channeled magic (clerics, druids, and rangers) don't directly know their patterns, but rely on someone or something else to do the casting, merely spending the personal resources to catalyze the spell.

Clerics act as the instruments of their Divine masters--they prepare and practice specific motions, words, and items necessary to channel the patterns they choose to cast. Their orders (or revelation) reveal which blessings their deity makes available to them each day.

Druids and rangers both deal with the minor spirits around them. Druids make short-term contracts--I'll feed you a bit of energy in exchange for producing X effect--with tons of little spirits who cluster around them constantly. As a side note, these spirits are not fond of working through significant amounts of refined metal, so druids avoid wearing metal armor. It feels like they've got a bad head cold when listening to the spirits. Rangers, on the other hand, make friends with their spirits and carry the same ones around constantly. But either way, when the druidic practitioner casts a spell, it's the spirit doing the casting and the practitioner providing the energy.

Sorcerers (along with other arcane casters including bards) directly manipulate the ambient energy, but their patterns are embedded in their souls. This could be due to heritage (draconic or otherwise), an accident of exposure to wild magic, or being chosen by a god, or whatever. They don't learn them as much as discover or unlock them through practice. Sorcerers are deft at manipulating the patterns because those patterns are part of them, so they can take shortcuts (Quicken), play with the parameters (Extend, Enlarge, Maximize, etc), etc. They cast by force of will, not by study or by perceiving the will of another being.

Warlocks cheat. They gain their patterns directly as a payment for a contract made and services rendered (or debt incurred). They also gain the promise of a steady supply of energy (see spell slots below). Their higher-order spells are cast much more like a cleric's, except that they no longer provide the energy for those--the patron does.

Wizards manipulate reality with word and writing. The most traditional of the arts, they learn their patterns by dedicated study. Most individual wizards aren't experts in the fundamentals of magic, however--they're not particularly apt at systematizing the magic. As a whole, they're the bunch most suited for it. They write their patterns down in their own notation, which enables them to switch out which ones they're prepared with each day up to the limits of their memory. It also allows them to create some effects without having a pattern in-memory and without using personal energy, at the cost of significant time and the requirement to have their book along.

Spell slots are quantized pockets of energy stored in the soul of the spell-caster. It takes effort, training, experience, and yes, some intrinsic talent to open these pockets and be able to reliably release the energy into a pattern in a controlled manner, so most people can't do it. And few gain the ability to use the higher-rank (larger energy) slots. Refilling these pockets takes rest, including sleep because the body can't do it (very well, anyway) with a conscious mind taking up resources).

The analogy here is to transitions between atomic states. It takes energy dE = (E_n - E_m) to raise an electron and transition from the m'th state |m> to an excited state |n>. When the atom transitions back to |m>, it releases a photon of energy dE. Each pair of states has a different, non-integer-multiple dE. In a similar fashion, it takes energy to create a magical excited state--the higher the "level" of the spell slot, the greater the energy required. These magical excited states are metastable--they can be released and the energy fed into a spell at will. One side-effect of this is that spell slots, like electronic states, aren't nice integer (or even rational number) multiples of each other and you can't use half a slot. Each spell has a fixed, minimum amount of energy necessary for the spell to go off. Some spells can be overcharged (upcast) by feeding more than the minimum energy, but others gain no benefit. You also can't make 1 2nd level slot by spending 2 1st level slots--the energy required/supplied is wrong (and can't be fed that way anyway).

Some very simple spells require so little energy that the states refill effectively immediately and the spell can be cast at will. Basically all you need there is the training for the pattern and a strong will. These are cantrips.

All this probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else, but it was a revelation to me.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 07:11 PM
Quertus, speaking of Generalist Wizards, how would you feel about the following rough outline (numbers pulled from thin air):

Assume that we've identified a broad set of themes of various degrees of specificity, nested hierarchically. So you might have Specialty/sub-specialty (like modern physicists--my degree was in quantum chemistry, more specifically low-energy atomic and molecular scattering theory).

In this hypothetical system, Specialists can learn any spell of levels 0-2 (universal spells), spells from their broader specialty of levels 3-6, and spells from their sub-specialty only of levels 7-9.

Universalists can learn any spell of levels 0-6, but can never learn a spell of levels 7-9. They may be able to use those slots to up-cast (strengthen) a lower-level spell, but will never get to learn wish-equivalent spells.

Here you're trading depth for breadth. And that's a real trade-off in the scientific world. Those who wish to reach the bleeding edge of physics are concentrated very deeply on one tiny little sub-sub-sub-sub specialty and only have graduate-student (at best) knowledge of the rest of physics. Back when I was fresh out of grad school, I could tell you lots about the details of my field. A smaller amount about the rest of quantum chemistry, and only fragments of the rest of physics (of which there is a lot). I went to a talk by a high-energy guy (doing even sort-of related work with scattering, just at unimaginably higher energies) and understood about 5% of what he was talking about. Being a generalist stunts your growth when you're approaching the bleeding edge of knowledge.

Florian
2019-01-01, 07:26 PM
@PhoenixPhyre:

Have you taken a look at Shadow of the Demon Lord? Your character will progress thru three stages, starting with a basic and broad class (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard), will advance to a more specialized class (Paladin, Battle Mage, Druid.....) and the last stage only has highly specialized magic options each one focused only on one school of magic.

SimonMoon6
2019-01-01, 07:26 PM
Quertus, speaking of Generalist Wizards, how would you feel about the following rough outline (numbers pulled from thin air):

Assume that we've identified a broad set of themes of various degrees of specificity, nested hierarchically. So you might have Specialty/sub-specialty (like modern physicists--my degree was in quantum chemistry, more specifically low-energy atomic and molecular scattering theory).

In this hypothetical system, Specialists can learn any spell of levels 0-2 (universal spells), spells from their broader specialty of levels 3-6, and spells from their sub-specialty only of levels 7-9.

Universalists can learn any spell of levels 0-6, but can never learn a spell of levels 7-9. They may be able to use those slots to up-cast (strengthen) a lower-level spell, but will never get to learn wish-equivalent spells.

That's as interesting idea. Personally, I would go with something simpler like:

A universalist casting a spell treats that spell as 1 or 2 (or whatever number is appropriate) levels higher that its normal level, unless that spell is a universal spell. (So 3rd level Fireball would be treated as a 4th or 5th level spell). On the other hand, a specialist can *only* cast spells from their specialty (as well as universal spells). So, the universalist *can* cast any kind of spell (although they will NEVER get to cast Gate or Wish, for example), but they do so much later than the specialist. The specialist can cast spells at the normal levels but gets ONLY those spells. So, there is a massive trade-off either way.

Reversefigure4
2019-01-01, 07:42 PM
In this hypothetical system, Specialists can learn any spell of levels 0-2 (universal spells), spells from their broader specialty of levels 3-6, and spells from their sub-specialty only of levels 7-9.

Universalists can learn any spell of levels 0-6, but can never learn a spell of levels 7-9. They may be able to use those slots to up-cast (strengthen) a lower-level spell, but will never get to learn wish-equivalent spells.

Unfortunately, this setup is heavily campaign dependent. If the PCs will only get up to level 6 spells anyway, there's no reason to pick a specialist (you don't derive any advantage at the earlier levels). And campaigns that don't go to high levels are very common.

If the PCs start high enough to be able to cast level 9 spells, then losing the lower level universal options may or may not matter to them, depending on how good those spells are. Most versions of DnD-esqe casters don't spend a lot of time casting 1st level spells once they can cast 9th level ones, though.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 07:48 PM
That's as interesting idea. Personally, I would go with something simpler like:

A universalist casting a spell treats that spell as 1 or 2 (or whatever number is appropriate) levels higher that its normal level, unless that spell is a universal spell. (So 3rd level Fireball would be treated as a 4th or 5th level spell). On the other hand, a specialist can *only* cast spells from their specialty (as well as universal spells). So, the universalist *can* cast any kind of spell (although they will NEVER get to cast Gate or Wish, for example), but they do so much later than the specialist. The specialist can cast spells at the normal levels but gets ONLY those spells. So, there is a massive trade-off either way.

I'm strongly not fond of mucking around with spell-progression at a spell-by-spell basis. Way too much book-keeping and it messes with my model of what spells are. I'd rather keep all spells for a given class at the same level access and cut off access entirely. I like the tiered model because it gives that sense of hierarchy that makes sense from a real-world science/advanced learning perspective. People specialize, but that starts later, once you have a foundation.


Unfortunately, this setup is heavily campaign dependent. If the PCs will only get up to level 6 spells anyway, there's no reason to pick a specialist (you don't derive any advantage at the earlier levels). And campaigns that don't go to high levels are very common.

If the PCs start high enough to be able to cast level 9 spells, then losing the lower level universal options may or may not matter to them, depending on how good those spells are. Most versions of DnD-esqe casters don't spend a lot of time casting 1st level spells once they can cast 9th level ones, though.

I would imagine that there are other class features that depend on specialization (with Universalist being one particular "specialization") So being a universalist trades off power (both at-level and at higher levels) for breadth of capabilities. And as far as casting lower-level spells goes, that's highly edition dependent. I'm working from a 5e point of view, where even at level 20 you're still casting level 1-2 spells quite a bit because they don't necessarily have "upgraded" versions. You want that short-range teleport (misty step)? That's a level 2 spell, for now and forever. And higher spell levels aren't necessarily encounter-enders. So casters cast their whole range pretty commonly.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-01, 08:09 PM
I have to agree with Max_Killjoy here. The original Vancian "partially-prepared munitions" model makes very little sense, especially when applied to non-wizard casters (including clerics and druids).


Why not? What doesn't make sense? It's consistent by itself. It only gets weird if you bring in all the non-Vancian magic and then treat them the same. That's not a flaw in the Vancian model.

I don't really like Vancian magic, but it does what it sets out to do.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 08:56 PM
Why not? What doesn't make sense? It's consistent by itself. It only gets weird if you bring in all the non-Vancian magic and then treat them the same. That's not a flaw in the Vancian model.

I don't really like Vancian magic, but it does what it sets out to do.

It works for one tiny edge case (wizards in 2e and before) in modern games. So in its own setting, it's fine. In anything else it's out of place as a model of how magic works.

For someone who plays 3e or 5e (not to mention 4e), the idea of "Vancian" casting is meaningless as it doesn't even properly describe a wizard.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 01:55 AM
Pretty much everything in Rolemaster (all editions).

I loved it then, and I still love it now, but I cant imagine myself ever playing it again, and the very thought of DMing it repulses me beyond words.

The numbers, charts, fiddly bonuses and optional splat. Oh they were so good back then.

But in hindsight, what was I thinking?

Tanarii
2019-01-02, 09:26 AM
Some people disagree with me on this, but I honestly think 4e is actually the best designed edition of D&D. Its not perfect, but I think it had a clearer set of goals and better achieved those goals than any other edition. The issue was they were the wrong set of goals. It was the stunning new tactical board game no one knew they wanted because... almost no one actually wanted it.I dunno. It didn't draw in a new generation of players like 5e does, which is a huge failing in any roleplaying game, since that's where all the players and sales really are. Gotta hook them kids while they're in high school and college. So on that front, it wasn't anything resembling a success.

But I found it was wildly popular among experienced gamers, especially those who wanted to play in pickup games. It was only die-hard grognards that seemed to hate 4e. The same way a previous generation of die-hards hated TETSNBN ... erm, excuse me, 3e. The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal.

The thing was, most of the experienced gamers I knew played both 4e AND Pathfinder. That drove sales for both at local stores. To generalize, 4e was the game of choice for pickup / official play games. In my case that included access to several dozen games a weekend hosted out of people's homes via a mailing list. Or for one-shots, by which I mean any game series expected to end in up to say three months or so. Whereas Pathfinder tended to be the game of choice for a home game of close personal friends that was ongoing. Similarly, my local game stores had no more than two (on-going) pathfinder tables a week, whereas they could easily have a half-dozen 4e pick-up / official play tables.

Personal anecdote / experience, and in a major U.S. metropolis. YMMHV etc etc

-----------

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.

Talakeal
2019-01-02, 10:06 AM
I give up, what's TETSNBN?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-02, 10:12 AM
I give up, what's TETSNBN?

The Edition That Shall Not Be Named. AKA 3e D&D.

Why it's called that....I'm not sure.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-02, 11:27 AM
I dunno. It didn't draw in a new generation of players like 5e does, which is a huge failing in any roleplaying game, since that's where all the players and sales really are. Gotta hook them kids while they're in high school and college. So on that front, it wasn't anything resembling a success.

But I found it was wildly popular among experienced gamers, especially those who wanted to play in pickup games. It was only die-hard grognards that seemed to hate 4e. The same way a previous generation of die-hards hated TETSNBN ... erm, excuse me, 3e. The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal.

The thing was, most of the experienced gamers I knew played both 4e AND Pathfinder. That drove sales for both at local stores. To generalize, 4e was the game of choice for pickup / official play games. In my case that included access to several dozen games a weekend hosted out of people's homes via a mailing list. Or for one-shots, by which I mean any game series expected to end in up to say three months or so. Whereas Pathfinder tended to be the game of choice for a home game of close personal friends that was ongoing. Similarly, my local game stores had no more than two (on-going) pathfinder tables a week, whereas they could easily have a half-dozen 4e pick-up / official play tables.

Personal anecdote / experience, and in a major U.S. metropolis. YMMHV etc etc


My experience was that 4e didn't go over well. On one side, most fans of D&D-like systems were not pleased with the fundamental departures. On the other side, most who didn't care for D&D-likes didn't see any changes to the things that pushed them away from those systems. And overall, many were less than fond of the way every class felt like a skin over the same mechanics, with different fluff. It didn't meet "gamist" needs for crunch and rules depth and differentiation, didn't meet "sim" needs for rules to reflect the "fiction" / setting facts, and didn't meet "nar" needs for mechanics tied into narrative cooperation / joint storytelling.

To me, it felt like an attempt to bring a lot of MMO sensibilities to the tabletop / pencil-and-paper, and it just fell flat.




On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.


WW's constant snotty references to "storytelling", juxtaposed against systems designed (intentionally or not) to award cheesing builds, intense rule manipulation, and leveraging blatantly broken powers (see, most of the all-or-nothing Discipline effects in Vampire), was one of the triggers that lead to the Forge, and all the good and bad and toxin that came out of that.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 11:47 AM
I dunno. It didn't draw in a new generation of players like 5e does, which is a huge failing in any roleplaying game, since that's where all the players and sales really are. Gotta hook them kids while they're in high school and college. So on that front, it wasn't anything resembling a success.

But I found it was wildly popular among experienced gamers, especially those who wanted to play in pickup games. It was only die-hard grognards that seemed to hate 4e. The same way a previous generation of die-hards hated TETSNBN ... erm, excuse me, 3e. The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal.

The thing was, most of the experienced gamers I knew played both 4e AND Pathfinder. That drove sales for both at local stores. To generalize, 4e was the game of choice for pickup / official play games. In my case that included access to several dozen games a weekend hosted out of people's homes via a mailing list. Or for one-shots, by which I mean any game series expected to end in up to say three months or so. Whereas Pathfinder tended to be the game of choice for a home game of close personal friends that was ongoing. Similarly, my local game stores had no more than two (on-going) pathfinder tables a week, whereas they could easily have a half-dozen 4e pick-up / official play tables.

Personal anecdote / experience, and in a major U.S. metropolis. YMMHV etc etc

-----------

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.

I dont want to edition war here, but I liked 4E from a mechanical viewpoint (they tried something different) even though it wasnt the game for me.

Where it fell down for mine, was it wasnt 'DnD'.

Like most groups you reach a point of 'DnD saturation' where you suffer burnout and turn to other systems and genres. Back in the AD&D heydays of the mid 80's, we turned to Rolemaster and Spacemaster, WEG D6, Shadowrun, WHFRP, and other games to mix it up and keep the gaming fresh.

Then every now and then, someone would get motivated and the old PHB, DMG, Unearthed Arcana and so forth would be whipped out and it would be a familiar groove you'd get back into again. Dungeon crawling, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, Cavaliers, Magic Users, Thieves and so forth, Weapon specialisation, THACO, Alignment, AC and HP.

It was comforting in a beer and pretzels kind of way. You knew what you were getting and it kept it fresh.

4E for mine just kind of strayed too far from that feeling. It was a decent enough game on its own, but it just didnt feel like DnD anymore, more of a MMORPG or highly detailed board game. It just kind of... missed the mark. I was one of those that lept over to Pathfinder (a game I now actually hate) to keep that feeling alive and well.

5E's success is that it feels like DnD again. Its simple, yet complex in its own way, its familiar and works. Its my favorite edition to date. Plus it avoids Pathfinders insanely convoluted complexity and fiddly bits (do we really need so many traits that grant a +1, thousands of feats, alternate racial spat, archetypes and trap options?) and avoids that systems loathsome metagame or game within the game of 'character optimisation' which takes precedence over playing the actual game at most tables, or actually in most cases subsumes and subverts the whole game itself.

Thats only my own personal subjective take on it. 4th is the only edition I largely skipped and I've been playing for 35 years now. I didnt buy a single book (read a few and played it a few times, but it never jumped out at me) and thats from a guy that has owned every single book from BECMI boxed sets, to AD&D through to Combat and Tactics of '2.5 edition' to 3rd and 3.5 (and now 5th).

It wasnt just angry grognard. It just kind of didnt feel the same that iteration. It was a bold new direction, but just not one I really could get into.

Quertus
2019-01-02, 11:57 AM
It was the stunning new tactical board game no one knew they wanted because... almost no one actually wanted it.

If that makes it a fantasy heart breaker, I guess it is.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant by 4e being a set of mechanics that break the heart. Yes, rather the opposite of how "fantasy heartbreaker" is usually used IME, but it seemed to fit with this thread.


Quertus, speaking of Generalist Wizards, how would you feel about the following rough outline (numbers pulled from thin air):

Assume that we've identified a broad set of themes of various degrees of specificity, nested hierarchically. So you might have Specialty/sub-specialty (like modern physicists--my degree was in quantum chemistry, more specifically low-energy atomic and molecular scattering theory).

In this hypothetical system, Specialists can learn any spell of levels 0-2 (universal spells), spells from their broader specialty of levels 3-6, and spells from their sub-specialty only of levels 7-9.

Universalists can learn any spell of levels 0-6, but can never learn a spell of levels 7-9. They may be able to use those slots to up-cast (strengthen) a lower-level spell, but will never get to learn wish-equivalent spells.

Here you're trading depth for breadth. And that's a real trade-off in the scientific world. Those who wish to reach the bleeding edge of physics are concentrated very deeply on one tiny little sub-sub-sub-sub specialty and only have graduate-student (at best) knowledge of the rest of physics. Back when I was fresh out of grad school, I could tell you lots about the details of my field. A smaller amount about the rest of quantum chemistry, and only fragments of the rest of physics (of which there is a lot). I went to a talk by a high-energy guy (doing even sort-of related work with scattering, just at unimaginably higher energies) and understood about 5% of what he was talking about. Being a generalist stunts your growth when you're approaching the bleeding edge of knowledge.

So, we're playing a one-shot, at 12th level - the Generalist sacrifices nothing. Or we're playing a one-shot at 40th level - the Generalist is limited to 6th level spells. Or we're playing a one-shot with nothing but zombie red dragons, (3.0) iron golems, and traps as challenges - the Enchanter, Pyromancer, DPS Rogue (who did not take trap finding skills), Diplomacer, and melee-only Fighter are useless. These are the game- and character-design issues I'm seeing (with 3e in general, and exacerbated by your proposed modifications).

That said, a) I'm running an existing character, even in a one-shot, so I personally care about the whole 1-40 experience; b) yes, I would play a generalist in such a system, relying on Rituals to try to have enough "oomph" at epic levels (although, tbh, if everyone could use "Ritual of Teleport" / "Ritual of Plane Shift", Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage, for whom this account is named, would finally be worthless to his party, and they'd likely kick him to the curb (which isn't a horrible thing, IMO, to have to up my game to keep playing, it just means that Quertus can't get by on utility (which was the only thing he reliably brought the party) any more)).


My experience was that 4e didn't go over well. On one side, most fans of D&D-like systems were not pleased with the fundamental departures. On the other side, most who didn't care for D&D-likes didn't see any changes to the things that pushed them away from those systems. And overall, many were less than fond of the way every class felt like a skin over the same mechanics, with different fluff. It didn't meet "gamist" needs for crunch and rules depth and differentiation, didn't meet "sim" needs for rules to reflect the "fiction" / setting facts, and didn't meet "nar" needs for mechanics tied into narrative cooperation / joint storytelling.

To me, it felt like an attempt to bring a lot of MMO sensibilities to the tabletop / pencil-and-paper, and it just fell flat.

Heartily agree, especially with the bolded bit.


WW's constant snotty references to "storytelling", juxtaposed against systems designed (intentionally or not) to award cheesing builds, intense rule manipulation, and leveraging blatantly broken powers (see, most of the all-or-nothing Discipline effects in Vampire), was one of the triggers that lead to the Forge, and all the good and bad and toxin that came out of that.

I always thought that it was intentional - this game is X. Here's lots of mechanics that do X, Y, and Z. It's really easy to see what kind of player someone is, and have them telegraph what they care about, what kind of game they want. Oh, but we're actually X, so anyone actually choosing Y or Z is having BadWrongFun.

2D8HP
2019-01-02, 12:41 PM
...The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal....


:confused: Is there another way?

Malifice
2019-01-02, 12:44 PM
:confused: Is there another way?

Nope. Only my way.

Which is the universal truth.

Ignimortis
2019-01-02, 02:08 PM
On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.

To be honest, Exalted 2e was to me a prime example of "I want to play this so badly but the rules are such hot garbage". However, I got the 3e corebook in December...it seems decent enough. Of course, it's still WW garbage base mechanics with "oh no you can only have 7 HP and maybe 3 more if you're building for it" in a game where a weapon can do 20 damage out of chargen, but at least it's easy to understand and actually play.

Cluedrew
2019-01-02, 02:20 PM
On D&D 4e: I actually don't like 4e myself. Although oddly enough because it is "even more D&D" in most of the ways I don't like D&D. Which seems to be the opposite problem everyone else has with it. If you offered me to play a game of D&D any edition, it might be my last choice.

But that is as a player. As a designer (who is very slowly chipping away at a system) though it is a different story. Healing surges were a good solution to scaling healing. Temporary HP as an alternate "pre-heal", I am interested. Enemy roles help very things up, especially minions to make battling swarms less of a slog and more climatic. The united resource mechanic for powers: martials get cool options, everyone is one the same times and switching classes requires less work. Good, good, good.

It had its flaws as well. Length of combat was often even worse for one. But its prime failing that keeps me from it: It forgot to be a role-playing game.

Morty
2019-01-02, 02:37 PM
To be honest, Exalted 2e was to me a prime example of "I want to play this so badly but the rules are such hot garbage". However, I got the 3e corebook in December...it seems decent enough. Of course, it's still WW garbage base mechanics with "oh no you can only have 7 HP and maybe 3 more if you're building for it" in a game where a weapon can do 20 damage out of chargen, but at least it's easy to understand and actually play.

Except this time there's a combat system designed to prevent exactly that.

Ironically enough, Exalted 3E sorcery is actually Vancian in that it evokes the writing of Jack Vance, despite not having spell slots. Which is to say, it's powerful, mysterious and dangerous even to Exalted and gods and requires a dedicated focus.

Ignimortis
2019-01-02, 02:39 PM
Except this time there's a combat system designed to prevent exactly that.

Yeah, I could see Dissidia Final Fantasy (which they credited) all over it, and it's a pretty good fit for cinematic 1x1 combat. Still, you can lose initiative (Bravery) very quickly against heavy weapons, and getting hit with 40 dice of initiative after a round or two is still gonna hurt more than you can afford to tank.

Morty
2019-01-02, 02:44 PM
1v1 duels are explicitly not what the combat system is designed for, and part of the dynamic is making sure to knock any enemy combatant who's picking up Initiative too quickly down a peg. Besides, from my own experience playing the system, picking up 40 initiative in two rounds just isn't likely to happen unless you're a Dawn Caste Solar beating up a single brigand.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-01-02, 02:45 PM
To be honest, Exalted 2e was to me a prime example of "I want to play this so badly but the rules are such hot garbage". However, I got the 3e corebook in December...it seems decent enough. Of course, it's still WW garbage base mechanics with "oh no you can only have 7 HP and maybe 3 more if you're building for it" in a game where a weapon can do 20 damage out of chargen, but at least it's easy to understand and actually play.

Except this time there's a combat system designed to prevent exactly that.
Pretty much this. I played a short 3e campaign and was pleasantly surprised. I mean, you can still get smushed if you're talking about a combat specialist vs someone who didn't invest in it, but that's kind of the case for everything in Exalted. (Delightfully, it's also easy to fine-tune on the GM side-- you can have your NPCs make decisive attacks at low initiative counts, when they'll just barely injure the Eclipse, or you can have them save up for a round or two to overwhelm the Dawn)

Ignimortis
2019-01-02, 02:52 PM
1v1 duels are explicitly not what the combat system is designed for, and part of the dynamic is making sure to knock any enemy combatant who's picking up Initiative too quickly down a peg. Besides, from my own experience playing the system, picking up 40 initiative in two rounds just isn't likely to happen unless you're a Dawn Caste Solar beating up a single brigand.


Pretty much this. I played a short 3e campaign and was pleasantly surprised. I mean, you can still get smushed if you're talking about a combat specialist vs someone who didn't invest in it, but that's kind of the case for everything in Exalted. (Delightfully, it's also easy to fine-tune on the GM side-- you can have your NPCs make decisive attacks at low initiative counts, when they'll just barely injure the Eclipse, or you can have them save up for a round or two to overwhelm the Dawn)

That sounds good. Time to find someone who's willing to run that for me, then - I've been craving to play someone who can slaughter whole armies in a matter of minutes for a very, very, very long time. That, by the way, is a very rare system assumption and I don't know why.

Arbane
2019-01-02, 03:32 PM
That sounds good. Time to find someone who's willing to run that for me, then - I've been craving to play someone who can slaughter whole armies in a matter of minutes for a very, very, very long time. That, by the way, is a very rare system assumption and I don't know why.

Most RPGs still have serious problems with high-powered characters.
You might want to take a look at Godbound, as well. It's Exalted if it was based on Basic D&D instead of Vampire.

Tanarii
2019-01-02, 03:36 PM
I give up, what's TETSNBN?


The Edition That Shall Not Be Named. AKA 3e D&D.

Why it's called that....I'm not sure.

Because naming it would cause dragonsfoot forums threads to explode in a feeding frenzy of frothing rage and hatred.

Morty
2019-01-02, 03:40 PM
That sounds good. Time to find someone who's willing to run that for me, then - I've been craving to play someone who can slaughter whole armies in a matter of minutes for a very, very, very long time. That, by the way, is a very rare system assumption and I don't know why.

Slaughtering armies is pretty routine for a combat-focused Solar. Too routine if you ask me, but that's a whole other discussion.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 03:49 PM
Most RPGs still have serious problems with high-powered characters.
You might want to take a look at Godbound, as well. It's Exalted if it was based on Basic D&D instead of Vampire.

I actually find DM inexperience is what causes the problems.

Most DnD DMs are familiar with low and mid level play, but start to lose control of the game when the players get to high level, because they dont have the same level of experience dealing with high level enemies, threats and abilities.

The game comes to a screeching halt when the DM 'burns out' or rage quits after the PCs use a new and unforseen method to overcome an adventure (using spells and class featyres the DM has never ran before).

This of course only compounds the problem.

IME its why more games stop at around 11th level. DMs lose control and lack experience.

My advice to Dms is to power on to 20th if you've made it that far (in 5E its helped on account of the XP progression speeding up past 11th level, where they start to advance in level every 2nd or 3rd session, instead of every 5th and 6th session).

You need to gain valuable experience in the kinds of things high level PCs get up to. It'll probably be a train wreck the first time you do it, but it gets better with experience.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-01-02, 04:20 PM
Most RPGs still have serious problems with high-powered characters.
You might want to take a look at Godbound, as well. It's Exalted if it was based on Basic D&D instead of Vampire.
I've also had decent success using Mutants and Masterminds rules to play Exalts, though you lose out on almost all the non-combat stuff that's also a hallmark of the system, in my mind.

(on an unrelated note, man do I want to play Exalted right now. Grumble)

LibraryOgre
2019-01-02, 04:58 PM
Because naming it would cause dragonsfoot forums threads to explode in a feeding frenzy of frothing rage and hatred.

It was really something to behold.

However, on 4e, I didn't particularly LIKE it, but it was fun and it had some good ideas. I've said several times that I really liked Bloodied as a concept; it distilled the abstract nature of HP to a descriptor that let you know where you stood WITHOUT necessarily saying "It has X HP, you have now down Y damage, leaving it with X-Y HP."

I also liked Healing Surges. I might have gone with a different ratio (1/5 instead of 1/4), but they adequately conveyed they abstract nature of HP and healing.

As for what I didn't like, some of it was the constant rebuilding of characters, half your powers coming from your gear, and, though I liked the general CONCEPT of their multi-classing system, I did not like the fact that some classes were locked into specific skills, making them less attractive multiclasses ("I'm already a wizard; multiclassing into Cleric is better than Multiclassing into Warlock because Cleric will ALSO give me a new skill, whereas Warlock will only give me a new ability.")

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-02, 05:10 PM
I've said several times that I really liked Bloodied as a concept; it distilled the abstract nature of HP to a descriptor that let you know where you stood WITHOUT necessarily saying "It has X HP, you have now down Y damage, leaving it with X-Y HP."


Bloodied is one of my favorites. I've liberated it wholesale for my 5e games. I'll even tie tactics changes or new abilities to being bloodied for enemies. I tend to do 4 levels: Unhurt, hit, bloodied, almost dead.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-02, 05:36 PM
Bloodied is one of my favorites. I've liberated it wholesale for my 5e games. I'll even tie tactics changes or new abilities to being bloodied for enemies. I tend to do 4 levels: Unhurt, hit, bloodied, almost dead.

We tended to have "Not bloodied yet", "Bloodied", and "Really Bloodied". But, we lived in Houston, where the four seasons are "Summer, Still Summer, Not Summer, and Almost Summer"

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-02, 05:39 PM
We tended to have "Not bloodied yet", "Bloodied", and "Really Bloodied". But, we lived in Houston, where the four seasons are "Summer, Still Summer, Not Summer, and Almost Summer"

I've used that set myself =)

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-02, 05:51 PM
I wonder what I could do with the seasons here, which are Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Bleagh.

Bleagh is that season after the snow finally melts but before anything turns green, a time of brown, grey, mud, damp, chill.

Florian
2019-01-02, 05:59 PM
My seasons apparently are pleasant spring, hot draught, less hot draught, Siberian cold. Snow? What's that?

Quertus
2019-01-02, 06:02 PM
Bloodied is one of my favorites. I've liberated it wholesale for my 5e games. I'll even tie tactics changes or new abilities to being bloodied for enemies. I tend to do 4 levels: Unhurt, hit, bloodied, almost dead.

I guess I wasn't wowed by "bloodied" because a) I'd been using such terms for decades; b) it tied the terms to mechanics, so now they were less immersive (and more static) than before. Also, I'm generally not a fan of calls to mechanics that pretend to be fluff, or calls fluff that act as mechanics.

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-02, 06:24 PM
Jumping in on the magic discussion, I rather like the GURPS method of limiting magic. In short cast too much magic (generally about a 7d6 Fireball for average mages) and you'll be at half Move, Dodge, and Strength, continue casting and you'll eventually have to make Will checks to do anything and lose HP for every FP you lose, continue casting sheet that and you go unconscious if the HP loss hadn't hurt you. On the other hand you get back 1FP per ten minutes of sitting down so mages aren't out of action for too long, if the party can afford to wait an hour the mage regains enough fp for a spell or two. More if they've invested in the spell that increases their FP regeneration. As GURPS is roughly equivalent to level 1-6 a 1st level D&D Wizard has a relatively equal amount of 'spell energy' but regains their spells slower (but has Cantrips to make up for it), while a 6th level Wizard has much more spell energy then his GURPS counterpart, and once per 'day' can regain 3 spell levels (arguably the GURPS wizard's entire volume, and twice their practical volume), but the GURPS Wizard can return from 0fp to full by reading a book for an hour or so (less if invested in Recover Energy).

It means that casting is less balanced by 'do I need it later' (a few fp isn't hard to recover), and more 'do I need the fp in the immediate future'.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-02, 08:17 PM
Also a gem from 4e: Ritual Magic. Sure, wizards and clerics and such were BETTER at it, but that many things spells could be cast by anyone with only a minimal investment (a feat, a skill, and some cash) was a great feature that D&D had needed for a while.

Luccan
2019-01-02, 11:57 PM
Also a gem from 4e: Ritual Magic. Sure, wizards and clerics and such were BETTER at it, but that many things spells could be cast by anyone with only a minimal investment (a feat, a skill, and some cash) was a great feature that D&D had needed for a while.

That was my favorite part when I read the 4e Player's Handbook. I wish they had brought it over more directly into 5e. Sure, it's still only a feat away, but it's more limited both in number of ritual spells and I don't think (admittedly, it's been years since I read it so I'm not sure) there was a restriction by class. In 5e, ritual magic feats have to be taken for individual classes, so it's 2 feats for both wizard and cleric rituals, which still doesn't cover bard, druid, or warlock ritual spells.

Arbane
2019-01-03, 02:41 AM
IME its why more games stop at around 11th level. DMs lose control and lack experience.


It probably doesn't help that I don't think 3rd ed was playtested much past level 10 - IIRC, AD&D pretty much assumed the PCs would retire from active adventuring to tend their castles and such around that level. (AD&D's 'Epic-Level' adventure Queen Of the Demonweb Pits, where you go to the Abyss to kill Lolth, was for levels 10-14.)

Ignimortis
2019-01-03, 03:22 AM
It probably doesn't help that I don't think 3rd ed was playtested much past level 10 - IIRC, AD&D pretty much assumed the PCs would retire from active adventuring to tend their castles and such around that level. (AD&D's 'Epic-Level' adventure Queen Of the Demonweb Pits, where you go to the Abyss to kill Lolth, was for levels 10-14.)

Oh, they did playtest, there are records of that. It's just that the playtest was going by AD&D assumptions and didn't take actual 3.0 changes into account, so their high-level Druid didn't use Wildshape for combat and fought with a throwing Scimitar, IIRC?

Florian
2019-01-03, 03:43 AM
Oh, they did playtest, there are records of that. It's just that the playtest was going by AD&D assumptions and didn't take actual 3.0 changes into account, so their high-level Druid didn't use Wildshape for combat and fought with a throwing Scimitar, IIRC?

Well, as the whole thing was supposed to be a more or less modernized and streamlined AD&D 3rd, it makes sense for the playtest group to treat it that was. I can well remember the initial reaction in parts of the fan base and on the internet forums back then, that was the common initial stance and everything was compare with AD&D 2nd (especially multiclassing). With 3.5E, the whole tone changed.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-03, 09:39 AM
I see that the discussion about the Heartbreaker thread has mostly shifted to rearguing D&D editions. :smalltongue: Heh, at least I'm in good company.

Regarding Vancian casting -- up through 3rd edition or so, it was at least internally consistent. And, as pointed out, was a great balancing mechanic (at a point when wizards were considered fine to be artillery pieces you use 1-6 times per evening, and delicate cargo the rest of the time). Mind you, J Eric Holmes, when attempting to do the first re-edit of the original oD&D rules (when Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was still a bunch of notes and ideas banging around in Gygax's noggin), he suggested converting the wizard spell system into something that would make sense to someone who hadn't read the Dying Earth novels... and was shot down. So even us defenders-of-what-was should recognize that this was a known problem from all the way back. That said, again, it is an internally consistent system, and offers a relatively easy way to allow a single wizard type which can do nearly anything, yet still have enough limits that allow non-wizards to have a role (Most other systems have to either make spells quite limited in scope, or do what GURPS/HERO do and make each spell a separate character-build purchase as a constraint).

Regarding 4e -- others have said it fine. It is, in isolation, a perfectly fine system with good ideas which are nice to mine for my own designing. However, it simply sits in this weird place too far away from D&D to give the D&D feel, yet if you were going to pick up a 'not D&D' ttrpg, there isn't a specific compelling reason to choose it.

Regarding this:


And they just kinda plowed through ALL of them. Spellcasters were limited by relatively few spell slots, the long recharge time, and the relative unavailability of magic items. In 3e, they just blitzed them. Instead of taking days for a high level wizard to rememorize all his spells, it took an hour. For a relatively minimal investment, 3e wizards could scribe any scroll they wanted, and eventually make any magic they wanted to allow nigh-infinite castings of everything. Tired of memorizing detect magic? Make a wand. Or a potion. Or a scroll. Your effective spell slots went through the roof, at the same time that your daily spell slots increased simply because you could cast every spell slot every day.

At the same time, they started charging fighters feats to do EVERYTHING. Power attack was a feat. Expertise was a feat. Both could've reasonably been made a default combat option (sacrifice accuracy for damage or defense, or ones to sacrifice defense for accuracy or damage), but they made them a feat, making later things in the feat chain more expensive.

3.x was such a charlie foxtrot in so many ways, because they didn't seem to understand the impact of the changes they made in the core game. Even with the 3.5 revision, they didn't address stuff like this.

3e seems like two separate attempts to address the issues with AD&D1e/2e, each going in opposite directions, that were bolted together without much forethought.

I mean, there were legitimate reasons to dislike some of the constraints put on magic in AD&D -- you felt like high-value cargo most of the time, you were pretty sure the DM was fudging one way to keep you alive and the other to make sure you never succeeded at casting high level spells in-combat, you ended up zotting people with magic missiles from level 1 all the way through until you learned some of the power-word spells because nothing else had a low enough casting time to succeed. I get why this was changed, and it would have worked, if everything else had been up-moved in the same direction, keeping the balance the same (or better).
Likewise, the whole measuring things in 5' squares, judicious-managing of actions and micro-actions (movement, drawing weapons, etc.), attacks of opportunity for letting your guard down, allowing you to do anything, but only do it well by spending character build tokens (feats), etc... all that made sense for a different version of the game. One that was a return from AD&D more to an oD&D like combat system (where things like elevation and position mattered, and an archer getting caught in melee was going to eat some agro getting their sword out, etc.), but also with some of the character build stuff that people had been champing at the bit for to make two fighters less mechanically identical. It too would have been fine if everything else had moved in that direction as well.


Finally, on to the original premise-- mechanics that ought to be good but break your heart. My vote would have to be any and all original 90s era White Wolf 'alignment' mechanics. Using the D&D-ism because there were multiple names throughout the games -- Humanity being the most memorable, but also Nature, Demeanor, Passions (for Wraith), and I'm sure a bunch that I'm forgetting. The idea is great-incentivize players to act in-character, but each of them seemed so unbelievably gamable--to the point where even those of us not trying to do so noticed how many clearly-best-choices there were baked in (and that's before the Sabbat books basically gave alternate Humanities that incentivized whatever-you-were-going-to-do-anyway). Add to that some mechanical wonkiness (high humanity vampires risked loss from accidental property damage, low humanity vampires could kill with impunity), and the whole system just felt like some subversive message about no good deed going unpunished or the like.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-03, 10:07 AM
So, years ago, in Knights of the Dinner Table, Weird Pete was playtesting a game he came up with, which became Fairy Meat (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/12547/Fairy-Meat-Core-Rules?affiliate_id=315505). To playtest, he gathered three players. Gordo knew fairys, and so would check him on fairy lore. Bitter Stevil could be counted on to give him an absolutely unvarnished honest opinion. And he brought Brian in because Brian could break any system you put in front of him. He'd read the rules, play by the rules, but play them in ways that could quickly break a game... useful for a crash playtest.

I think of this when I think of the 3e playtesting, because I'm not sure how much attention they gave to their system crashers, if they had any.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-03, 11:11 AM
Reading the 5e subforum, I get the same impression, really.

So much of the discussion is about how to find intersections of various race, class, subclass, feats, etc, that are more multiplicative than additive in terms of their effect on the character's ability to break stuff and hurt things.

Malifice
2019-01-03, 11:25 AM
Reading the 5e subforum, I get the same impression, really.

So much of the discussion is about how to find intersections of various race, class, subclass, feats, etc, that are more multiplicative than additive in terms of their effect on the character's ability to break stuff and hurt things.

5e has no-where near the same trap options or char-op 'game within a game' that plagued 3.P.

3.P's splat was simply there to add fuel to an ever growing 'mini-game' of char-op. That was where the game was won and lost for many people. It was a game where making a cardinal mistake of playing a class presented to you in the CRB (a Monk or a Rogue, or even a Fighter) was a trap.

You'd sit down at a table featuring some self congratulating char-op expert (who had spent months learning the splat and tweaking 'builds') would rock up with a character that totally outshone every other character at the table. The real game happening not at the table, but over months (indeed years) of splat memorization, comparing feat, trait, class, archetype combos and so forth to come up with some god like build.

It was a game that rewarded 'system mastery', which in practice led to more table conflicts and impossible to DM parties than any other system I've ever seen (unless all your players had roughly the same level of system mastery and splat knowledge, they functioned on different levels entirely).

In 5E you have to actively work to make a trap build (a Fighter that dumps Dex and Str for Int for example, and refuses to wear armor for 'reasons'). A total newb can rock up to a 5E table, pick a race and class from the PHB, and within 5 minutes be playing the game at comparable level of functionality as an experienced player with total system mastery and some Hexblade/ Sorc/ Paladin/ GWM 'build'.

After decades of 3.P (including being sucked into the Char-Op trap myself and wasting thousands of hours on forums and in books looking for feat/ class combos and x level dips in PRC x to get combo Y etc) it's a welcome change of pace.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-03, 11:44 AM
5e has no-where near the same trap options or char-op 'game within a game' that plagued 3.P.

3.P's splat was simply there to add fuel to an ever growing 'mini-game' of char-op. That was where the game was won and lost for many people. It was a game where making a cardinal mistake of playing a class presented to you in the CRB (a Monk or a Rogue, or even a Fighter) was a trap.

You'd sit down at a table featuring some self congratulating char-op expert (who had spent months learning the splat and tweaking 'builds') would rock up with a character that totally outshone every other character at the table. The real game happening not at the table, but over months (indeed years) of splat memorization, comparing feat, trait, class, archetype combos and so forth to come up with some god like build.

It was a game that rewarded 'system mastery', which in practice led to more table conflicts and impossible to DM parties than any other system I've ever seen (unless all your players had roughly the same level of system mastery and splat knowledge, they functioned on different levels entirely).

In 5E you have to actively work to make a trap build (a Fighter that dumps Dex and Str for Int for example, and refuses to wear armor for 'reasons'). A total newb can rock up to a 5E table, pick a race and class from the PHB, and within 5 minutes be playing the game at comparable level of functionality as an experienced player with total system mastery and some Hexblade/ Sorc/ Paladin/ GWM 'build'.

After decades of 3.P (including being sucked into the Char-Op trap myself and wasting thousands of hours on forums and in books looking for feat/ class combos and x level dips in PRC x to get combo Y etc) it's a welcome change of pace.

I will not say you are wrong. I am just learning 5e after having finally been driven away from D&D by these issues 20-some years ago and watching them get worse with the 3.x/PF era.

However, as an outsider looking in, the 5e discussion is nearly indistinguishable from the 3.x discussion. All the same "well you haven't taken into account how this Feat will interact with that that option and this other option to create a world-beating build that will be completely overpowered" back-and-forth is still there... All the mechanics-first, concept-second build advice is still there... "You don't want to take race X with class Y, that's horribly inefficient"... Characters a step behind because they're smart but not a Wizard, or because they're supposed to be a widely skilled but aren't a charming musician or a nimble sneak... Etc.

Morty
2019-01-03, 11:46 AM
I've also had decent success using Mutants and Masterminds rules to play Exalts, though you lose out on almost all the non-combat stuff that's also a hallmark of the system, in my mind.

(on an unrelated note, man do I want to play Exalted right now. Grumble)

Yeah, for all its quirks, a cool thing about 3E Exalted is that it gives superpowers to people who aren't fighters or sorcerers. So if you want to be an incredible diplomat, thief, detective, merchant or even sailor or (for legacy reasons as far as I can tell) writer, you'll get both Charms for it and subsystems to use it in (though in case of bureaucracy not as robust as they should be).

Malifice
2019-01-03, 12:20 PM
I will not say you are wrong. I am just learning 5e after having finally been driven away from D&D by these issues 20-some years ago and watching them get worse with the 3.x/PF era.

However, as an outsider looking in, the 5e discussion is nearly indistinguishable from the 3.x discussion. All the same "well you haven't taken into account how this Feat will interact with that that option and this other option to create a world-beating build that will be completely overpowered" back-and-forth is still there... All the mechanics-first, concept-second build advice is still there... "You don't want to take race X with class Y, that's horribly inefficient"... Characters a step behind because they're smart but not a Wizard, or because they're supposed to be a widely skilled but aren't a charming musician or a nimble sneak... Etc.

Seriously, ignore them.

I've yet to see even a total novice create a character that (on its own) sucks or is even noticeably less effective than one made by a player with total system mastery.

The most 'sub-optimal' choice at the moment in 5E is probably the TWF Champion fighter, and blade pact warlocks (and they both work fine in any event, but blade warlocks require a smidgen of system mastery to get them working they way they advertise themselves as working).

The difference is a minor DPR variation, that's probably not even really noticeable in actual play; its nowhere near the level of power disparity of say a core 3.P Monk next to some Frankenstein monster of [trait/ achetype/ feat combo/ dip 1/ dip 2/ dip 3/ alternate racial feature y] monstrosity, where one of those classes is simply non-functional and totally outshone in a party featuring the other.

Class disparity and trap options in 5E, come down to the DM and how he runs his games. If he lacks system mastery, you may come into problems with some classes sucking due to the different resource management refresh rates (DMs that dont understand this resource issue, or are willfully ignorant of it, can create problems with some classes like Monks, Warlocks and Fighters being outshone by long rest based classes like Paladins and Wizards).

Rather than focus too heavily on 'builds' I would simply chat to your DM (for 5E) and get a feel for house rules, how he runs his games, and (importantly) how he manages the Adventuring day (this has the greatest impact on class balance over any other factor, by an order of magnitude).

Once you are happy the DM is solid, just pick a class that looks fun and go for it. I assure you it'll function as advertised, and effectively.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-03, 12:39 PM
I will not say you are wrong. I am just learning 5e after having finally been driven away from D&D by these issues 20-some years ago and watching them get worse with the 3.x/PF era.

However, as an outsider looking in, the 5e discussion is nearly indistinguishable from the 3.x discussion. All the same "well you haven't taken into account how this Feat will interact with that that option and this other option to create a world-beating build that will be completely overpowered" back-and-forth is still there... All the mechanics-first, concept-second build advice is still there... "You don't want to take race X with class Y, that's horribly inefficient"... Characters a step behind because they're smart but not a Wizard, or because they're supposed to be a widely skilled but aren't a charming musician or a nimble sneak... Etc.

I'm not convinced that this is specifically related to the game itself, and not a general function of the internet, forum culture, overall what can be compared between different campaigns and different DMs, and what can be readily expressed in this medium. I was on usenet somewhere between '89 and '91 (not 100% sure, but well before a lot of the 2e system mastery options started coming out) and this stuff was already there. Most other TTRPGs have more than a bit of this (including some supposedly really story-driven games like the White Wolf ones, or games like Traveller where the real success should be in pulling off the greatest caper or sale, rather than gaming the system the best). Even some modern day games that hearken back to games of old, and are supposed to be very story-driven/not meant for power-gaming (for example, Beyond the Wall and other Adventures, which is supposed to be osr, character-driven, and for shorter campaigns where reigning supreme should be less valued), I've routinely seen reddits and the like about the best character-build-option-combinations are the most optimal. It seems to be what gamers like to discuss online, for whatever reason.

2D8HP
2019-01-03, 12:40 PM
...However, as an outsider looking in, the 5e discussion is nearly indistinguishable from the 3.x discussion....


That's because most of the discussion is driven by veterans of 3.x who are whiling away the time while they're not at the table.

For most every other question about 5e the answer is "Talk to your DM" or "That's an OOC problem, you should talk to them about it".

Keep in mind that most "Builds' rely on "Feats" and "Multi-classing", which are optional rules.

Just look over the free rules PDF (http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf), you really don't need anything else to DM (though the Starter Set is great!), if you want to be a player try this store events locator (http://locator.wizards.com/#brand=dnd) and roll some dice again.

Malifice
2019-01-03, 12:54 PM
Most other TTRPGs have more than a bit of this (including some supposedly really story-driven games like the White Wolf ones.

Speaking of hearbreaks those Vampire games and such were a hoot.

They pretended to be 'deep immersion RPG's and such, but then presented themselves with a system that was a munchkins best friend, AND let them play a Vampire (also most nerds biggest fantasy) AND kind of directed them to play a sociopathic monster.

The end result was the hillarity of many a Vampire game being wrecked by 'a guy' rocking up to the table with some 'Blade' wanna-be combat juggernaut with dual katanas, a million dots in Celerity and so forth.

It was a game that advertised itself as one thing, but mechanically was something else entirely.

Our groups token resident Goth female player (most groups have this kind of player, and I cant figure out why - it's as much a truism as the token Neckbeard in his mothers basement) begged us to let her GM it.

End result (we were DnD players mostly) was a Blade wanna-be (see above), the Count from Sesame Street (one verevolf, TWO vervolves..!), a Selene knock-off from Underworld and a bat**** crazy diabolist Malkavanian who made the Joker look like sensible and reasoned fellow.

Campaign lasted all of 2 hours before imploding.

Ignimortis
2019-01-03, 01:24 PM
Finally, on to the original premise-- mechanics that ought to be good but break your heart. My vote would have to be any and all original 90s era White Wolf 'alignment' mechanics. Using the D&D-ism because there were multiple names throughout the games -- Humanity being the most memorable, but also Nature, Demeanor, Passions (for Wraith), and I'm sure a bunch that I'm forgetting. The idea is great-incentivize players to act in-character, but each of them seemed so unbelievably gamable--to the point where even those of us not trying to do so noticed how many clearly-best-choices there were baked in (and that's before the Sabbat books basically gave alternate Humanities that incentivized whatever-you-were-going-to-do-anyway). Add to that some mechanical wonkiness (high humanity vampires risked loss from accidental property damage, low humanity vampires could kill with impunity), and the whole system just felt like some subversive message about no good deed going unpunished or the like.

Humanity is the first "health meter" that actually punishes players for taking active action typical for an urban fantasy game. The best way to preserve humanity is to interact with mortals, never engage in combat and refrain from using too much vampiric powers lest you feel superior and detached from normal humans.

On the other hand, the system had kinda awesome powers that literally allowed a player character to become a CEO in a few months or beat down a SWAT team in ten seconds with your bare hands...IF you were willing to do things that are considered amoral. Except do this a bit too much and you die.

Ergo, the best possible way to play default VtM is not to play, but to create a character and describe their peaceful nightly routine. Yes, it's boring, but at least you won't "lose the game".

And that's why most people who play VtM not for its' presumed theme of "oh vampirism sucks" actually remove or rework Humanity to not kill people who actively do things that were fun and/or necessary for actual stories, like combat, using Disciplines and in general doing vampire stuff.

Nature and Demeanor were far better in that respect, because Demeanor didn't do jack but signify how others perceive your character, and Nature rarely sabotaged you in any way, and usually just gave you free willpower at some points of the game.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-03, 01:30 PM
Speaking of hearbreaks those Vampire games and such were a hoot.

They pretended to be 'deep immersion RPG's and such, but then presented themselves with a system that was a munchkins best friend, AND let them play a Vampire (also most nerds biggest fantasy) AND kind of directed them to play a sociopathic monster.

The end result was the hillarity of many a Vampire game being wrecked by 'a guy' rocking up to the table with some 'Blade' wanna-be combat juggernaut with dual katanas, a million dots in Celerity and so forth.

It was a game that advertised itself as one thing, but mechanically was something else entirely.

Our groups token resident Goth female player (most groups have this kind of player, and I cant figure out why - it's as much a truism as the token Neckbeard in his mothers basement) begged us to let her GM it.

End result (we were DnD players mostly) was a Blade wanna-be (see above), the Count from Sesame Street (one verevolf, TWO vervolves..!), a Selene knock-off from Underworld and a bat**** crazy diabolist Malkavanian who made the Joker look like sensible and reasoned fellow.

Campaign lasted all of 2 hours before imploding.


Although our gaming group did do a lot of Vampire, we never went silly like this.

However, you're not wrong about the disconnect between the rhetoric and the system. Thus, my earlier comment.



WW's constant snotty references to "storytelling", juxtaposed against systems designed (intentionally or not) to award cheesing builds, intense rule manipulation, and leveraging blatantly broken powers (see, most of the all-or-nothing Discipline effects in Vampire), was one of the triggers that lead to the Forge, and all the good and bad and toxin that came out of that.


WW staff routinely bemoaned players having "badwrongfun", the prevalence of "superheroes with fangs" campaigns, etc, to the point of making snide comments in-print in later editions of the games.

Thing is, people were playing the system they published. The "problem" wasn't the players, it was the company.

(My longest running character was in part a sword-wielding Celerity-hound -- no katanas --but most of the time that just meant that no one wanted to mess with her on reputation alone, fights stopped before they started, and she could get on with whatever investigation(s) she was doing for the Sheriff or Prince.)

Ignimortis
2019-01-03, 01:39 PM
WW staff routinely bemoaned players having "badwrongfun", the prevalence of "superheroes with fangs" campaigns, etc, to the point of making snide comments in-print in later editions of the games.

Thing is, people were playing the system they published. The "problem" wasn't the players, it was the company.

(My longest running character was in part a sword-wielding Celerity-hound -- no katanas --but most of the time that just meant that no one wanted to mess with her on reputation alone, fights stopped before they started, and she could get on with whatever investigation(s) she was doing for the Sheriff or Prince.)

My experience is the same, I had (well, I still have this character, but my tolerance for VtM had evaporated as soon as I got to play better games) a Brujah who basically spent a year becoming the most feared combat-guy, Prince's-law-enforcer dude in town. Before I quit, he was on fast track to becoming an Archon. But all of that was possible only because my ST agreed to play fast and loose with Humanity rules, and so I managed to retain 5 dots in Humanity instead of degenerating into a crazed monster like the default system would have him become.

Morty
2019-01-03, 01:47 PM
I've run two Vampire: the Requiem chronicles, with one combat scenes between them, but plenty of intrigue, mystery and plotting. So I guess either Requiem is substantially different or I just had a different experience.

Come to think of it, I can chalk up the entire D&D combat system as a heartbreaker. It looked so varied and interesting when I read the 3.5 SRD years ago... then it turned out half of those weapons are useless, shields and dual wielding likewise, martial characters have a heap of problems in general... a system this crunchy and combat-focused should really do better.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-03, 02:11 PM
My experience is the same, I had (well, I still have this character, but my tolerance for VtM had evaporated as soon as I got to play better games) a Brujah who basically spent a year becoming the most feared combat-guy, Prince's-law-enforcer dude in town. Before I quit, he was on fast track to becoming an Archon. But all of that was possible only because my ST agreed to play fast and loose with Humanity rules, and so I managed to retain 5 dots in Humanity instead of degenerating into a crazed monster like the default system would have him become.

I think WW's expectation of the default system and the way most groups read the rules were also two different things entirely.

Never had a problem keeping a character at 7 or above.

At risk of a rabbit hole, I think it also depends a lot on the viewpoints of the players involved. If your group was full of people who looked at morality as nuanced and complex, or who drew distinctions between self-defense or combat or murder, or anything of the sort, the characters' Humanity was probably under a lot less pressure... whereas White Wolf as a whole seemed to take stances such as "killing is killing is killing" and "stealing money from an old woman to go gamble with, and stealing money from a coke baron to give to a homeless shelter, are morally equivalent".

Ignimortis
2019-01-03, 02:19 PM
I think WW's expectation of the default system and the way most groups read the rules were also two different things entirely.

Never had a problem keeping a character at 7 or above.

At risk of a rabbit hole, I think it also depends a lot on the viewpoints of the players involved. If your group was full of people who looked at morality as nuanced and complex, or who drew distinctions between self-defense or combat or murder, or anything of the sort, the characters' Humanity was probably under a lot less pressure... whereas White Wolf as a whole seemed to take stances such as "killing is killing is killing" and "stealing money from an old woman to go gamble with, and stealing money from a coke baron to give to a homeless shelter, are morally equivalent".

I could get away with lethal self-defense and with controlled murder as in "this is a gang of drug dealers with AKs who have just arrived into this city to set up a Setite operation" at 5 humanity. At 7, I'd have problems with the latter, because the entire reason my ST went to VtM was to try and play a game where indiscriminate murder does affect a character.

Personally, while I do consider having some sort of moral code rather essential in my characters, VtM manages to cheapen this to "oh hey you object to theft and psychological torture, but not somewhat justified murder or physical violence? man, sucks to be you, you absolutely immoral bastard!", and that ruins all the fun in trying to uphold moral standards.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-03, 02:30 PM
Ergo, the best possible way to play default VtM is not to play, but to create a character and describe their peaceful nightly routine. Yes, it's boring, but at least you won't "lose the game".

This reminds me of The Landlord's Game, which was what turned into Monopoly (through an interesting backstory we've all undoubtedly run across since you all undoubtedly read content aggregators as well). The supposed goal of the "game" was to teach you a message about how the late 19th/early 20th century economic system was designed to screw over the poor, but instead people liked playing the game. That's kind of how most 'message' RPGs go -- sure you can play the way the designers wanted, and it might make some kind of point, or you can look for weak links and exploit them, which lead to trenchcoat and katana midnight superhero play (and as Max pointed out, the designers bemoaning people playing the game they built 'wrong').


Nature and Demeanor were far better in that respect, because Demeanor didn't do jack but signify how others perceive your character, and Nature rarely sabotaged you in any way, and usually just gave you free willpower at some points of the game.

I remember there being 'right' choices to take as your Nature if you wanted to rack up willpower points, and others which likely would never show up (or would require a lot more direct effort/convincing your ST). I haven't played in 20+ years, though, so I can't be sure.


Come to think of it, I can chalk up the entire D&D combat system as a heartbreaker. It looked so varied and interesting when I read the 3.5 SRD years ago... then it turned out half of those weapons are useless, shields and dual wielding likewise, martial characters have a heap of problems in general... a system this crunchy and combat-focused should really do better.

It is worth pointing out the D&D was always something of a heartbreaker -- the initial design was built to make continually fighting the monsters you ran into in dungeons a losing proposition, so you were supposed to sneak past them or negotiate with them--yet a whole slew of the people who picked up the game said, 'to heck with that, I came here to fight the big bad, not sneak around them and make off with their gold!'

Cluedrew
2019-01-03, 04:50 PM
Yeah, for all its quirks, a cool thing about 3E Exalted is that it gives superpowers to people who aren't fighters or sorcerers. So if you want to be an incredible diplomat, thief, detective, merchant or even sailor or (for legacy reasons as far as I can tell) writer, you'll get both Charms for it and subsystems to use it in (though in case of bureaucracy not as robust as they should be).Wait what?

I have never heard about that. I mean I new there were skills for that but not whole sub-systems. I am very interested in this system again. I'm always trying to get more ways of interacting with the world in my system and there are... shocking few examples of how to do this without violence. Not none, but perhaps too few.


This reminds me of The Landlord's Game, which was what turned into Monopoly [...] but instead people liked playing the game.I still don't understand how monopoly got so popular. Every time I play it I just get to the conclusion that it isn't fun.

Florian
2019-01-03, 05:33 PM
*Laugh* Yeah, VtM is a curious case and it´s pretty obvious were the whole "braindamage" thing came from.
Max personal guess is that the designers wanted to create something specific and very different, but didn´t how, using what they knew at the time (Shadowrun and stuff). Part of the target audience had only experience with D&D-likes and used the rules in the way they understood them. Perfect recipe for a cluster-fraggle.

Arbane
2019-01-03, 05:57 PM
Wait what?

I have never heard about that. I mean I new there were skills for that but not whole sub-systems. I am very interested in this system again. I'm always trying to get more ways of interacting with the world in my system and there are... shocking few examples of how to do this without violence. Not none, but perhaps too few.

Yeah, the way Solar Exalted's powers work is that they're skills taken up to 11+. You know how in some systems if you get good enough at punching you can defy gravity or break anvils with your fists? Exalted lets you get Charms to do equally over-the-top stuff with ANY skill, and a lot of it isn't combat-related. Make a sword using a bushel of hematite with your bare hands (Craft). Sleep inside an erupting volcano (Survival). Win a strychnine-drinking competition (Resistance). Write a letter so strongly worded that it kills the recipient (ok, this is an Abyssal trick, but same concept)(Linguistics). Look around a crime scene and know exactly what happened (Investigation). Sneak right past an army of guards (Stealth). Talk to someone and know what they'd do ANYTHING to obtain (Socialize). Whip up or calm an angry mob with a few words (Performance).

I think the system is tragically clunky, but I love the idea.

Morty
2019-01-03, 06:08 PM
Wait what?

I have never heard about that. I mean I new there were skills for that but not whole sub-systems. I am very interested in this system again. I'm always trying to get more ways of interacting with the world in my system and there are... shocking few examples of how to do this without violence. Not none, but perhaps too few.

The older editions, which is what everyone seems to assume when talking about Exalted (or any other system that's not D&D, honestly), didn't. The third one has a pretty elaborate social system. The rules for stuff like sailing, bureaucracy and such aren't quite as detailed, but still there.



It is worth pointing out the D&D was always something of a heartbreaker -- the initial design was built to make continually fighting the monsters you ran into in dungeons a losing proposition, so you were supposed to sneak past them or negotiate with them--yet a whole slew of the people who picked up the game said, 'to heck with that, I came here to fight the big bad, not sneak around them and make off with their gold!'

If D&D had been introduced to me this way, I never would have touched it. But I was introduced to 3.5. Which is to say, a combat-heavy system with exceptionally poor combat.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-03, 06:16 PM
Finally, on to the original premise-- mechanics that ought to be good but break your heart.

Fantasy heart breaker mechanics are good. The heart breaking part is that the good mechanics are buried in a pile of "D&D but better!" made by an author who didn't have any experience outside of D&D to compare to. So you might have a truly innovative and inspiring mechanic for spell casting or encumbrance in a small throwaway paragraph, but it's useless because the rest of the game is D&D but with extra stats, more races, skill packages instead of classes, and other things that the author thinks are revolutionary but seem old to anyone who has played other games.

Particle_Man
2019-01-03, 06:26 PM
Our groups token resident Goth female player (most groups have this kind of player, and I cant figure out why - it's as much a truism as the token Neckbeard in his mothers basement) begged us to let her GM it.

End result (we were DnD players mostly) was a Blade wanna-be (see above), the Count from Sesame Street (one verevolf, TWO vervolves..!), a Selene knock-off from Underworld and a bat**** crazy diabolist Malkavanian who made the Joker look like sensible and reasoned fellow.

Campaign lasted all of 2 hours before imploding.

This sounds like something that should have been filmed. :smallbiggrin:


Fantasy heart breaker mechanics are good. The heart breaking part is that the good mechanics are buried in a pile of "D&D but better!" made by an author who didn't have any experience outside of D&D to compare to. So you might have a truly innovative and inspiring mechanic for spell casting or encumbrance in a small throwaway paragraph, but it's useless because the rest of the game is D&D but with extra stats, more races, skill packages instead of classes, and other things that the author thinks are revolutionary but seem old to anyone who has played other games.

Now I am wondering what a game would look like that took all the "good bits" from all of these fantasy heartbreakers, smashed together but removed from the "D&D but better!"
context they originate from.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-01-04, 10:12 AM
Wait what?

I have never heard about that. I mean I new there were skills for that but not whole sub-systems. I am very interested in this system again. I'm always trying to get more ways of interacting with the world in my system and there are... shocking few examples of how to do this without violence. Not none, but perhaps too few.
I don't remember 2e very well, but in 3e has full fledged rules for almost everything. Not only are there fairly complete rules for things like social combat, crafting, and large-scale engineering (mundane and magical), every skill has a giant list of Charms, ranging from "useful" to "omgwtf." Powers like "force everyone in your organization to obey a taboo" (Bureaucracy), make a bridge or castle of something you crafted endure forever (Craft), automatically detect when nearby people are about to violate your principles (Integrity), manifest lost evidence for long enough to study it (Investigation), sneak items into people's pockets from across the room (Larceny), write letters that force the reader to repeat their contents (Linguistics), teach people without anyone else realizing it (Lore), instantly diagnose ailments (Medicine), rewrite memories (Performance), force ties of loyalty and admitation on targets (Performance and Presence), ride horses across tightropes (Ride)... just, like, so many things. These charts (https://www.reddit.com/r/exalted/comments/3pwiez/exalted_3e_charm_cascades/)have pretty good summaries.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-04, 01:53 PM
I still don't understand how monopoly got so popular. Every time I play it I just get to the conclusion that it isn't fun.

First and foremost, I think it became popular before the 'get money on free parking' house-rule got popularized, so the slow, drawn-out death spiral everyone knows and hates (yet somehow doesn't change the house rules over) was less of a thing. I also remember it as one of those things I did enjoy ages 8-12 and only retroactively decided I ought to have hated. Still, mostly I think it was a fad that grew at the right time, such that in the post World War era, every US household trying to live up to the 50's ideal of the American Dream* needed a wood-paneled rec room with a Monopoly set along with a checker/chess/backgammon set and a set of poker chips.
*limiting my discussion to US because I don't know how much of any of this, particularly Monopoly, went down elsewhere.


Fantasy heart breaker mechanics are good. The heart breaking part is that the good mechanics are buried in a pile of "D&D but better!" made by an author who didn't have any experience outside of D&D to compare to. So you might have a truly innovative and inspiring mechanic for spell casting or encumbrance in a small throwaway paragraph, but it's useless because the rest of the game is D&D but with extra stats, more races, skill packages instead of classes, and other things that the author thinks are revolutionary but seem old to anyone who has played other games.

Yes, we've already established that we're not using the term heartbreaker right (although we still seem to have some disagreement on the right use of the term). At this point, I'm not going to enforce that kind of structure on the thread, I'm just moving away from regrinding the axes of 3e, 4e, and Vancian casting.

eternalshades
2019-01-04, 02:05 PM
Rifts was my first white whale. The imagination involved hit at the right time. It's a pity all the shenanigans with both the system and the company.
Shadowrun (especially the first edition) was the most amazing game that was way too crunchy for my taste.

One of these days I want to try a game of Waste World. I've always loved the world but man that system might break me

Willie the Duck
2019-01-04, 02:20 PM
Fantasy heart breaker mechanics are good. The heart breaking part is that the good mechanics are buried in a pile of "D&D but better!" made by an author who didn't have any experience outside of D&D to compare to. So you might have a truly innovative and inspiring mechanic for spell casting or encumbrance in a small throwaway paragraph, but it's useless because the rest of the game is D&D but with extra stats, more races, skill packages instead of classes, and other things that the author thinks are revolutionary but seem old to anyone who has played other games.



Oh, but since we're talking about that definition, I have a great one for the subject of 'great mechanic buried in not-great game!' -- the resolution mechanic for skills in Cyborg Commando.

For those who don't know, Cyborg Commando is the game Frank Mentzer worked on with Gary Gygax after Gygax was ousted from TSR and Mentzer left to work with his friend. It... well on top of being a dog's breakfast of bad 70s game design and such, it was also a had a premise that would work better as an 80s toy line with cartoon tie-in ("2035: Earth is invaded by aliens called Xenoborgs intent on subduing humanity and taking control of the planet. Luckily humanity has developed a new kind of soldier: the Cyborg Commando. Weekdays at 3, between He-Man and GI Joe!" So yeah, it didn't exactly fly off the shelf. But it had this d100 roll mechanic where instead of rolling the tens digit and then the ones digit, you rolled your two d10 and then multiplied the results together. Thus there was a serious front-loading of die-results towards the bottem end of the 1-100 result range (I won't call it percentile rolls, because it clearly wasn't that). That gave the system the inherent setup of early skill expenditures giving significant bonuses, but decidedly deminishing returns as you added to your skill. It was a neat way of doing that that other systems (like GURPS 3e) did by making skills and attributes over a certain level cost a lot more character build points. It was inventive, purpose-driven, and would be rather laudible if not tied to an absolute stinker of a game.

eternalshades
2019-01-04, 02:24 PM
didn't Frank Mentzer try to run a kickstarter recently?

Willie the Duck
2019-01-04, 03:38 PM
didn't Frank Mentzer try to run a kickstarter recently?

Yes, but nothing came about. Without discussing politics, it'd be hard to say much except that some people might blame the MeToo movement, but honestly the KS started losing steam well before the accusations came out (for unrelated reasons), so it really wouldn't have mattered.

Cluedrew
2019-01-04, 09:22 PM
I don't remember 2e very well, but in 3e has full fledged rules for almost everything. Not only are there fairly complete rules for things like social combat, crafting, and large-scale engineering (mundane and magical), every skill has a giant list of Charms, ranging from "useful" to "omgwtf." [...] just, like, so many things. These charts (https://www.reddit.com/r/exalted/comments/3pwiez/exalted_3e_charm_cascades/)have pretty good summaries.Oh my, my my my.

I kind of want of to track down an Exalted rule-book now. But I also want to pick up a system idea I had a while back for a system that had a similar "you are just that good at it" idea to it as well. I should probably direct at working on the skill system for my current project. I wonder if I can use the flow chart or similar unlocks idea for better... feats in D&D terms. And I just learned there are some lessons to be learned there as well. Anyways, thanks for getting me excited about role-playing games again.

Tanarii
2019-01-05, 11:57 AM
But all of that was possible only because my ST agreed to play fast and loose with Humanity rules, and so I managed to retain 5 dots in Humanity instead of degenerating into a crazed monster like the default system would have him become.
Clearly I need to pay more attention to the affect of Exalted 2e's Virtues (and associated limit breaks) on a character, given its the same publisher and seems like it'd potentially have the same underlying purpose, to control and direct player decision making.

Although from what I've read so far, it's a bit of two-edged sword, as is Anima Banner. In that it has positive aspects as well as negative aspects. But if it's possibly designed to be an overall check on character's decision making, it's worth digging into the effects more.

eternalshades
2019-01-05, 02:46 PM
Throwing another on the list.

Underground.

one of my favorite environments for a superheroes game and I'm not sure we ever figured out how to play it.

Quertus
2019-01-06, 11:20 AM
I lost a much longer reply (my own fault), but I came back for this bit:


I still don't understand how monopoly got so popular. Every time I play it I just get to the conclusion that it isn't fun.


I also remember it as one of those things I did enjoy ages 8-12 and only retroactively decided I ought to have hated.

Think about that age range, and the joy of holding that much money. How could you not see how it would be popular?

It also has lots of cool color-coding (the money, the properties), cool icons to move instead of genetic pieces like most other games, cool house icons, etc.

Heck, compare it with most other child's board games, like hi ho cherry-o, Candy Land, or chutes and ladders, ... or Chess, checkers, and connect 4, and you should see several fundamental differences that are very appropriate to discuss on an RPG board. The game allows for player skill, agency in decision-making, while still being heavily reliant on random rolls. You need skill to win, but can blame bad luck if you lose.

Also, it has a social element of trading properties. So the player is engaged at multiple levels.

Really, how many other board games deliver all this? And, of those, how many are anywhere near monopoly's price point?

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-06, 11:46 AM
Think about that age range, and the joy of holding that much money. How could you not see how it would be popular?

It also has lots of cool color-coding (the money, the properties), cool icons to move instead of genetic pieces like most other games, cool house icons, etc.

Heck, compare it with most other child's board games, like hi ho cherry-o, Candy Land, or chutes and ladders, ... or Chess, checkers, and connect 4, and you should see several fundamental differences that are very appropriate to discuss on an RPG board. The game allows for player skill, agency in decision-making, while still being heavily reliant on random rolls. You need skill to win, but can blame bad luck if you lose.

Also, it has a social element of trading properties. So the player is engaged at multiple levels.

Monopoly also has what I'll call the D&D advantage. It's the name in the medium that everybody knows, and even better than with D&D Monopoly has a horde of new variants released every year. There's like eight different versions of Star Wars Monopoly alone. So Monopolhy is successful partially because everybody knows it, and so when they could buy either Monopoly or, say, Exploding Kittens they tend to get Monopoly. Sure, it's more complicated than Snakes and Ladders, but I remember playing that backwards just so it would be more exiting.

Honestly thinking back to the board games I played as a kid, and Monopoly was always in that weird place of never actually getting played. Oh sure, we owned a copy, about three at one point, but by the time my siblings and I hit 10 we'd started playing games like Cluedo more, and eventually moved onto games such as Dominion, Pandemic, and Zombicide. Actually I need to talk to my friends and arrange our next board game and stand up comedy day.


Really, how many other board games deliver all this? And, of those, how many are anywhere near monopoly's price point?

These days? A lot. I'm not going to list, because honestly many board games I play have removed random rolling (even if they keep a form of randomness via shuffled cards). I've even seen games intentionally limit randomness, such as how Pandemic has the five epidemic cards that make it certain that the same cities will keep getting hit.

The price point is a good point though. A normal copy of Monopoly will set you back about £15, a bit more for a licenced version. Pandemic costs £35 for the standard game, £65 for the Legacy version (which I own, one of my friends likes me a lot). King of Tokyo, probably a better board game for children who have grown out of Snakes and Ladders than Monopoly is, will set you back £30. Exploding Kittens and other 'small games' tend to only be around £20, but also tend to look less impressive.

Honestly, I'm not confused as to why kids like it as to why I keep seeing adults playing it when they'd be much happier with something like Power Grid, Ticket to Ride (grrr, I hate that game), Tiny Epic Kingdoms, or Dixit (or any of the large range of board games that have been made). I think this is mainly the fault of stores, anything other than a specialist games store is unlikely to carry anything really serious in the way of board games, although Waterstones now tends to have larger and more quirky ranges than I'd expect from a chain book shop (I think it's been years since I saw a copy of Monopoly in one).

Knaight
2019-01-07, 02:35 AM
The price point is a good point though. A normal copy of Monopoly will set you back about £15, a bit more for a licenced version. Pandemic costs £35 for the standard game, £65 for the Legacy version (which I own, one of my friends likes me a lot). King of Tokyo, probably a better board game for children who have grown out of Snakes and Ladders than Monopoly is, will set you back £30. Exploding Kittens and other 'small games' tend to only be around £20, but also tend to look less impressive.

There's plenty of board games that come in at or under Monopoly's price range; it's on the low end but not exceptionally so. Restricting this to games involving money with aspects of luck that look as impressive as monopoly restricts it a bit, but there's still plenty of examples. Take Coup, which will come in around $10, has you dealing with megacredits, and has gorgeous artwork, while also being much more robust as a social game than Monopoly ever will be.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-07, 09:04 AM
Honestly thinking back to the board games I played as a kid, and Monopoly was always in that weird place of never actually getting played. Oh sure, we owned a copy, about three at one point, but by the time my siblings and I hit 10 we'd started playing games like Cluedo more, and eventually moved onto games such as Dominion, Pandemic, and Zombicide. Actually I need to talk to my friends and arrange our next board game and stand up comedy day.

I don't know your age, but when I was growing up, the only one of those that existed was Clue/Cluedo. And that's really the era that Monopoly gained prominence in-- the era between when the WWII vets were buying for their boomer kids, and those kids buying/pushing those games on their own kids to get them to do something other than watch Cable TV and play Atari/Nintendo. It is a very 50s-mid-90s game, which still exists as a legacy item (plus branding, as it is so easy to have 'Simpsons Monopoly' or 'Star Wars Monopoly' or the like).

I know we're now in something of a board game renaissance, but there was another sea-change in the mid 90s, when people started fearing that board games (/magazines/modeling/hobby crafts in general/etc.) were going to die because of computers and 300 TV channels, etc. Monopoly definitely comes from the other side of that line.


There's plenty of board games that come in at or under Monopoly's price range; it's on the low end but not exceptionally so. Restricting this to games involving money with aspects of luck that look as impressive as monopoly restricts it a bit, but there's still plenty of examples. Take Coup, which will come in around $10, has you dealing with megacredits, and has gorgeous artwork, while also being much more robust as a social game than Monopoly ever will be.

Yet this is the first I've heard of it. That's how powerful the "D&D effect," as it was put here, is.

Quertus
2019-01-07, 10:07 AM
There's plenty of board games that come in at or under Monopoly's price range; it's on the low end but not exceptionally so. Restricting this to games involving money with aspects of luck that look as impressive as monopoly restricts it a bit, but there's still plenty of examples. Take Coup, which will come in around $10, has you dealing with megacredits, and has gorgeous artwork, while also being much more robust as a social game than Monopoly ever will be.

Yeah, no. I looked up images of "coup", and I saw pretty pictures of faces (see the issues of preconstructed characters) and some dull grey circles (that I'm guessing are the game's fake fake money, as opposed to monopoly's bright colorful fake real money).

There was nothing to immerse the child in "*I* have this much money"; it was just "this character has this much fake money". There were no cool house/hotel icons to own, no cool rainbow properties to own. So, rather than the sense of personal wealth and ownership of coolness, you've got "this other person is cool for having the grey". :smallannoyed:

It's no wonder I've never heard of this game, while Monopoly has, well, a monopoly.

Knaight
2019-01-07, 10:21 AM
Yeah, no. I looked up images of "coup", and I saw pretty pictures of faces (see the issues of preconstructed characters) and some dull grey circles (that I'm guessing are the game's fake fake money, as opposed to monopoly's bright colorful fake real money).

There was nothing to immerse the child in "*I* have this much money"; it was just "this character has this much fake money". There were no cool house/hotel icons to own, no cool rainbow properties to own. So, rather than the sense of personal wealth and ownership of coolness, you've got "this other person is cool for having the grey". :smallannoyed:

It's no wonder I've never heard of this game, while Monopoly has, well, a monopoly.

You haven't heard of it because it had to compete with other boardgames during an era where they were actually good, and Monopoly got in early enough that it was a novelty. Also it's not "this other person is cool for having the money" it's "I have these enormous funds, I have some of these people working for me (you're not playing as them), and I'm going to take over the government."

Quertus
2019-01-07, 10:47 AM
You haven't heard of it because it had to compete with other boardgames during an era where they were actually good, and Monopoly got in early enough that it was a novelty. Also it's not "this other person is cool for having the money" it's "I have these enormous funds, I have some of these people working for me (you're not playing as them), and I'm going to take over the government."

OK, the game is better than the impression that it gave. Still, a) it gives that impression, b) lacks the "cool swag" of Monopoly (including, you know, fake real money), and c) now it's the NPCs that are super cool, rather than the cool stuff that the PCs can own.

Just the effort that the GM put into the NPCs vs the dull grey of the loot (to put it in RPG terms) is off-putting. Monopoly has the right kind of GM, catering their effort to what matters to the players.

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-07, 12:24 PM
You haven't heard of it because it had to compete with other boardgames during an era where they were actually good, and Monopoly got in early enough that it was a novelty. Also it's not "this other person is cool for having the money" it's "I have these enormous funds, I have some of these people working for me (you're not playing as them), and I'm going to take over the government."

While I haven't played Coup (I have played Resistance, which is I believe a spin off with similar artwork), yeah it's actually a more visually appealing game than Monopoly, as well as a better game.

But as you say, Coup has to compete in a way Monopoly never did. I was very lucky to not only grow up around the time of the board game boom (I think I was a teenager for a decent chunk of it) and to have parents who knew their stuff when it came to board games. I still have my dad's copy of Pirateer, an actually fun 70s board game (it's a race to get the treasure! And stack the ship counters as high as you can, of course) that, while simple, still has more satisfying strategy than Monopoly. But we had a variety of board games in the house, and more kept coming in, so I got to play everything from Bombay Bazaar to Command and Colours at some point in my childhood. It was actually weird which ones kept surviving the clearing out of the games chest, nearly twenty years after it was bought my dad still has and plays Bombay Bazaar (because it's a great game, even if you're four blokes in their late forties or more with pints of beer). Quidler also was absolutely adored as a more fun version of Scrabble, and I was playing Apples to Apples a good decade before I'd heard of Cards Against Humanity.

I think Pitch Car eventually won out as the perfect 'board game' for kids, as long as you made sure it was played somewhere without anything too fragile. Everybody who came round loved flicking their race car around the track, much more than getting a bunch of fake money to play fake landlord, and there was enough skill involved to be fun well into your teens.

Wow, that was a tangent. But yeah, Monopoly didn't have much competition when it first came out, and now everybody knows it, while a lot of better games came out during a period with much fiercer competition. Add that to how a lot of places can have very poor variety in board games, and Monopoly remains not really sure to being good or attractive to kids, but because people know it. While few Gabe's have the variety in tokens meant to represent 'you' there are many out there with great variety in pieces (even if a lot of games use Meeples). I'm currently hoping that the little rocketship pieces from Tiny Epic Galaxies are available for purchase separately, I have plans.

Florian
2019-01-07, 03:25 PM
Monopoly? What the eff is Monopoly?

Ok, more seriously. The "Spiel des Jahres" award is basically the Oscars of board games and it has a massive influence around here (meaning D/A/CH countries). Chances are good that any person or family even remotely interested in board games will have at least one of the winning games at home, making games like Carcassone, Settlers of Catan or El Grande widely played and popular. And no, this hasn't got anything to do with BS like having "huge amount of fat cash", but rather good and fun gaming experience.

2D8HP
2019-01-07, 03:40 PM
Monopoly? What the eff is Monopoly?....


My grandparents had a 1930's board game called "Big Business" that was a lot like "Monopoly", except the goal was to control industries instead of real estate.

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-07, 03:46 PM
Monopoly? What the eff is Monopoly?

Ok, more seriously. The "Spiel des Jahres" award is basically the Oscars of board games and it has a massive influence around here (meaning D/A/CH countries). Chances are good that any person or family even remotely interested in board games will have at least one of the winning games at home, making games like Carcassone, Settlers of Catan or El Grande widely played and popular. And no, this hasn't got anything to do with BS like having "huge amount of fat cash", but rather good and fun gaming experience.

Having extensively played Carcassone (although almost none of the expansions, we use Inns and Cathedrals as simply extra tiles) and a fair amount of Settlers of Catan, I can say any award given to those two at the very least considers a good gameplay experience.

On that note, I'll point out that the main problem to Monopoly is that it drags. Especially as nobody in my family likes anybody else getting monopolies, and used to play with the 'no houses or hotels until you have a monopoly on that colour' rule. The way we play means that we tend to prefer games like Carcassone which have a set turn limit, even if we can identify everybody's playstyle by now. Actually a really appreciate set turn limits right now, even if it's not phrased as such (of course Pandemic has a turn limit, it's just defined by not being able to draw more cards. That there are a very specific number of).

Friv
2019-01-07, 07:48 PM
Worth keeping in mind that one of the other reasons that a lot of people play Monopoly is that they already own it. A lot of those "family board games" are literally passed down; my parents had games that their parents had, which hadn't quite worn out yet.

Tanarii
2019-01-08, 12:08 AM
A lot of those "family board games" are literally passed down; my parents had games that their parents had, which hadn't quite worn out yet.
I ended up learning to play Diplomacy and Careers for that reason.

Now I try to get younger folks interested in games of Axis and Allies or Civilization, since that's what I still have lying around from my childhood.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-08, 08:35 AM
Having extensively played Carcassone (although almost none of the expansions, we use Inns and Cathedrals as simply extra tiles) and a fair amount of Settlers of Catan, I can say any award given to those two at the very least considers a good gameplay experience.

On that note, I'll point out that the main problem to Monopoly is that it drags. Especially as nobody in my family likes anybody else getting monopolies, and used to play with the 'no houses or hotels until you have a monopoly on that colour' rule. The way we play means that we tend to prefer games like Carcassone which have a set turn limit, even if we can identify everybody's playstyle by now. Actually a really appreciate set turn limits right now, even if it's not phrased as such (of course Pandemic has a turn limit, it's just defined by not being able to draw more cards. That there are a very specific number of).

Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

hotflungwok
2019-01-08, 09:21 AM
Throwing another on the list.

Underground.

one of my favorite environments for a superheroes game and I'm not sure we ever figured out how to play it.
Me and some friends played a lot of Underground in college, and I don't remember ever having a problem figuring out how to play it.

You want a good idea hobbled by a bad rule system try Justifiers.

Pelle
2019-01-08, 10:10 AM
Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

Yeah. If everyone understands Settlers is a cutthroat diplomacy game where everyone needs to band together to stop the leader, it could be more fun. But since it's usually a gateway game, new players don't get that and are afraid to be confrontational.

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-08, 11:06 AM
Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

Yeah, I think I was lucky with Settlers as 1) it wasn't my entry to the medium and 2) I played it with family. We were all willing to gang up on the leader, so the early game was spent not getting too obvious a lead whole making sure you had access to Clay, Stone, or a Port (as a 2:1 port with two or more settlements bordering that resource covers a multitude of sins).

Then again, with Settlers it takes experience to notice when somebody is pulling ahead. Even I have trouble trelling when the difference between a sight lead and a definitive one early game.

Particle_Man
2019-01-08, 01:58 PM
Anyone else remember the mad magazine game where the object was to lose all your money and one of the cards said that it could only be played on Friday?

Willie the Duck
2019-01-08, 02:19 PM
Anyone else remember the mad magazine game where the object was to lose all your money and one of the cards said that it could only be played on Friday?

I do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mad_Magazine_Game). But that is a spoof, at least sort of. It is there to pass the time laughing at the insanity of the game. That I feel is its own bizarre category of endeavors that you don't really judge on the same merits. For example, if the goal of the game is to be unplayable (https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/desert-bus-the-very-worst-video-game-ever-created)to make some kind of point, how do you rate it? Does it really score a zero (or minus-infinity or the like), or is it more of an orthogonal score (maybe a sqrt(-1), or the like)?

Malifice
2019-01-09, 12:57 AM
When it comes to board games, the original Talisman rates highly.

Still remains one of the best board games I've played, and also one of the most grindingly long and borderline broken (Monk, anyone with the Runesword) as well.

Particle_Man
2019-01-09, 01:13 AM
I always thought Prophetess is the dangerous "Tier 1" character in Talisman, but maybe they nerfed her in later editions.

It was a favourite of my childhood, but yes it was long (especially if you had a large number of players!).

But somehow, it also felt like an rpg to me. Maybe because you could be turned into a toad.

I even had a friend that wanted us to LARP Talisman for her husband's birthday, so we did!

Malifice
2019-01-09, 01:52 AM
I always thought Prophetess is the dangerous "Tier 1" character in Talisman, but maybe they nerfed her in later editions.

It was a favourite of my childhood, but yes it was long (especially if you had a large number of players!).

But somehow, it also felt like an rpg to me. Maybe because you could be turned into a toad.

I even had a friend that wanted us to LARP Talisman for her husband's birthday, so we did!

The Monk (+Craft to Strength), preferably with the Book of Sorcery (Spell recovery as a Wizard) and the Runesword (steal life on a kill) was King. Your only weakness was Psychic combat, so you maxed out Craft as often as you could.

Florian
2019-01-09, 03:08 AM
Anyone else remember the mad magazine game where the object was to lose all your money and one of the cards said that it could only be played on Friday?

Jepp, that was a great game. We played the hell out of it at family meeting, until the box fell apart.

@Settlers of Catan:

The nice thing about that game is that it actually rewards skill over luck in the long run. Both, cutthroat diplomacy and the art of bluffing/laying a trap are greatly rewarded. I think that's part of why the game has such lasting power.

@Near RPGs:

As much as I love Talisman, Arkham Horror and such, as a working adult, they're simply taking too long and it´s hard to take a "break" and continue another time.

Satinavian
2019-01-09, 03:30 AM
Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.Settlers have powerful abilities to attack a leader. You can sick the bandit in him, you can block him from spots he is building to. Settlers also has means to hide how far ahead you actually are. You have all the hidden point cards. And you have cards that let you build a lot of stuff at once, hiding your ambition until you have all resources in place. That is why Catan has an interesting endgame, even when played competitively. Sure, there might be early losers but even those can still play kingmaker.
Monopoly however is utterly boring if played even somewhat competitively. The only way it can ever be fun is if players don't realise the value of properties and you actually have auctions and trade. But that is not what usually happens. You usually never get auctions, people losing sooner accept several hypothecs instead of selling a single street. And after most of the streets are bought the very first time, the board is basically stuck until someone goes bankrupt. Which will take forever if you have a higher number of players, thus no monopolies and no one being able to build houses.

So one game is fun, the other one is utterly horrible.

The last time i had fun with monopoly was when it was forbidden as capitalist propaganda and playing it at all was a subversive activity. The thrill of breaking the rules hid how utterly bad the game actually was.


One of my favorite board games at the moment is Descent. But it is hard to make the time for it to actually play a full campaign. Even if they actually do allow for easy breaks.

Florian
2019-01-09, 03:54 AM
One of my favorite board games at the moment is Descent. But it is hard to make the time for it to actually play a full campaign. Even if they actually do allow for easy breaks.

Yeah, the Road to Legend scenarios are quicker to play than the original scenarios, still takes a lot of time.

On a related note, I've got quite a lot of minis from the old Confrontation skirmish game (sooooo gorgeous), the Hybrid board game and the Cadwallon rules. Back in 2015, we had a long-running campaign based on Road to Legend but using those rules, minis and RPG parts to create and advance characters. That was fun.

Particle_Man
2019-01-09, 08:40 PM
The Monk (+Craft to Strength), preferably with the Book of Sorcery (Spell recovery as a Wizard) and the Runesword (steal life on a kill) was King. Your only weakness was Psychic combat, so you maxed out Craft as often as you could.

That requires luck to get those particular items though. I mean prophetess can get warhorse and with an alignment change the runesword too.

The prophetess actually got the good stuff and avoided the bad stuff because of her class ability, and already was a living book of spells from turn one. Unless people actively focused on killing her immediately she almost always won.

Quertus
2019-01-10, 09:18 AM
I didn't play much with Talisman expansions, but I don't remember most of those characters. I really remember the guy with the ball and chain who rolled 2 dice, but killed himself on doubles. I think my favorite was something like a Crusader or Adventurer? But I don't remember what he did.

But, IME, Talisman would have been, "OK, we're 15 minutes in, it's obvious who will win (barring random luck, which usually happened), why are we still playing?", except that the gameplay of killing monsters for treasure was itself fun.

RedMage125
2019-01-10, 10:01 AM
I've never played RIFTS, but I had friends with a lot of the books, and the game world seemed rich with lore and story fodder, but the system was...hellish.

Honestly, for me, 4e was kind of a heartbreaker. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, a lot. It was certainly a dream to DM. But there was so much negativity and backlash about it that the system did not last as long as it should have. My heartbreak stems from the fact that too many people were overly dismissive of it, and a lot of the criticisms were, I believe, unfair. Lack of crafting/out of combat skills, for example, was intended to be room for free-form roleplay, NOT an indication that the game "didn't support those things at all". And while the PHB1's classes WERE a little overly similar and homogenous, the introduction of the PHB2 is where the game really picked up and had a wide variety of very diverse classes that all felt and played very differently.


Hit points in D&D and it's ilk. It's a great mechanic in wargames, where you measure a unit's fighting spirit instead of remaining strength, and translating that to the roleplaying arena makes sense. The problem comes when you combine treating hp as meat with rapidly increasing totals, so that a 10th level Fighter can survive multiple Fireballs.

4e gets a pass, as it's built around hp not being meat, but 5e doesn't due to removing most of 4e's 'morale boosting restores hp' abilities.

Looking back, Hit Points in D&D were never supposed to be "meat", but this is one of the most commonly overlooked element of the rules. This came up on the forums a couple of years ago, and someone quoted the BECMI rules penned by Gygax that basically said HP were an abstraction.

I know factually that the 3.x rules also say this. That HP are just one's ability to "stay in the fight", but "a dagger in the eye is still a dagger in the eye". People just seem to overlook that point in the rules, and think "hit+damage" = "physical damage to tissue". 4e was just a lot more obvious about it, because some of their mechanics (warlord healing comes to mind) just straight do not work without understanding that fact. 5e also specifies that hit points are just a measure of staying in the fight, and even says that no solid blow is truly landed until the one that drops an individual to 0 hp.

For my part, when I run 3.x or 5e, I retain the "bloodied" condition from 4e. That is, a character has not really been hit, other than light or glancing blows, if that, until they are at 50% of their max, at which point, they are "bloodied". I will also share when a monster or NPC is "bloodied" (which is the only detail about their health that I divulge to PCs. Exceptions exist. Damage which requires some sort of physical contact (poisoned weapons or venomous bites, for example), usually at least graze the skin, narratively. Also, I usually rule that crits are always "meat strikes".

Willie the Duck
2019-01-10, 12:07 PM
Honestly, for me, 4e was kind of a heartbreaker. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, a lot. It was certainly a dream to DM. But there was so much negativity and backlash about it that the system did not last as long as it should have. My heartbreak stems from the fact that too many people were overly dismissive of it, and a lot of the criticisms were, I believe, unfair. Lack of crafting/out of combat skills, for example, was intended to be room for free-form roleplay, NOT an indication that the game "didn't support those things at all". And while the PHB1's classes WERE a little overly similar and homogenous, the introduction of the PHB2 is where the game really picked up and had a wide variety of very diverse classes that all felt and played very differently.

4e D&D should always get its own thread in these discussions, because there's no untangling the knot of things that went wrong on the corporate/marketing/market research/product delivery side, unkind fans being unfriendly to the release, and the actual product. Suffice to say, 4e is not a badly made TTRPG, regardless of whether it was the right game to be the next D&D (and certainly the next D&D at the time and in the manner it was released).


Looking back, Hit Points in D&D were never supposed to be "meat", but this is one of the most commonly overlooked element of the rules. This came up on the forums a couple of years ago, and someone quoted the BECMI rules penned by Gygax that basically said HP were an abstraction.

Okay, seriously, Gygax did not pen BECMI, Mentzer did. Gygax penned oD&D and 1e AD&D. 1e certainly spelled out that hp <> meat, although exactly what the are 'meant' to be is usually irrelevant. But if statements are relevant, I always preferred oD&D playtester Michael Mornard's comment, "No, they weren't meat, but they also weren't fatigue or combat luck either. Hit points were hit points and they represented hit points. Everything after that is retroactive justification." And that about sums it up. Hit points were instituted because they are simple and straightforward, and only 1 in X people playing the game ever complain about how unrealistic they are. Everyone has their own idea about what to do instead, and 99% of those ideas fall into the category of 'D&D would lose 90% of their audience if you made it that complex, and 90% of the people complaining about hit points still wouldn't be satisfied.'

Malifice
2019-01-11, 12:00 AM
Hit Points in D&D were never supposed to be "meat", but this is one of the most commonly overlooked element of the rules. This came up on the forums a couple of years ago, and someone quoted the BECMI rules penned by Gygax that basically said HP were an abstraction.

I know factually that the 3.x rules also say this.

Hit Points in 5E are expressly defined as 'luck, the will to live, resolve and health' so they're also not 'meat'.

A 'hit' with a sword doesnt necessarily mean that you were struck at all. The blow may have been parried at the last second, dodged, or glance of armor or some other lucky contrivance. How you narrate HP loss is up to the group.

For example, falling into a volcano deals a lot of damage. If you take that damage and survive you are obviously one lucky, resolute, strong willed and healthy dude. It's simply narrated as instead of you nose planting into a pool of magma and somehow surviving, you instead find yourself (luckily) on a random rock outcropping, dangling precariously from a tree branch etc.

A 'redshirt' with 10 hit points would have fallen directly into the magma. You're a central protagonist with 100 hit points, so instead, you luckily manage to avoid injury or death, and instead survive.

Hit points are effectively Plot armor in numerical form. They're a class feature (Fighters get more than Wizards etc). I loathe games where DMs houserule things like falling a big distance, falling into magma, a dagger to the heart while sleeping etc 'are just insta death'. They're depriving you of a central class feature arbitrarily, in order to kill your character, and for no other reason than they lack the imagination to come up with a narrative contrivance to explain why you didnt die.

Maybe you were woken at the last second, or turned in your sleep, and managed to avoid the blow, instead only being nicked by the dagger. Maybe you landed in a snow drift, or got snagged on a tree branch and saved that way. Maybe a Great Eagle swooped in to save you. Whatever it was you're one lucky, skillfull, resolute and determined guy (and clearly, central to the plot).

Xuc Xac
2019-01-11, 12:07 AM
A 'hit' with a sword doesnt necessarily mean that you were struck at all. The blow may have been parried at the last second, dodged, or glance of armor or some other lucky contrivance. How you narrate HP loss is up to the group.


That explanation falls apart as soon as its time to heal. Why does a successful parry need to be healed?

Malifice
2019-01-11, 12:47 AM
That explanation falls apart as soon as its time to heal. Why does a successful parry need to be healed?

Because some times when you take 10 points of damage (hit point loss) you've parried the blow or dodged it, or it glanced off your armor. Other times when you take 10 points of damage, it grazes you, or maybe even knocks you out or kills you outright.

It depends on if you're a Redshirt (low HP's) or Kirk (150 HP), and how you narrate it.

It's an abstraction. Not an absolute.

After a battle in which you've taken damage you're probably bruised, tired and less willing to push on and test your luck.

Binding those wounds (plus a chance to rest and recover, regain your focus and get a breather) helps (restores HP). As would magical healing (pumping them full of magical energy that refocuses you, steels your resolve, makes you feel better, kills pain, and [if you have any physical damage] knits them together]

Particle_Man
2019-01-11, 12:59 AM
If hit points are mostly luck points, then healing (or even rest) heals up your luck. It is magic, yo! :smallcool:

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-11, 06:47 AM
That explanation falls apart as soon as its time to heal. Why does a successful parry need to be healed?

This is why I like Adventures in Middle Earth more than core 5e, although I'd give the Warden healing abilities. The only healing is at rests or from the Scholar class's Healing Dice, which are much more effective outside of battle (1d8 if used in battle, 1d8*prof if used over five minutes, 2d8 if you have the Master Healer subclass). It's explicitly meant to be bandaging wounds and treating aches and the like, and feels much better than having the hp restorer be called 'Cure Wounds', which is a holdover from back in the days when healing rates assumed hp=meat. Although I suspect that there would be just as much grumbling if the main healing spell was called 'restore stamina'.

Cluedrew
2019-01-11, 07:53 AM
I didn't play much with Talisman expansions, but I don't remember most of those characters. I really remember the guy with the ball and chain who rolled 2 dice, but killed himself on doubles.The goblin fanatic. My favourite game of Talisman ended with the assassin winning through this blind luck set of assassination rolls, after getting the worst luck for most of the game. At which we agreed someone else had done much better this game and could have one as well and the goblin fanatic player looked down and said that they might not have won, but they created a shining example for goblin kind. The goblin fanatic was the Archemage and the King's Champion.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-11, 09:14 AM
That explanation falls apart as soon as its time to heal. Why does a successful parry need to be healed?

Hit Points -- not "meat"... until they are meat.

If one is going to play D&D, it's best to just not think about the layers of contrivance involved in that mechanic, and get on with playing.

EldritchWeaver
2019-01-11, 10:01 AM
I still don't understand how monopoly got so popular. Every time I play it I just get to the conclusion that it isn't fun.

For anyone who wants to ensure that he never has to play Monopoly again with certain players: How to win at Monopoly (https://imgur.com/a/vX3zm).

RedMage125
2019-01-11, 10:16 AM
4e D&D should always get its own thread in these discussions, because there's no untangling the knot of things that went wrong on the corporate/marketing/market research/product delivery side, unkind fans being unfriendly to the release, and the actual product. Suffice to say, 4e is not a badly made TTRPG, regardless of whether it was the right game to be the next D&D (and certainly the next D&D at the time and in the manner it was released).
4e was extremely well made, although it suffered from a great deal of homogeneity in the first PHB, as well as the mistake of making "V-shaped" classes (classes which had one secondary stat, but could choose between 2 primary stats, like the paladin and warlock). I proudly turned around a few "h4ters" when I ran 4e. To my players, it always still felt like D&D. Then again, I made extensive and creative use of Skill Challenges, in addition to adapting very well to the Free-Form Roleplay elements of the game that were "missing" from the mechanics.

That said, during 4e's run, if I was a player, I would usually prefer 3.5e. I did recognize that not all DMs adapted to 4e as well as I did. 4e was so great on me as a DM, however. Hands-down, one of my favorite systems to run.


Okay, seriously, Gygax did not pen BECMI, Mentzer did. Gygax penned oD&D and 1e AD&D. 1e certainly spelled out that hp <> meat, although exactly what the are 'meant' to be is usually irrelevant. But if statements are relevant, I always preferred oD&D playtester Michael Mornard's comment, "No, they weren't meat, but they also weren't fatigue or combat luck either. Hit points were hit points and they represented hit points. Everything after that is retroactive justification." And that about sums it up. Hit points were instituted because they are simple and straightforward, and only 1 in X people playing the game ever complain about how unrealistic they are. Everyone has their own idea about what to do instead, and 99% of those ideas fall into the category of 'D&D would lose 90% of their audience if you made it that complex, and 90% of the people complaining about hit points still wouldn't be satisfied.'
I guess I confuse BECMI with OD&D sometimes.

Point is, that it's an abstraction, just like Armor Class. Meant to give solid mechanics for combat that are not supposed to be simulationist.


Hit Points in 5E are expressly defined as 'luck, the will to live, resolve and health' so they're also not 'meat'.
I'm confused as to why you quoted me to say this, as I also acknowledged in my post that 5e makes this distinction. I usually sum it up as "the measure of one's ability to stay in the fight".

My preference, as a DM, is for players to not discuss hit point totals during combat, and I ask this of my players. So in combat, a conversation might be:
Cleric: "Who needs healing?"
Rogue: "I'm not bloodied yet, but I'm getting there"
Barbarian: "I was bloodied 2 hits ago, but I'm not critical"
Wizard: "I probably can't take another hit, help!"

That said, if my players DO slip and discuss hit point totals in combat, all they get is the Stern Look of DM Disapproval +2. Out of combat, I really don't care if they discuss it. And again, the only thing I share about monster health is whether or not a creature is "bloodied".



A 'hit' with a sword doesnt necessarily mean that you were struck at all. The blow may have been parried at the last second, dodged, or glance of armor or some other lucky contrivance. How you narrate HP loss is up to the group.
Those are usually what I go with, depending on the character. A blow against the shield that makes one's arm tingle, or a strike that someone felt the shock of through their armor, but did not pierce it. As I said before, I usually narrate critical hits as "meat strikes", but not always significant. A crit with a crossbow bolt, for example, could be one that actually grazed a bit of exposed skin, and the character is now bleeding. Or perhaps it pierced one's armor "just a bit", and sank into flesh slightly. Again, some strikes must make some contact, narratively, in order to make sense (poison damage from a weapon or bite comes to mind, or infliction of lycanthropy).


For example, falling into a volcano deals a lot of damage. If you take that damage and survive you are obviously one lucky, resolute, strong willed and healthy dude. It's simply narrated as instead of you nose planting into a pool of magma and somehow surviving, you instead find yourself (luckily) on a random rock outcropping, dangling precariously from a tree branch etc.

A 'redshirt' with 10 hit points would have fallen directly into the magma. You're a central protagonist with 100 hit points, so instead, you luckily manage to avoid injury or death, and instead survive.
It's one thing I enjoyed about 4e's "minion" mechanic. Minion creatures had only one hit point, not because they were literally so frail that anything could drop them, but because they were narratively less important. They were pawns, set pieces in a more cinematic combat encounter. It's worth noting that attacks and effects that do damage even on a miss do no damage to a minion, one must actually strike them to down them.

Related to that was the ability to make a creature "elite", thus allowing for NPCs who were primary spellcasters, or otherwise low-hp combat roles (like artillery or controllers) to stay in the fight longer, and be a more significant threat.


Hit points are effectively Plot armor in numerical form. They're a class feature (Fighters get more than Wizards etc). I loathe games where DMs houserule things like falling a big distance, falling into magma, a dagger to the heart while sleeping etc 'are just insta death'. They're depriving you of a central class feature arbitrarily, in order to kill your character, and for no other reason than they lack the imagination to come up with a narrative contrivance to explain why you didnt die.

Maybe you were woken at the last second, or turned in your sleep, and managed to avoid the blow, instead only being nicked by the dagger. Maybe you landed in a snow drift, or got snagged on a tree branch and saved that way. Maybe a Great Eagle swooped in to save you. Whatever it was you're one lucky, skillfull, resolute and determined guy (and clearly, central to the plot).
I quite agree.

Hit Points -- not "meat"... until they are meat.

If one is going to play D&D, it's best to just not think about the layers of contrivance involved in that mechanic, and get on with playing.
This is why the definition of "ability to stay in the fight" is a useful one. Because obviously, significant physical damage DOES inhibit one's ability to stay in the fight. But there are other potential factors as well.

"Contrivance" in mechanics comes in all forms, as a great deal of them are simply abstractions that could be narratively flexible. Armor Class, for example. In 2e, there were optional rules that made certain armor types better or worse against certain attacks. Chain mail, for example, was 2 points of AC worse against bludgeoning attacks, but better against slashing ones. Which totally makes sense. But at some point, true simulationism needs to give way to the notion that this is a game, and some mechanics like that don't necessarily add to the fun.

Saving throws is another example I like to cite, especially in conjunction with hit points. Let's say the whole party gets hit with a Fireball spell, and everyone makes their Reflex (or Dexterity) Saving Throw. So everyone only takes half damage, but that's still enough to bloody the cleric and drop the wizard to negative hp (or just 0 in 5e). The sword and board Fighter in heavy armor ducked and raised his shield, minimizing the amount of skin that was exposed. Afterwards, he feels warm, flushed, and is starting to sweat heavily, but he's okay. The Rogue with quick reflexes, jumped and spun in the air, passing through a gap in the flames of the sphere of fire, landing on her feet, completely unharmed (Evasion). The cleric also flinched behind his shield, focusing on his faith and silently calling out to Pelor for help. His faith rewarded, his effects are also minimal. Some of his arm hair feels crispy, and he's uncomfortably warm. He can feel a few new blisters starting to form on his arms and shoulders. Those will be very painful until he casts a healing spell. He looks around at his fellow party members and his eye catches the wizard as he collapses. The wizard, when he saw the incoming fireball, knew what was about to happen. He reflexively called on his magical skill to protect him with a ward against the fire, while still turning his face into the crook of his arm and closing his eyes. When the heat washed over him, his magical ward had taken the worst of it, but he still felt the intense blast. His skin is VERY red, and he appears to have all the symptoms of heat exhaustion. His robes look a little singed, and he is on his feet only a moment longer as the heat overtakes him and he faints.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's essential to keep in mind that a great deal of the mechanics we deal with are simply abstractions, which could narratively be a number of things.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-11, 10:39 AM
HP as meat was hardest to argue against through 3.x, where a "light wound" was defined as a certain amount of HP, regardless of how much HP you had. If I'm a 1st level cleric with 4 HP, a "Cure Light Wounds" spell will possibly heal me from near death to completely well.

4e's Healing Surges as the default amount of healing changed the game. Cure Light Wounds heals 1/4 of your maximum HP (plus some because the cleric gave bonuses). If you had 4 HP maximum, a Cure Light Wounds would heal 1 HP; you usually had 100 HP, it would heal 25.

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-11, 12:05 PM
For anyone who wants to ensure that he never has to play Monopoly again with certain players: How to win at Monopoly (https://imgur.com/a/vX3zm).

Try playing with four players who all understand that strategy and one player who just doesn't get why Monopoly isn't fun. It leads to an even slower game than normal as nobody can get a single monopoly, leading to waiting for somebody to become bankrupt enough that they'll sell one of their mortgaged properties.

At least it's not as bad as the game of Ticket to Ride I played where EVERYBODY ELSE BUILT INTO AND OUTOF THE CITY ON BOTH MY TICKETS. Forty points down the drain after ten turns of trying to get the cards to build one line, I think that would have left me with ten to twenty by the end of the game (if I hadn't taken any extra tickets). Is it any wonder I hate that game almost as much as monopoly?

LibraryOgre
2019-01-11, 12:48 PM
Try playing with four players who all understand that strategy and one player who just doesn't get why Monopoly isn't fun. It leads to an even slower game than normal as nobody can get a single monopoly, leading to waiting for somebody to become bankrupt enough that they'll sell one of their mortgaged properties.

At least it's not as bad as the game of Ticket to Ride I played where EVERYBODY ELSE BUILT INTO AND OUTOF THE CITY ON BOTH MY TICKETS. Forty points down the drain after ten turns of trying to get the cards to build one line, I think that would have left me with ten to twenty by the end of the game (if I hadn't taken any extra tickets). Is it any wonder I hate that game almost as much as monopoly?

My hatred is for Power Grid, where starting position is HUGE.

However, we might want to veer back towards RPGs.

Particle_Man
2019-01-11, 12:55 PM
For example, falling into a volcano deals a lot of damage. If you take that damage and survive you are obviously one lucky, resolute, strong willed and healthy dude. It's simply narrated as instead of you nose planting into a pool of magma and somehow surviving, you instead find yourself (luckily) on a random rock outcropping, dangling precariously from a tree branch etc.

A 'redshirt' with 10 hit points would have fallen directly into the magma. You're a central protagonist with 100 hit points, so instead, you luckily manage to avoid injury or death, and instead survive.

I just had to give you this awesome set of rules for lava that I found on the internet:

http://www.scratchfactory.com/Resources/LavaBanners/LavaRules.pdf

Malifice
2019-01-11, 01:03 PM
I just had to give you this awesome set of rules for lava that I found on the internet:

http://www.scratchfactory.com/Resources/LavaBanners/LavaRules.pdf

I actually loled at the hardcover that was available at my local FLGS.

Whenever this discussion comes up I show people Star Trek (the second one in the reboot) where Spock falls into an active volcano, from a height of at least 100 metres... and survives.

He hands on a rocky outcropping in the middle of the magma (i.e. loses a ton of HP, but thanks to some pretty amazing [luck/ resolve/ will to live and health] manages to survive and get the job done. He had enough 'HP' to survive the fall into magma, and it was narrated accordingly.

If a redshirt did the same thing (either at the same time, or on their own), they would have fallen in the magma (lacked the HP to survive the fall).

Ditto in the first reboot when Kirk and a Redshirt are base jumping (from orbit) onto that platform. Both Kirk and the Redshirt took the same amount of HP loss from the fall; it's just that the redshirt got knocked to zero and killed, while Kirk did not.

Kirk had more luck, skill, resolve and the will to live than the redshirt.

HP are basically plot armor in so many ways. When DMs arbitrarily remove them from you (bearing in mind they're a core class feature for traditionally 'weaker' classes like the martial classes) they'd better have a better reason than 'I lack the ability to narrate how you fell in the volcano/ from orbit and survived'.

Malifice
2019-01-11, 01:06 PM
Try playing with four players who all understand that strategy and one player who just doesn't get why Monopoly isn't fun. It leads to an even slower game than normal as nobody can get a single monopoly, leading to waiting for somebody to become bankrupt enough that they'll sell one of their mortgaged properties.

At least it's not as bad as the game of Ticket to Ride I played where EVERYBODY ELSE BUILT INTO AND OUTOF THE CITY ON BOTH MY TICKETS. Forty points down the drain after ten turns of trying to get the cards to build one line, I think that would have left me with ten to twenty by the end of the game (if I hadn't taken any extra tickets). Is it any wonder I hate that game almost as much as monopoly?

I never realised that monopoly was designed as a clone of a game that existed to show that capitalist leaseholdings were wrong.

The more you know!

Arbane
2019-01-11, 01:33 PM
But, IME, Talisman would have been, "OK, we're 15 minutes in, it's obvious who will win (barring random luck, which usually happened), why are we still playing?", except that the gameplay of killing monsters for treasure was itself fun.

I've taken to calling games like that 'snowball' games - because either you roll along accumulating power and equipment (getting bigger like a snowball), or you get nothing early on and have the chance of a snowball in hell.

Malifice
2019-01-11, 01:40 PM
I've taken to calling games like that 'snowball' games - because either you roll along accumulating power and equipment (getting bigger like a snowball), or you get nothing early on and have the chance of a snowball in hell.

Most such games also include a 'gang up on the player currently winning' mechanism built in as well (Talisman and Monopoly have this to a great extent).

Luccan
2019-01-11, 02:19 PM
Hit Points -- not "meat"... until they are meat.

If one is going to play D&D, it's best to just not think about the layers of contrivance involved in that mechanic, and get on with playing.

For once, I find I completely agree with you. Sometimes an abstraction is simply how the game works and worrying too much about how it works in fiction is more of a headache than it's worth.

I don't know if it's a heartbreaker, since I'm not sure anyone ever liked it, but I'd like to talk about d20 Modern (and its spin offs), Wealth system. For those unfamiliar, Wealth didn't work like gp. I think it was supposed to represent both your own money, as well as things like credit. How it worked was, you had a starting wealth bonus (somewhere between 3 and 20, depending on rolls, occupation, a Feat, and ranks in Profession), which you could use to purchase things with a Wealth check DC of equal or lesser than your Wealth bonus. You can also make a wealth check check to attempt to purchase things higher than your Wealth bonus. This always reduces your Wealth by at least one point (and up to 13). So, while the system takes a little getting used to, it isn't too complicated. And here's the problem:

Nothing in the d20 games is of a price most characters can afford without reducing their wealth. According to the game, a wealth bonus of anywhere from 5 to 10 is "Middle Class". The purchase DC of any civilian car is... 26 or greater. Actually, 27 or greater, because you also need the appropriate license, which adds 1 to the DC. According to the wealth rules, purchasing anything that is 11-15 points higher in DC than your wealth bonus reduces your bonus by 1d6. And in this case, there's an additional +1 because it's over DC 15. So a character in the upper threshold of Middle Class can be reduced to poverty by buying a car. Now, maybe that's to represent the fact that most people can't just buy a car... but given there isn't a system for car loans and the Wealth system is presumably meant to represent things like loans and credit, as well as personal money, it's all a bit silly. Especially because this means that, for certain purchases, getting what you want is more a matter of the order you buy things. Most characters can't afford handguns without reducing their wealth by at least 2 points. On the other hand, anyone with a bonus of 15 or more can buy as many .45s as they want (literally as many as they want) without ever reducing their wealth. And then buy a cheap car that brings them down to middle class.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-11, 02:21 PM
I've taken to calling games like that 'snowball' games - because either you roll along accumulating power and equipment (getting bigger like a snowball), or you get nothing early on and have the chance of a snowball in hell.


Most games where you accumulate anything other than points or position will have some level of that. Power Grid you get more money to buy better power plants with which to make more money (and then the rest of the players can try to drive up the cost of your needed fuels). Carcassonne you can put down a farmer and then start building cities in their fields, which enhances the point value of the farmer (but other players can wall off the farmer with roads, play pieces to make cities un-complete-able, or just try and get in on the cities or fields by building their own into them). It's going to be a matter of degree, how much luck of the draw effects things, how insurmountable an early lead really is, and how well the other players can play spoiler/kingmaker.

Hunter Noventa
2019-01-11, 03:04 PM
For once, I find I completely agree with you. Sometimes an abstraction is simply how the game works and worrying too much about how it works in fiction is more of a headache than it's worth.

I don't know if it's a heartbreaker, since I'm not sure anyone ever liked it, but I'd like to talk about d20 Modern (and its spin offs), Wealth system. For those unfamiliar, Wealth didn't work like gp. I think it was supposed to represent both your own money, as well as things like credit. How it worked was, you had a starting wealth bonus (somewhere between 3 and 20, depending on rolls, occupation, a Feat, and ranks in Profession), which you could use to purchase things with a Wealth check DC of equal or lesser than your Wealth bonus. You can also make a wealth check check to attempt to purchase things higher than your Wealth bonus. This always reduces your Wealth by at least one point (and up to 13). So, while the system takes a little getting used to, it isn't too complicated. And here's the problem:

Nothing in the d20 games is of a price most characters can afford without reducing their wealth. According to the game, a wealth bonus of anywhere from 5 to 10 is "Middle Class". The purchase DC of any civilian car is... 26 or greater. Actually, 27 or greater, because you also need the appropriate license, which adds 1 to the DC. According to the wealth rules, purchasing anything that is 11-15 points higher in DC than your wealth bonus reduces your bonus by 1d6. And in this case, there's an additional +1 because it's over DC 15. So a character in the upper threshold of Middle Class can be reduced to poverty by buying a car. Now, maybe that's to represent the fact that most people can't just buy a car... but given there isn't a system for car loans and the Wealth system is presumably meant to represent things like loans and credit, as well as personal money, it's all a bit silly. Especially because this means that, for certain purchases, getting what you want is more a matter of the order you buy things. Most characters can't afford handguns without reducing their wealth by at least 2 points. On the other hand, anyone with a bonus of 15 or more can buy as many .45s as they want (literally as many as they want) without ever reducing their wealth. And then buy a cheap car that brings them down to middle class.

Oh gods I forgot about the Wealth system. What a bizarre way of handling money. I mean, I get what they were going for, partially at least, but the execution was severely lacking.

Knaight
2019-01-11, 03:36 PM
Oh gods I forgot about the Wealth system. What a bizarre way of handling money. I mean, I get what they were going for, partially at least, but the execution was severely lacking.

Which is made worse by how the rest of the industry already knew how to make pretty decent abstract wealth systems. The d20 modern designers could have just done a little research, but instead they made one of the worst abstract wealth systems out there.

Anonymouswizard
2019-01-11, 05:57 PM
Which is made worse by how the rest of the industry already knew how to make pretty decent abstract wealth systems. The d20 modern designers could have just done a little research, but instead they made one of the worst abstract wealth systems out there.

Well at least they learnt their lesson, I haven't seen WotC making a game without doing their research beforehand since! Yes, I count both 4e and 5e in the 'failed their research' camp.

johnbragg
2019-01-11, 06:07 PM
I always used incantations for spells above fourth level when playing E6 D&D. I actually had it in my head that it was actually how e6 was intended to be played until I mentioned it on this forum and someone pointed out to me that those rules were not included as part of regular E6.

Depends on exactly how tightly you define "regular E6." Ryan Staughton specfically recommends them on page 9 of the PDFs.


Q: What if I want there to be a higher
level magical effect, but still use E6?
A: The rules for rituals in Unearthed
Arcana are an excellent fit for E6, to
support things like opening portals
to another dimension, higher-level
divinations, and so on. When a spell
is a 3-day event requiring 20 mages,
it’s more of a plot point than a spell
itself, and that maeks it a great a
springboard for challenging the
players.

https://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf


I will not say you are wrong. I am just learning 5e after having finally been driven away from D&D by these issues 20-some years ago and watching them get worse with the 3.x/PF era.

However, as an outsider looking in, the 5e discussion is nearly indistinguishable from the 3.x discussion. All the same "well you haven't taken into account how this Feat will interact with that that option and this other option to create a world-beating build that will be completely overpowered" back-and-forth is still there... All the mechanics-first, concept-second build advice is still there... "You don't want to take race X with class Y, that's horribly inefficient"... Characters a step behind because they're smart but not a Wizard, or because they're supposed to be a widely skilled but aren't a charming musician or a nimble sneak... Etc.

5e is a game with a lot of chargen. But so many people come to it from 3X, that it seems so much lighter. (Other posters are right that there isn't as much value in optimizatioin--chargen is not as much of a minigame). But there are a lot of buttons and knobs for every character to remember how to play.


If hit points are mostly luck points, then healing (or even rest) heals up your luck. It is magic, yo! :smallcool:

I prefer these sorts of explanations--hit points are a measure of your narrativium, which you can recharge in various ways. (Until you run out of narrativium and start having meat problems)

Cosi
2019-01-11, 06:22 PM
Lack of crafting/out of combat skills, for example, was intended to be room for free-form roleplay, NOT an indication that the game "didn't support those things at all".

The game doesn't support those things at all. You can do them free-form, but that is true of every combination of "thing you want to do" and "system that doesn't support doing that thing". If you just free-form up some abilities that make the 3e Fighter as a good as the 3e Wizard, those classes are balanced. Yet the notion that your ability to do so in any way reduces the imbalance present in 3e would be rightfully dismissed as absurd.

That said, 4e is a great example of a heartbreaker because it has so many mechanics that are genuinely good ideas, just terribly implemented. Having explicit Tiering is a nearly-perfect solution to the persistent problem of "what does a Fighter do at high levels". It's just that 4e's Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are terrible conceptually and/or give underwhelming abilities, and there's no support for anything other than "you and a small group of friends fight a small group of monsters" at any level. Skill Challenges are a genuinely fantastic idea, but the implementation was terrible despite repeated attempts to fix it and obvious fixes that are trivially simple to to implement (notably: count rounds instead of failures). Stripping everything down to At-Will/Encounter/Daily was a huge sacrifice in terms of mechanical diversity that was never capitalized on.

There are a lot of lessons to learn from 4e, but it is at the end of the day a terrible game.

Talakeal
2019-01-11, 06:28 PM
Depends on exactly how tightly you define "regular E6." Ryan Staughton specfically recommends them on page 9 of the PDFs.

That's what I thought, but in an advice thread on this forum when I suggested ritual magic as a solution to the PC's problem everyone acted like I was crazy! Grrrrrrr.

Quertus
2019-01-15, 08:10 AM
Stripping everything down to At-Will/Encounter/Daily was a huge sacrifice in terms of mechanical diversity that was never capitalized on.

There are a lot of lessons to learn from 4e, but it is at the end of the day a terrible game.

How would one capitalize on At-Will/Encounter/Daily sameyness?


That's what I thought, but in an advice thread on this forum when I suggested ritual magic as a solution to the PC's problem everyone acted like I was crazy! Grrrrrrr.

Was I a) involved, and b) opposed to the idea? Because that doesn't sound like me. :smallconfused:

RedMage125
2019-01-15, 09:57 AM
The game doesn't support those things at all. You can do them free-form, but that is true of every combination of "thing you want to do" and "system that doesn't support doing that thing". If you just free-form up some abilities that make the 3e Fighter as a good as the 3e Wizard, those classes are balanced. Yet the notion that your ability to do so in any way reduces the imbalance present in 3e would be rightfully dismissed as absurd.
See, I read the 4e "preview books", Races & Classes and Worlds & Monsters, where they discussed a lot of the design goals of 4e. It was explicitly stated there that since D&D was a game about fantasy adventuring, that incorporating mechanics that had nothing to do with fantasy adventuring was unnecessary, and should be where players and DMs feel free to roleplay without being limited by codified mechanics. I took that to heart, deeply. Furthermore, in the 4e PHB, it tells you that the PC starting gold is meant to be kind of an abstraction to ensure that everyone is starting with the same equivalent value of gear. If you want your character's armor to have been a family heirloom, it can be, but you still deduct the value from that starting gold. Only whatever is left over becomes actual "liquid cash assets". After all, it's not like every PC is just given 100gp as soon as they decide to be an adventurer.

So, you're incorrect in your comparison. 4e was intended to be open to free-form roleplay for the things that it left mechanics out of. That's apples and oranges to a system of mechanics which are clearly not equitable with each other.


That said, 4e is a great example of a heartbreaker because it has so many mechanics that are genuinely good ideas, just terribly implemented. Having explicit Tiering is a nearly-perfect solution to the persistent problem of "what does a Fighter do at high levels". It's just that 4e's Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are terrible conceptually and/or give underwhelming abilities, and there's no support for anything other than "you and a small group of friends fight a small group of monsters" at any level. Skill Challenges are a genuinely fantastic idea, but the implementation was terrible despite repeated attempts to fix it and obvious fixes that are trivially simple to to implement (notably: count rounds instead of failures). Stripping everything down to At-Will/Encounter/Daily was a huge sacrifice in terms of mechanical diversity that was never capitalized on.
Really? I liked Paragon Paths, because it was like gaining a Prestige Class, without ever stopping advancement in one's core class. Some gave underwhelming abilities, true, but conceptually, I think they were fantastic. While it is true that the overall motif of combat stays the same through all levels of play, that was kind of the point. No one class ever becomes grossly more overpowered over another. There was no vast gulf between casters and martials, and that was exactly the primary design goal of 4e. Defenders, be they Fighters or otherwise, remain integral to combat throughout all tiers of play. Same with other class roles (although some argue against the necessity of a Controller in a party). It did create a bit of homogeneity when comparing epic tier to heroic tier play (after all, the Defender always marks and "tanks" enemies, Strikers always focus fire and do heavy damage, Leaders are always the ones passing out healing, etc), but the scope of what players are doing becomes greater. Look, for example, at the Paragon Tier Fighter power "Come And Get It". It's a Close Burst attack that forces enemies to approach the Fighter, and then get hit, thereby becoming marked. That's way above what he could do in Heroic Tier.


There are a lot of lessons to learn from 4e, but it is at the end of the day a terrible game.
4e wasn't actually terrible, but it was this perception of it from people who could not get past their own preconceived notions of what D&D "should be" that killed it. 4e continued to "feel like D&D" to everyone I ran it for. And I know a LOT of people that really liked it (and some who still prefer it over 5e). 4e incorporated a lot of good things that have left a positive mark on D&D going forward. not the least of which is decent At-Will magic and the warlock class.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-15, 10:03 AM
4e wasn't actually terrible, but it was this perception of it from people who could not get past their own preconceived notions of what D&D "should be" that killed it. 4e continued to "feel like D&D" to everyone I ran it for. And I know a LOT of people that really liked it (and some who still prefer it over 5e). 4e incorporated a lot of good things that have left a positive mark on D&D going forward. not the least of which is decent At-Will magic and the warlock class.


What about people who didn't care for a lot of earlier D&D, but still thought 4e was even worse?

If anything, 4e was a heartbreaker because it kept a lot of the core issues of D&D, while going into this odd space where everything seemed liked skins over the same generic powers repeated across all the classes.

Rhedyn
2019-01-15, 10:33 AM
I feel like 4e is the logical conclusion from 3e style games. Take the complicated Ivory Tower game design and instead make a game that is easier to grok and includes mainly equivalent options while maintaining that steady power curve and loot mania.

PF2e is mainly just becoming more 4e-like. It's just difficult making a game easier to run with HP, classes, and the d20 (which IMO adds tons of crunch just to have these things work well)

Hunter Noventa
2019-01-15, 10:38 AM
Which is made worse by how the rest of the industry already knew how to make pretty decent abstract wealth systems. The d20 modern designers could have just done a little research, but instead they made one of the worst abstract wealth systems out there.

Those exist? I'd love to hear about them.

And I remember when 4e first came out and my group gave it a try. Other than some good-natured griping about some odd thing or the other. ("What do you mean there's no shovels?" Literally, you couldn't buy a shovel without GM interference because it wasn't listed), the biggest problem was that everyone ran off the same mechanics in the most bland way. Now this was right at the start, before they introduced anything new, but it the mechanical differences between classes were barely there, and it made things uninteresting as a result.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-15, 11:14 AM
There are a lot of lessons to learn from 4e, but it is at the end of the day a terrible game.

I disagree. I don't particularly like it, but I don't agree that it was terrible. It did exactly what it set out to do, and was very playable. I just found it to be a drag to make characters without their online tool, because every power had to be recorded, and if you wanted fast play, you had to record every detail, and any given adjective could be crucially important.


How would one capitalize on At-Will/Encounter/Daily sameyness?

I think I might have reduced the recharge rate; as it stood, the recharge rate heavily assumed you were doing some standard adventuring... go into a dungeon until you run out of resources, then come back or fortify and rest to regain your consumed powers. Change that tempo, and you had to significantly change encounter design... if you were having 6 encounters a day, the rate was fine. If it was 6 per week, or one per week, you had to turn every fight into a boss fight.

Instead of "You get all your Encounter Powers back after an encounter", I might require a Short Rest... and maybe shift it to "You get 1 encounter power back per short rest." Likewise, 1 daily power back per long rest. It wouldn't help extremely atempo games (i.e. weeks between encounters), but it would have reduced the problem.

Ignimortis
2019-01-15, 11:41 AM
I think I might have reduced the recharge rate; as it stood, the recharge rate heavily assumed you were doing some standard adventuring... go into a dungeon until you run out of resources, then come back or fortify and rest to regain your consumed powers. Change that tempo, and you had to significantly change encounter design... if you were having 6 encounters a day, the rate was fine. If it was 6 per week, or one per week, you had to turn every fight into a boss fight.

Instead of "You get all your Encounter Powers back after an encounter", I might require a Short Rest... and maybe shift it to "You get 1 encounter power back per short rest." Likewise, 1 daily power back per long rest. It wouldn't help extremely atempo games (i.e. weeks between encounters), but it would have reduced the problem.

Encounter Powers in 4e reset after a 5-minute rest, IIRC. And boy, do I wish that 5e went the same way instead of making it an HOUR.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-15, 11:48 AM
Encounter Powers in 4e reset after a 5-minute rest, IIRC. And boy, do I wish that 5e went the same way instead of making it an HOUR.

A 5-minute short rest can work (and there's even a DMG variant for it), but you run the risk of having lots of short rests in a day and giving warlocks and monks lots of extra power.

One thing I like to do if there's issues is give SR tokens. You get 2 when you finish a long rest and you can carry (max) one over (so max 3 per day). Use one whenever you have a couple minutes of uninterrupted time to gain the benefits of a short rest.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-15, 11:49 AM
Encounter Powers in 4e reset after a 5-minute rest, IIRC. And boy, do I wish that 5e went the same way instead of making it an HOUR.

Whereas I view a 5 minute rest as too short to be worth tracking... except in very time-tight situations, you're going to be able to do that. 5e's hour makes that short rest cost you something.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-15, 11:59 AM
Whereas I view a 5 minute rest as too short to be worth tracking... except in very time-tight situations, you're going to be able to do that. 5e's hour makes that short rest cost you something.

Agreed. Although that's the balance point for 4e--it's balanced around getting all your Encounter powers back per fight unless you have back-to-back fights. It's not the balance point for 5e.

I rarely track anything but tens of minutes or hours at the strategic level (ie not in combat). Single-digit minutes is just annoying.

Ignimortis
2019-01-15, 12:01 PM
A 5-minute short rest can work (and there's even a DMG variant for it), but you run the risk of having lots of short rests in a day and giving warlocks and monks lots of extra power.

One thing I like to do if there's issues is give SR tokens. You get 2 when you finish a long rest and you can carry (max) one over (so max 3 per day). Use one whenever you have a couple minutes of uninterrupted time to gain the benefits of a short rest.

My former DM used to run Hard to Deadly combats every single time there was a combat, so all classes spent their resources much quicker. Usually SR characters were out of stuff every combat and LR characters could last 2 to 3 combats. We tried the 5-min SR at one point and he didn't like it, because we just took a SR after each combat. There was something about "you get too much resources now, the monk can literally use Ki every round".

To be honest, I don't particularly like any type of resource conservation mechanics outside of basic "ammo stockpile" or something, because it usually leads to taking the boring options in play more often than not. D&D is rife with that - as a spellcaster, you don't cast actual good spells every turn until you're at least mid-level. As a martial character, you spend 80%+ of your time doing simple attacks, even if you're a Battlemaster Fighter and actually have tricks beyond that. Personally, I prefer turn-to-turn action economy and combinations a team can pull off to "alright so I have about 2 spell slots to spend this fight that only exists to drag some resources out of me".

That's part of why I liked ToB and ToM for 3.5 so much - they introduced mechanics that worked within combat to manipulate resources. A Warblade ALWAYS has something to do as long as it has actions for it. If you can't use maneuvers, you refresh them and still attack people so you're never locked out of a fight, but you have enough maneuvers to use them for 75% of your turns. A Binder can bind multiple Vestiges that mostly grant passive improvements that influence your gameplay, and you also have short cooldown-style abilities that come back up in 3 or 4 or 5 rounds. If I ever become motivated enough to make my own d20 hack, those things will be crucial to how anyone without spellcasting will work.

Rhedyn
2019-01-15, 12:19 PM
Oh "Fights that exist to drain resources from me", I hate that mechanic. Resource management is a fine game-play element for videogames where things can proceed more quickly. In an table top RPG, filler-encounters are just a chore and suck the fun out of the evening.