PDA

View Full Version : What's so great about Dungeons and Dragons?



Cyclone231
2007-11-11, 01:07 AM
I can't think of a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is better than other systems. Can anyone give me one?

It can't be because it's easy to remember, because to build the best character for your archetype you need a bunch of sourcebooks.

It can't be because character creation is simple, because if you make a multiclass character, selecting his skills is a very unintuitive way to spend time. It gets even worse if his Int changes.

It can't be because combat is simple, because, well, it isn't (grappling rules, for example).

So what is it? What makes it so great, so popular? Just pure, raw age?

wgabrie
2007-11-11, 01:13 AM
Advertising. :smallamused:

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 01:16 AM
Because everyone plays it so there's a huge amount of support for it. Same reason Windows is in no danger of falling to any form of Linux or Mac OS in a big way.

Quietus
2007-11-11, 01:16 AM
I think it's got to do with several things :

1) It's one of the biggest names (if not THE biggest) in the RPG industry. It's been around for what, three decades now? Almost EVERYONE has heard of it.
2) You don't *need* all those sourcebooks, they just increase your options. They're nice to have, but not necessary.
3) The grapple rules aren't that tough. Though combat CAN be a little involved at times, I'm just saying that people make grappling out to be this horrible thing, when it's not.
4) Heroic fantasy. I have yet to see a better system for pulling off heroic fantasy; I've found Earthdawn to be generically annoying, and of the WoD games I've played, they're not as good at representing the typical Conan character, who can take several hits and not slow down. And don't get me started on Call of Cthulu.

But yeah, mostly, marketing and name brand recognition.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-11, 01:27 AM
Also, Wizards of the Coast owns everyone's soul. I predict that they'll soon merge with Blizzard to become "Blizzards of the Coast," and then they will attain apotheosis. Unless, of course, 4e flops.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 01:27 AM
It's self perpetuating. The company has more resources and a bigger market presence. It is fun, that's for sure, and the number of 'clone' games and D20 products attest to that.

Cyclone231
2007-11-11, 01:30 AM
Because everyone plays it so there's a huge amount of support for it. Same reason Windows is in no danger of falling to any form of Linux or Mac OS in a big way.So everyone plays it because everyone plays it? Thanks for the info.

4) Heroic fantasy. I have yet to see a better system for pulling off heroic fantasy; I've found Earthdawn to be generically annoying, and of the WoD games I've played, they're not as good at representing the typical Conan character, who can take several hits and not slow down. And don't get me started on Call of Cthulu.I dunno, Hero System seems to be pretty good at handling heroic fantasy, and it's pretty easy to make a warrior, especially considering the low cost of Strength. And your warrior is far easier to make a person via skills than D&D, what with it's "haha fighters can't have any flavor skills like Perform or Profession or Knowledge :PPP".

I mean, really, in Hero, all you have to do to keep going for a while is just a little resistant Physical and Energy defense (maybe a dozen points worth) and a high STUN (or REC, if you like getting back up rapidly from going unconscious).

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 01:35 AM
So everyone plays it because everyone plays it? Thanks for the info.

Dismiss me with snark all you want, but that's the truth. It's obviously not initially why D&D got popular, but it's certainly why it's maintained popularity. Tell me that you've never seen or heard some variation of the following:
"Yeah, I like ______ system better, but no one I know has the books or wants to play it, so I'm in a D&D campaign instead."

Popularity is a powerful tool. A system doesn't have to win converts, just cooperation.

Once you're popular and you've got widespread brandname recognition while not a whit of your competitors do, then the only way you're falling out of first place is when your CEO, Board of Directors, President, COO and Chairman all roll Nat 1s.

And of course, not always even then. After all, TSR pretty much did just that. But even my mom has a (vague, incorrect) recognition of the name "Dungeons and Dragons." The closest competitor is White Wolf. She would stare at you funny if you said a word about "Vampire: The Masquerade."

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 01:37 AM
It's self perpetuating. The company has more resources and a bigger market presence. It is fun, that's for sure, and the number of 'clone' games and D20 products attest to that.

Definitely this also, your comments are wrong.


I can't think of a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is better than other systems. Can anyone give me one?
There are worse systems and some that people could argue are "better" though to keep in the same genre, there really isn't a better system.


It can't be because it's easy to remember, because to build the best character for your archetype you need a bunch of sourcebooks.
I find it easy to remember and core is simple enough. Remember that you don't have to make very wizard a batman.


t can't be because character creation is simple, because if you make a multiclass character, selecting his skills is a very unintuitive way to spend time. It gets even worse if his Int changes.
I have found only one system that is easier than a D20 system to make a character for: Cyberpunk 2020, you fill out 40 points worth of skills (which isn't much) jot down your attributes, pick up a gun and maybe some random equipment and in ten minutes you play.


It can't be because combat is simple, because, well, it isn't (grappling rules, for example).
Combat is very straightforward and not everyone grapples. In fact, I've found most people use the same tactics throughout a campaign so it gets very quick because you know all the rules that apply to you.


So what is it? What makes it so great, so popular? Just pure, raw age?
Marketing and age are a big part of it as well. D&D is not a bad system, at all. In fact, it is a great system or every few people would play it.

Lemur
2007-11-11, 01:41 AM
So everyone plays it because everyone plays it? Thanks for the info.

Is that sarcasm? I can't tell. But it's true on a profound level, no matter how strange it sounds. Any multiplayer game, not just P&P RPGs are going to become more popular and have greater perceived value as more people play them. It's easier to find players, and in some cases people will start playing just because their friends are, and they don't want to be out of the loop.

No matter how much WotC tries marketing, the game primarily spreads by word of mouth. The marketing is just there to feed off and maintain the existing customer base. It's not what actually makes the game popular.




hee hee, "Blizzards of the Coast".

Chronos
2007-11-11, 01:41 AM
And your warrior is far easier to make a person via skills than D&D, what with it's "haha fighters can't have any flavor skills like Perform or Profession or Knowledge :PPP".First of all, what makes you think that fighters can't have flavor skills? You can buy them cross-class, or you can dip another class for them, or you can get access to them through feats (of which the fighter has plenty), or you can just use them untrained. Second, what do skills have to do with making a character a person? That's equally easy (or difficult) in any system, because the things that make a character a person aren't numbers on the page.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-11-11, 01:50 AM
D&D is all I've ever known. I was introduced to the world of RPGs with this game, and to be honest I've never played anything else. It was a big step away for me when I decided to purchase the d20 Modern Handbook. Not Vampire, not Exalted but the d20 Modern Handbook, something that should have been an easy sell to me, except that I was nervous about venturing away from the familiar, comforting world of D&D. Up until then I'd bought D&D books and D&D books only, and I still purchase D&D books and D&D books only. Hell, I've never even bought any Forgotten Realms or Eberron books! I know that this is probably going to draw accusations of me being a puppet for WotC, and that's probably true, as I enjoy all the books I have (even though some have been declared by the community as only helpful because they can prop up that one bad table leg), and I'm relatively optimistic about the arrival of 4th Edition. Call me what you will, but I believe WotC to be doing a decent job, and frankly I'm tired of these accusations that 4e is just going to be World of Warcraft with a D&D label slapped on it.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 01:52 AM
D&D is all I've ever known. I was introduced to the world of RPGs with this game, and to be honest I've never played anything else. It was a big step away for me when I decided to purchase the d20 Modern Handbook. Up until then I'd bought D&D books and D&D books only, and I still purchase D&D books and D&D books only. I know that this is probably going to draw accusations of me being a puppet for WotC, and that's probably true, as I enjoy all the books I have (even though some have been declared by the community as only helpful because they can prop up that one bad table leg), and I'm relatively optimistic about the arrival of 4th Edition. Call me what you will, but I believe WotC to be doing a decent job, and frankly I'm tired of these accusations that 4e is just going to be World of Warcraft with a D&D label slapped on it.

I'm actually looking forward to the 4e ruleset, but I enjoy the constant revising of gamerules in the search of perfection.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-11-11, 01:53 AM
I'm actually looking forward to the 4e ruleset, but I enjoy the constant revising of gamerules in the search of perfection.

What do you mean?

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 01:55 AM
What do you mean?

When it comes to rulesets, I don't mind constant minor revising with the occasional large overhaul. I welcomed 3.5 with open arms, I welcome 4ed optimistically based on Tome of Battle and Star Wars SAGA edition, and when there eventually will be a 5ed, I'll look forward to it too. I acknowledge there are flaws with any system, so when I can be reasonably confident that a competent revision is underway (read: Not written by me, since I don't get to playtest much), I'm fairly glad to hear it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-11-11, 01:57 AM
When it comes to rulesets, I don't mind constant minor revising with the occasional large overhaul. I welcomed 3.5 with open arms, I welcome 4ed optimistically based on Tome of Battle and Star Wars SAGA edition, and when there eventually will be a 5ed, I'll look forward to it too. I acknowledge there are flaws with any system, so when I can be reasonably confident that a competent revision is underway (read: Not written by me, since I don't get to playtest much), I'm fairly glad to hear it.

Good to hear. I know this'll probably paint me as even more of a hopeless sheep, but I really just tend to trust WotC to give it their best effort. They helped to make D&D the most recocgnized RPG ever, and I think that the game is in good hands.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 02:00 AM
Good to hear. I know this'll probably paint me as even more of a hopeless sheep, but I really just tend to trust WotC to give it their best effort. They helped to make D&D the most recocgnized RPG ever, and I think that the game is in good hands.

And if it's not, well, it's easy to common-sense-out bad things. Not as easy to come up with good things.

ocato
2007-11-11, 02:02 AM
and if all else fails, we can still play 3.5.

random11
2007-11-11, 02:07 AM
1) Like other people mentioned: popularity.
It's a lot easier to find a group for D&D then for some other games.

2) Experience.
The company is old, but it also changes over time. I'm guessing it's mostly to make money, but it also improves the rules and gives more variety.

3) The style is fantasy, but it's general enough to fit any world or campaign you can think of.


Personally, I prefer point based systems over classes, and I also favor realism over heroic-epic, so D&D is not for me.
But if you want a heroic fantasy, and not too picky about the mechanics, D&D is an excellent choice.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:21 AM
Options.

D&D in its current incarnation releases so much more material - just official WotC material, not even counting the many 3rd-party suppliers of D&D crack - than any of the other systesm, it's not even close.

The reason for this, of course, is that D&D has a much larger fan base, so WotC can afford to release many splatbooks and take losses on some of them if they completely flop. They make it all back in the end - but a smaller competitor can't.

Basically, it's just easier to play with the big stack, to use a poker analogy. It can be hard to play from behind. You either take more risks and probably fold, or play it safe and keep your small market share.

So, my answer is that it is economic in origin. As are most things.

AslanCross
2007-11-11, 03:12 AM
I'll have to agree with the popularity argument. You'd think it would be difficult to find D&D players in a third world country half a world away from the US, but D&D is one of those games that everybody (lower middle class and above, at least) has at least heard of, whether negatively or positively. That's why it was so easy for me to ask people if they were interested in learning the game.

"Oh sure, my uncle used to play that and I always wanted to learn it!"
"My brother told me about how he dropped a boulder on his party member once..."

In a world where there are so many ways to do viral marketing, a game that has been spreading by viral marketing for two decades would definitely have some clout.

CrazedGoblin
2007-11-11, 05:06 AM
Because it is.:smallbiggrin:

Winterwind
2007-11-11, 05:24 AM
Here in Germany, D&D came out practically simultaneously with a German RPG with a similar premise (heroic fantasy) called Das Schwarze Auge (DSA, The Dark Eye), which promptly surpassed D&D in terms of popularity. I know dozens of roleplayers, and none of them plays or has ever played D&D. Why DSA surpassed D&D so much, I don't know, but it shows that D&D's popularity probably indeed relies on it having been the first RPG to a significant degree, since in a country where it failed to be the first one it did not become nearly as dominating.

Mr Horse
2007-11-11, 05:27 AM
For me, it's mainly nostalgia. I also like the basic "feel" of the system and the rich campaign worlds, although I hated the item/loot-oriented and exceptionally high magic direction the system took with 3.0 and even moreso 3.5 Edition.
I usually play with the 3.5E rules, but a 2nd Ed attitude towards the whole magic items deal.

Grynning
2007-11-11, 05:27 AM
A lot of people have mentioned D&D's popularity, but there's another quality that's harder to describe but just as important: the mystique. D&D has a certain feel, a kind of familiarity mixed with grandeur. I think everyone who plays fantasy RPG's still gets a little misty eyed about that first time your party of 4 (Fighter Cleric Thief and Magic User) kicked open the doors of dungeon and started killing monsters and taking their stuff. Sure the game has evolved considerably since then, but D&D has always managed to stay true to it's roots. It still has that kind of lackadaisical fantasy feel that is lacking from a lot of other games that take themselves way too seriously.
Anyways, that's why I still love it. Granted, I love other games too, I'm stoked about getting a Conan d20 game going (which has fairly different rules for the most part), I play a WoD game, a Call of Cthulu game, and I played Palladium for a long time. But D&D will always have a special place on my shelf...probably the biggest, too.

Bayar
2007-11-11, 05:30 AM
It is popular because it is based on the Lord of the rings...and it is around for about 30 something years...it was first a game only for geeks. Now if you play D&D, you are cool :smallcool:

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 05:30 AM
4) Heroic fantasy. I have yet to see a better system for pulling off heroic fantasy;
Exalted. TORG. Amber DRP. MERP. Palladium. Runequest.

Ctulhu is not supposed to be heroic fantasy to begin with.



I have found only one system that is easier than a D20 system to make a character for: Cyberpunk 2020
Oh, but there are tons and tons of systems with easier and/or faster character creation than D&D. Literally anything by White Wolf, for starters. Then, Ctulhu, Paranoia, Toon, Over the Edge, Warhammer FRP, Indiana Jones RP, Amber DRP, et cetera. The only ones that stand out as being more complex than D&D are GURPS, Hackmaster, and Alternity.

It's not that D&D is difficult per se, because any moderately intelligent person can certainly learn those combat rules, or character building rules, over a few sessions, but it's that many other RPGs are simpler.


Anyway. In my opinion, there are two problems with D&D. The first is that the class system is really restrictive (just look at the trouble you have to go through to play a wizard who can wield a sword well...) The second is that combat is excessively slow. Both of these can be alleviated by house ruling, of course. Oh, and the third problem is that having large quantities of rules breeds rules lawyering players, but the answer to that is simply to play with people you like.

Grynning
2007-11-11, 05:43 AM
Hey, now, don't knock us rules lawyers. For some of us that's part of the fun :smalltongue:
I will concede that a lot of RPG's have simpler rules, but a lot of those RPG's are also A. Crappy B. Just as restrictive rules-wise, or worse, so rules-lite that it affects playability (Palladium is included in this category for me, their games have tons of rules, but not for any of the important stuff...like movement in combat, for instance) C. Have this kind of RP-nazi philosophy that encourages role-play that can be a bit too immersive. Sometimes I feel like playing one of those games, but a lot of times, I want to look at a grid, move around figures, throw dice around, get into silly arguments about the practicality of Halflings as weaponry, and laugh a lot. That's where D&D excels.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-11, 11:02 AM
The game is fun because it emualtes a certain kind of fantasy, less so in 3rd, but I like it all the same. I find classes and all that sort of thing fun, as well as the flavor.

I honestly can't see where all the hate is coming from.

Dausuul
2007-11-11, 11:07 AM
As others have said, market share tends to be self-perpetuating; like Windows, D&D is in an industry where the cost of switching to a different product is high. If somebody tells you there's a better brand of pizza out there, it's easy to give it a try and it's easy to change to the new pizza if you decide you like it better. With RPGs, though, learning the new system takes some time, mastering the new system takes more time, it requires a fresh outlay of cash to buy the rulebooks, you usually have to dump your existing campaign, and it's often hard to tell whether the new system really is better until you've reached a certain level of mastery.

In addition, WotC's tremendous market share enables it to pump out new sourcebooks at a prodigious pace, and they have a lot more resources to improve the product. I know people like to complain about how WotC never playtests anything, but in all honesty the D&D system goes through far more testing, and is better balanced, than the vast majority of competing RPGs; WotC can afford to do that. It can also afford to hire excellent designers and put them to work full-time.

I'm not saying that D&D isn't a good system, because it is, for all its flaws and irritations. But it's the structural advantages of being the first in the industry that have kept it on top all these years.

Cyclone231
2007-11-11, 12:57 PM
First of all, what makes you think that fighters can't have flavor skills? You can buy them cross-class, or you can dip another class for them, or you can get access to them through feats (of which the fighter has plenty), or you can just use them untrained.Why should a Fighter have to pay double points or do any number of horribly bad, character capability crushing choices, to be able to play the flute quite well? And given that he's a fighter, that's going to be like half his skill points right there (maybe a quarter if he's really smart).

Second, what do skills have to do with making a character a person? That's equally easy (or difficult) in any system, because the things that make a character a person aren't numbers on the page.
What do skills have to do with making a character a person? Not much.

What do skills have to do with making a character a particular person? The same thing class or race does. If you were attempting to make a Drow character, would you choose the High Elf race? Of course not. So what if you wanted to play a warrior with some significant skill (ie. better than a commoner of his level) at the drums, or the guitar, or whatever, because that was part of his background?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 01:10 PM
I can't think of a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is better than other systems. Can anyone give me one?

It can't be because it's easy to remember, because to build the best character for your archetype you need a bunch of sourcebooks.

It can't be because character creation is simple, because if you make a multiclass character, selecting his skills is a very unintuitive way to spend time. It gets even worse if his Int changes.

It can't be because combat is simple, because, well, it isn't (grappling rules, for example).

So what is it? What makes it so great, so popular? Just pure, raw age?

AD&D 2nd edition was pretty solid, very few rules conflicts. In fact, as long as you didn't ever play in Forgotten Realms and rarely used Player's Options, there were 0 rule conflicts. Plus, despite the fact there would be rules that say "don't let PC's play this class, but here are the rules if you do let the PCs play this class or race :wink wink:" you could still use those very same rules to let the PC's play the class/race.


Also, despite there being some really shoddy rules in AD&D, they were never as glaring as GURPS where people could survive 4,500 rads, or basically walk on the sun and not die for 3 full rounds.

As for which systems are great? I love Warhammer Fantasy RPG. I hate Warhammer Miniatures, but their Fantasy book is freakin amazing.

I love Palladium's After the Bomb TMNT, but hate Rifts.

the Red Dwarf RPG had an amazing ruleset.

Big Eyes Small Mouth looks fun but I have never been able to find a game for it :(

I think the big thing about AD&D is that with 1st and 2nd editions a player never had to memorize the rules in order to play. A DM would, but not a player. When a game is run right, then at least 80% of the time, the entire game would be on auto pilot, concentrating on Role Playing rather than Roll Playing.

Also, the D&D basic set was just cool. Red Box + Dice + Solo Adventure = awesome.



As for D&D 3rd Edition = it's awful, full of poorly playtested crap that's been butchered by idiots at RPGA and WoTC combined. I can't stand it.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 01:51 PM
Why should a Fighter have to pay double points or do any number of horribly bad, character capability crushing choices, to be able to play the flute quite well? And given that he's a fighter, that's going to be like half his skill points right there (maybe a quarter if he's really smart).

What do skills have to do with making a character a person? Not much.

What do skills have to do with making a character a particular person? The same thing class or race does. If you were attempting to make a Drow character, would you choose the High Elf race? Of course not. So what if you wanted to play a warrior with some significant skill (ie. better than a commoner of his level) at the drums, or the guitar, or whatever, because that was part of his background?

I think you should read this article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It's a good one.

Quietus
2007-11-11, 02:08 PM
I dunno, Hero System seems to be pretty good at handling heroic fantasy,


Exalted. TORG. Amber DRP. MERP. Palladium. Runequest.

Perhaps those systems do handle heroic fantasy better. Perhaps they don't. I've never had any experience with them, because when I was looking to get into roleplaying, the single most common suggestion was D&D. Hell, I've never even HEARD of TORG, Amber DRP, or MERP. If you're referring to the WoD Exalted, then it and Hero System both have the "points" system from what I understand, and some people prefer classes, so we can make something and be ready to go out of the box. Throw around a few dice, dump'em into stats, pick a feat and three skills. Go. To some people, that's preferrable to having to go through and point pig your stats and skills.

Now, I WOULD like to give those systems a try - I like to get a nice mixture of many different things. But it still stands that among the people I play with, D&D is the most common game. I have the books to support it, and can't afford to learn something new - so the limited number of other mainstream "heroic fantasy" games collides with the marketing clout of D&D to create a vortex of gamers who stick to D&D because, well, everyone else does.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 02:50 PM
I think the big thing about AD&D is that with 1st and 2nd editions a player never had to memorize the rules in order to play. A DM would, but not a player. When a game is run right, then at least 80% of the time, the entire game would be on auto pilot, concentrating on Role Playing rather than Roll Playing.

Players don't need to know many rules to play even now. If they did, half of my group would be screwed. Rulemastering is something that comes over time when you want to try something different.

80% of the time? I run 3.5 and I'd say we've got it down to about 95%, if not 100%. There's only one instance I can think of where we had to discuss rules in the middle of a game.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but honestly, your comment smacks to me of someone who hasn't given the game a try long enough for your past perceptions to flush out. When dealing with a bevy of new changes at once, you have to be willing to examine everything together as a whole, not bits and pieces. I remember finding things in d20 Modern and Star Wars d20 to be odd until I realized I had to look at things altogether - not bits and pieces.

It's not easy adapting to a new system, and there's no reason you should have to, but I really find your claim that the game is 'poorly playtested' to be dubious at best. 3.0 was significantly more sloppy in a number of ways than 3.5 (*cough* PsiHB versus XPH) and for the most part, I'd still say things ran quite smoothly.

That's not to say that there aren't issues - they went a little overboard with full caster progression PrCs, and they weren't willing to change enough for the monk and fighter, for example -but any game which is a stylized abstraction of real life meant to be run by a (wo)man who can only do so many things at once will have flaws.

dyslexicfaser
2007-11-11, 02:50 PM
Why should a Fighter have to pay double points or do any number of horribly bad, character capability crushing choices, to be able to play the flute quite well? And given that he's a fighter, that's going to be like half his skill points right there (maybe a quarter if he's really smart).
Yes, that is silly. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, since I feel it plays into the 'Thog' stereotype.

I still enjoy D&D, though. Not sure if I could properly articulate 'why', though the fact that I can actually find people who play is a benefit. I remember I actually tried to get into L5R before D&D, since I was on a big oriental kick during high school - it was like players for that game didn't exist. It was the tabletop equivalent of a ghost town. Then I ended up in a 10-player D&D game within a couple of days, and my fate was sealed.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 03:06 PM
Yes, that is silly. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, since I feel it plays into the 'Thog' stereotype.

Ditto. Before we switched to a skill system based off of Star Wars SAGA edition (which implements many of the ideas that will find their way to 4e) I altered many classes to expand their potential for skills.

Also, to encourage high mental stats where there would otherwise be none, I give my players insights.

"Okay, so Roy the Fighter has an Int of 16. Roy's clever enough to realize blahblahblah tactically."

"Julia the Sorcerer has a stunningly Wisdom of 17. Okay, then, [Julia's player], you get an insight to blahblahblah."

Blanks
2007-11-11, 03:36 PM
Apparently we play DnD very differently:


It can't be because it's easy to remember, because to build the best character for your archetype you need a bunch of sourcebooks.? I dont want to build the "best character for my archetype", I want to build Aslan Solaris the shy cleric, no sourcebooks needed :)


It can't be because combat is simple, because, well, it isn't (grappling rules, for example). Roll a D20 and add something :smalltongue:
I know what you mean, but is it really that bad? Why does everyone focus on grappling, i have never seen it in my games. Perhaps it is mechanically a sound build, but who really wants to play a sumo wrestler? :smalleek:

Oh, and it takes me something like a week to "invent" a person and 10 minutes to make the mechanics/number crunching.


I have a lot of problems with DnD but its not a bad system :)

Dausuul
2007-11-11, 04:31 PM
Why does everyone focus on grappling, i have never seen it in my games. Perhaps it is mechanically a sound build, but who really wants to play a sumo wrestler? :smalleek:

It's not that people play grapplers; it's not generally a sound build, and you really have to work at it to make a PC grapple specialist effective. But in the 3.5 Monster Manual, every monster and its brother has Improved Grab. From mariliths with their constricting tails, to dire bears that hug you and crush you to death, to the party druid's pet tiger that pins people down and shreds them with its raking hind claws, to That Damn Crab (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a)*, grappling is a very common theme in 3.5 monsters. Which means that if the DM ever has occasion to use such a monster, the PCs have to deal with the atrocious grapple rules whether they want to or not.

*Okay, so That Damn Crab isn't actually in the regular Monster Manual, but you get the picture.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 04:38 PM
Hell, I've never even HEARD of TORG, Amber DRP, or MERP.TORG: It was written back when multigenere was the big thing. Basically Earth is invaded by different realities, and it's up to the players to fight them back. America was taken over by a lizard/dinosaur land, England by a midevil setting, France by the Cyber-papacy, Australia by the Dark Lord (Horror), and Japan by Nippon Tech (espionage). It's got a pretty simple mechanic augmented by a deck that came with the box set. Been out of print for a while.
Amber Diceless Role Playing. Never read it, but saw the adds for it all the time. Done by one of the guys from Palladium.
Middle Earth Role Playing is okay, but I'd recommend it's "big brother" version Role Master.


Now, I WOULD like to give those systems a try - I like to get a nice mixture of many different things. But it still stands that among the people I play with, D&D is the most common game. I have the books to support it, and can't afford to learn something new - so the limited number of other mainstream "heroic fantasy" games collides with the marketing clout of D&D to create a vortex of gamers who stick to D&D because, well, everyone else does.Most of it just boils down to people are afraid of change. Personally, I spent several years collecting the core books of every system I could get my hands on. Part of, I think, why I don't like D&D.

Oh, and no other system had Tom Hanks make a movie about it. :smallcool:

Fax Celestis
2007-11-11, 04:52 PM
A strong reason that D&D is popular is because of the sheer quantity of material out there for it, which is made possible both by brand-name recognition (even non-nerds know what "Dungeons and Dragons" is, even if it's just from that Dead Alewives sketch) and through cunning implementation of a little thing called the OGL.

That's right. Making the core material free made the game more popular. Why? Because people (like me) who want to make implementations for the game can do so without threat of lawsuit and without contract, as long as we remain within strict boundaries.

The OGL therein allowed other companies to get in on the d20 action, which strengthened the concept of D&D. The biggest problem that systems have is getting people excited enough about a game to sit down and learn it, and the OGL removes that: since half the games out there these days use the d20 system or a variant thereof, you don't have to learn a new game to play a new game. You learn a new setting and a few rules changes, which is far simpler and much easier to convert people to.

For instance, take a Mutants and Masterminds player: instead of having to learn a new system to play D&D, they already know nine-tenths of the core mechanics. The leveling system's a bit different and some of the pieces are put together differently, but beyond that it's pretty much the same game. The same holds true for nearly any d20 system game.

So it's not just brand-name familiarity, but system familiarity.

Quietus
2007-11-11, 05:02 PM
TORG: It was written back when multigenere was the big thing. Basically Earth is invaded by different realities, and it's up to the players to fight them back. America was taken over by a lizard/dinosaur land, England by a midevil setting, France by the Cyber-papacy, Australia by the Dark Lord (Horror), and Japan by Nippon Tech (espionage). It's got a pretty simple mechanic augmented by a deck that came with the box set. Been out of print for a while.

If it's been out of print, you really can't compare it fairly, I'd say. That being said, I've never been a fan of things where you can travel from country to country and have a clearly different world. Different setting, that's fine - the Deep Woods in Vethedar is very different from, say, the Frozen Peaks or the Veil. But they're all still in the same world. It's tough to go from lizard/dinosaur america over to a cybernetic france and still feel it's the same world. Maybe it was done better than I imagine, but that's just my knee-jerk reaction.


Amber Diceless Role Playing. Never read it, but saw the adds for it all the time. Done by one of the guys from Palladium.

Diceless role playing eh? I used to do that all the time, freeform play by post stuff. That was always highly entertaining.


Middle Earth Role Playing is okay, but I'd recommend it's "big brother" version Role Master.

Role Master I've heard of, though I know pretty much nothing about it.


Most of it just boils down to people are afraid of change. Personally, I spent several years collecting the core books of every system I could get my hands on. Part of, I think, why I don't like D&D.

Oh, and no other system had Tom Hanks make a movie about it. :smallcool:

It's not a matter of being afraid of change, I think. My belief is that it's the monetary investment, and wanting to get the most for your dollar - and D&D offers the widest base of any game out there. It grows, because it's big. It'll take a seismic **** up to get D&D out of its rut, either from a "perfect" system or from WotC doing something completely and utterly stupid.

Raum
2007-11-11, 05:25 PM
Oh, and no other system had Tom Hanks make a movie about it. :smallcool:Hehe, I don't think that's a very big selling point...
-----

As for why D&D dominates the US RPG market, there are a couple of reasons.

1. They've managed to write a game with aspects which appeal to a wide range of gamers. It isn't the best game for any one style of play, but it does many styles adequately. Everything from a Monty Haul dungeon crawl, to intrigue & politics, and even simple wargaming has been done with D&D. Horror (Ravenloft), high magic (Faerun), philosophical (Planescape), dark / gritty fantasy (Darksun), space opera (Spelljammer), political (Birthright), etc - it's all there just pick what you want. Or make the default setting into what you want. It also has a wide variety of abilities for those who enjoy optimization - or simple class paths for those who don't. It has an advance structure allowing for the acquisition of power / abilities as well as the ability to start play at whatever power level you enjoy.

2. The publisher is big enough to publish more than a single game or supplement. Even more so now under Hasbro / WotC than under TSR, a single bad product will be covered by the good products. There is a downside to this though - it's far harder for a large corporate entity to innovate. Not only do you have to convince a potentially non-gaming management that your innovation will sell but you have a lot of pressure for every product to be a best seller.

3. Sheer inertia. TSR got the ball rolling because they were the first out the door with a new and innovative concept that was competently marketed. Now WotC is raking in the benefits. Gaming is an investment after all, where are you as a player going to invest your cash? Some purchase a bunch of different systems to collect or compare, others limit their purchases to whatever niche market they're fans of, but most will simply purchase the game they're a) used to, and b) are fairly certain they can find other players for. The lower your budget for gaming, the more important this becomes.

One problem with the entire gaming industry is simply the cost of producing and marketing a new game is a barrier to small publishers. They're out there, but few can afford to do much marketing. Most would probably be knocked out of business by a single bad year or even product. Greg Costikyan wrote an article, Death to the Games Industry: Long Live Games! (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_8/50-Death-to-the-Games-Industry-Part-I), on PC games. While the costs of producing a tabletop RPG are much lower, so are the profits...which means much of the article will still apply.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 05:35 PM
Hehe, I don't think that's a very big selling point...
-----

But, but, Mazes and Monsters was the win-sauce. Where do you think they got the idea of LARPing? :smallwink:

But yeah, it's #1 because the title alliteration caught Chick Publication's attention.

Raum
2007-11-11, 05:39 PM
That's right. Making the core material free made the game more popular. Why? Because people (like me) who want to make implementations for the game can do so without threat of lawsuit and without contract, as long as we remain within strict boundaries.The OGL certainly helped but D&D was the market leader even before the open license.


If it's been out of print, you really can't compare it fairly, I'd say. That being said, I've never been a fan of things where you can travel from country to country and have a clearly different world. Different setting, that's fine - the Deep Woods in Vethedar is very different from, say, the Frozen Peaks or the Veil. But they're all still in the same world. It's tough to go from lizard/dinosaur america over to a cybernetic france and still feel it's the same world. Maybe it was done better than I imagine, but that's just my knee-jerk reaction.IMO it wasn't done any better than what I suspect you imagine, but at one time that's what was popular. I still remember finding a lasergun on one of my first D&D adventures - yes, it was a published adventure. Everyone was combining the different worlds though - D&D had spaceships and laserguns, Rifts had just about everything, Shadowrun threw magic into a fairly modern world, even Traveller had psionics.


Role Master I've heard of, though I know pretty much nothing about it.It's also been called "Pagemaster" and "Tablemaster" that may tell you all you need to know. :) Basically, there was a table to roll on for almost every type of action you could take.


It's not a matter of being afraid of change, I think. My belief is that it's the monetary investment, and wanting to get the most for your dollar - and D&D offers the widest base of any game out there. It grows, because it's big. It'll take a seismic **** up to get D&D out of its rut, either from a "perfect" system or from WotC doing something completely and utterly stupid.I'm not certain I'd term it as being "afraid of change" but I've heard people say they simply don't want to take the time to learn a new system. Frankly, when you're gaming once a month because that's all the time you can dedicate to it switching to a new system becomes a big investment of time.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 05:48 PM
It's also been called "Pagemaster" and "Tablemaster" that may tell you all you need to know. :) Basically, there was a table to roll on for almost every type of action you could take.Well, there's a table for each weapon, but anything else uses the "standard" roll of "roll 1d100+skills+-modifiers>100. Of course, something considered an "absurd" roll is a -250 or so.


I'm not certain I'd term it as being "afraid of change" but I've heard people say they simply don't want to take the time to learn a new system. Frankly, when you're gaming once a month because that's all the time you can dedicate to it switching to a new system becomes a big investment of time.
That's true, mercifully we came to the decisions of better systems before we ran out of time.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 06:01 PM
You know there might be a lot more RPGs out there if simple Copyright protection protected RPGs. But you have to get a freakin Patent to protect the rules for an RPG :(

Dausuul
2007-11-11, 06:52 PM
You know there might be a lot more RPGs out there if simple Copyright protection protected RPGs. But you have to get a freakin Patent to protect the rules for an RPG :(

The text of RPG rulebooks can be and is copyrighted. If you don't believe me, go print up your own copies of the D&D rulebooks and see what happens when you try to sell them.

If RPG mechanics could be copyrighted, it would singlehandedly wipe out the entire industry, except for a handful of market leaders like WotC and maybe White Wolf. Nobody would dare design a new system for fear it would be ruled too similar to an existing one--there are only so many ways you can put dice together. The only way you could make a new system would be to use increasingly more arcane and bizarre mechanics, which would stifle efforts to innovate in other areas; or to license the mechanics from an existing company, which would be an unsupportable financial burden on many start-ups.

(Actually, what would likely happen would be that everyone would migrate to the d20 system posthaste, since those would be the only mechanics they could be confident they wouldn't get in trouble for using.)

If your goal is to encourage diversity in the RPG market, allowing people to copyright RPG mechanics is quite possibly the worst idea ever.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 07:38 PM
That being said, I've never been a fan of things where you can travel from country to country and have a clearly different world.
You mean like Planescape? :smalltongue:
Anyway, the whole point of TORG is that it's cheesy and tongue-in-cheek, and most of their worlds are intended to resemble a B-movie action flick. It's not everybody's cup of tea (which probably explains why it's out of print).


It's not a matter of being afraid of change, I think. My belief is that it's the monetary investment, and wanting to get the most for your dollar - and D&D offers the widest base of any game out there.
No argument there. I don't think anybody can seriously claim that D&D is anything less than a great game, based objectively on sales figures and fanbase.

I've had the luck of finding many base books for other systems in our local shops' bargain bins. See, the thing is, once you read enough of those, the system becomes unimportant. There's oodles of systems, and you can mix and match and houserule to your heart's content. So to me personally, the question "what's so great about D&D" is rather meaningless - it's just a set of rules, after all. If people ask "what's so great about the Forgotten Realms" - now we're talking. That is an evocative, extensive and many-layered setting.

When I RP, I want to play in a great setting (and there's several of those on the market, of course). I don't particularly care whether this is done with D&D rules, or which edition, or GURPS or Whitewolf or even something homebrew.

(on the other hand, because being devil's advocate is fun, knowing so many rulesets makes it easier to spot comparisons and differences, and figuring out the strong and weak suits of various systems. For instance, imho, the d20 system does not do Call of Ctulhu justice - because the whole point of d20 is to be heroic, and the whole point of COC is to die. Messily.)

The_Blue_Sorceress
2007-11-11, 07:45 PM
It's fun.

Does there need to be another reason?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 07:59 PM
It's fun.

Does there need to be another reason?
End of argument.

Leliel
2007-11-11, 08:05 PM
I sense the warcries of a thousand D&D fans, armed with flamthrowers and RAW...

Oh, wait, it's beacuse I'm one of them.

*Puts bugle to lips* CHARGE!

sixpence
2007-11-11, 08:07 PM
I'm a new player, but I'm really interested in it. I definitely agree that the familiar feeling of it keeps me coming back, though, and the more arcane aspects (my character's a wizard, can you tell?) of combat, spells, skill checks, etc keep me interested in learning more.

I used to read the Dragonlance series as a kid (seriously, I loved those books and thought that Weis and Hickman had come up with the perfect fantasy world--this was before I'd gotten to Tolkein. ;D ) and it was a huge shock when I found out that Dragonlance was based on D&D. I mean a shock in the sense that I wanted to bang my head against my desk for not realizing it sooner--but I think the fact that the systems of character creation and classes have pretty much become the foundations for so many video games is why it's really easy for us to feel comfortable with it (maybe not in a look-at-me-I'm-a-newbie-and-I-know-everything way, but being used to the general concept enough that you're willing to go along with things).

I also love learning about new things or anything related to fantasy. Some people in the my group (we're all fairly new players, but our DM is experienced) are really into it and read over all the source books and online stuff they can find, others not so much, but we're always really excited on whenever it's D&D night.

So, I guess for us it builds on basic fantasy assumptions and is easily accessible for a lot of video gamer types (which my group is pretty much made out of) but it intrigues us to learn more, too. A lot of us hadn't played any pen-and-paper RPGs, and D&D has been a good entry point for us into that genre of gaming.

PnP Fan
2007-11-11, 11:40 PM
For many of the folks in my groups, it was the game we cut our teeth on. When D&D was pretty much the only game in town, that's what we played (okay, I'm not quite that old, but not far from it). And we liked it! We'd travel uphill both ways, through the swamps, and the housing projects in New Orleans to play a game. . . Okay, not really, but you get the point. So for a lot of us, there's a nostalgia element to it that is a hard thing to overcome, no matter how "bad" the rules are. Yes, most of us fit into the "chubby old greybeard" category.
So, if you are looking at it from a purely mechanical perspective, sure there are other games that mimic high fantasy out there (though none of them fit quite the niche that D&D does). And some of them might do it in a fashion more to your liking. Go play them, and have a good time. :-)
Make your own memories, and 20 years from now, when someone asks you the same question, see how much statistical analysis and people crying about "balance" really matters.

Bosh
2007-11-11, 11:44 PM
D&D is popular for many of the same reasons that you keyboard starts with

QWERTY

PnP Fan
2007-11-12, 12:01 AM
Exalted. TORG. Amber DRP. MERP. Palladium. Runequest.
snip
Oh, but there are tons and tons of systems with easier and/or faster character creation than D&D. Literally anything by White Wolf, for starters. Then, Ctulhu, Paranoia, Toon, Over the Edge, Warhammer FRP, Indiana Jones RP, Amber DRP, et cetera. The only ones that stand out as being more complex than D&D are GURPS, Hackmaster, and Alternity.


Of the games you've mentioned MERP/Rolemaster, Paladium, Warhammer FRP, GURPs, and Hackmaster are the ones that vie for the "high fantasy" game systems. None of them do it as well though.

Rolemaster, known in most circles as Chartmaster, was so complicated that it took my group 4 hours to create one character. The DM quit before the game got off the ground.

Paladium wasn't bad, but there's no support for it anymore.

Warhammer FRP, a wonderful game. . . but with criticals that give grotesque descriptions, and the generally gritty feel to the game, High Fantasy it's not.

GURPs: Loved it back in the day for it's Universalness. Wouldn't go near it now for it's Genericness.

Hackmaster was produced as a parody of D&D and Rolemaster, it hardly counts as a competetive system (though I do understand that there are people who play it and revel it it's ridiculousness :-).

PnP Fan
2007-11-12, 12:05 AM
D&D is popular for many of the same reasons that you keyboard starts with

QWERTY



To slow down my roleplaying?
To keep my . . . Dice from jamming?
:smallbiggrin:

Raum
2007-11-12, 07:47 AM
Warhammer FRP, a wonderful game. . . but with criticals that give grotesque descriptions, and the generally gritty feel to the game, High Fantasy it's not.Warhammer certainly isn't high fantasy, but then it was never intended to be high fantasy. You can start play as a Ratcatcher, Ragpicker, or Vagabong (among others) after all. It does do darker, grittier fantasy pretty well.

Matthew
2007-11-12, 08:43 AM
Hackmaster was produced as a parody of D&D and Rolemaster, it hardly counts as a competetive system (though I do understand that there are people who play it and revel it it's ridiculousness :-).

Interestingly, Hack Master can be played as a serious game. In many respects, it is a House ruled version of AD&D packaged in parody. There are interesting times ahead for the system, as Kalamar, a previously serious campaign setting, is going to be amalgamated with it.

However, it is true that Hack Master occupies a similar niche to Castles & Crusades, in that it's not very different from AD&D.

Goumindong
2007-11-12, 08:58 AM
Grapple rules in DnD are really easy. The two grapplers role an opposed check. The status moves one step towards the initiator if he/she wins.

There, you know grapple.

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 09:41 AM
Tell me that you've never seen or heard some variation of the following:
"Yeah, I like ______ system better, but no one I know has the books or wants to play it, so I'm in a D&D campaign instead."/shrug

I've never heard anyone say that.


Why should a Fighter have to pay double points or do any number of horribly bad, character capability crushing choices, to be able to play the flute quite well? And given that he's a fighter, that's going to be like half his skill points right there (maybe a quarter if he's really smart).You don't have to... but a fighter that knows how to play the flute well is not going to be as good of a fighter as one who spent that time on something useful


I don't think anybody can seriously claim that D&D is anything less than a great game, based objectively on sales figures and fanbase.It's certainly a well selling game, and it's better than a sharp stick in the eye, but not a great game.

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 10:15 AM
Grapple rules in DnD are really easy. The two grapplers role an opposed check. The status moves one step towards the initiator if he/she wins.

There, you know grapple.

Then tell me how many grapple checks a marilith gets per round, how much damage she does on each successful check (don't forget the constricting damage!), and how many of her non-grappling attacks--e.g., dropping her longswords and making slam attacks--she can use at the same time.

One can work out answers to these questions, but it's not nearly as trivial as you make it out to be, and whatever answers you come up with are likely to be opposed by someone else with equally plausible arguments.

Every so often, somebody starts a thread saying, "I don't understand why everyone thinks grapple is so complicated. Here's how it works." Then they lay out how they think it works. Then a whole bunch of people pile on to explain how no, that's not right at all, it really works this way (where "this way" is different for each poster). The end result is to demonstrate in graphic detail exactly why everyone thinks grapple is so complicated.


/shrug

I've never heard anyone say that.

I see it all the time on these very boards.


You don't have to... but a fighter that knows how to play the flute well is not going to be as good of a fighter as one who spent that time on something useful

So, what you're saying is that the system ought to punish characters for having well-developed backgrounds, by making them less effective in actual gameplay?

And people wonder why so many folks end up designing their characters around pure adventuring effectiveness and neglecting character development. It's pretty basic really. If you can't see a way for it to become useful in an actual game, then putting skill points into it is stabbing yourself in the foot. Perverse incentives anyone?

This is one of the few areas where I think 2E actually had it better than 3E, with the secondary skill system. Everybody got a secondary skill, and what secondary skill you picked had no impact on your success as an adventurer. I hope they resurrect that concept in 4E; it sounds like they intend to.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-12, 10:32 AM
The text of RPG rulebooks can be and is copyrighted. If you don't believe me, go print up your own copies of the D&D rulebooks and see what happens when you try to sell them.

If RPG mechanics could be copyrighted, it would singlehandedly wipe out the entire industry, except for a handful of market leaders like WotC and maybe White Wolf. Nobody would dare design a new system for fear it would be ruled too similar to an existing one--there are only so many ways you can put dice together. The only way you could make a new system would be to use increasingly more arcane and bizarre mechanics, which would stifle efforts to innovate in other areas; or to license the mechanics from an existing company, which would be an unsupportable financial burden on many start-ups.

(Actually, what would likely happen would be that everyone would migrate to the d20 system posthaste, since those would be the only mechanics they could be confident they wouldn't get in trouble for using.)

If your goal is to encourage diversity in the RPG market, allowing people to copyright RPG mechanics is quite possibly the worst idea ever.

It wouldn't be wiped because if you don't get your game published on a wide enough scale you couldn't sue for mechanic protection if someone actually violated it.

You can only sue for intellectual property violation if you can prove someone had access to your own game.

In either case, having to pay 8-20,000$ to patent the core rules of a game under US patent alone is an outrageous fee and it's choking the industry.

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 10:38 AM
It wouldn't be wiped because if you don't get your game published on a wide enough scale you couldn't sue for mechanic protection if someone actually violated it.

You can only sue for intellectual property violation if you can prove someone had access to your own game.

Right. Which means that big established companies like WotC can afford to enforce their copyrights, and little start-ups and niche games can't. How does this promote diversity again?

Again--all that this would accomplish is to make new game developers scared to publish.


In either case, having to pay 8-20,000$ to patent the core rules of a game under US patent alone is an outrageous fee and it's choking the industry.

Evidence please. I see no reason to believe this is the case.

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 10:49 AM
I see it all the time on these very boards.


So, what you're saying is that the system ought to punish characters for having well-developed backgrounds, by making them less effective in actual gameplay?How is that punishment? It's your choice.

If you are a computer programmer and you go take piano lessons instead of taking programming related classes, are you somehow being punished by life because people who focused took programming related classes know things that you don't?

If you make an in character decision to pursue something other than your normal occupation, such as a fighter who chooses to learn to play the flute really well, then you should be less effective than someone who chooses to focus on their fighting skills. You only have so much time in a day, and someone who spends that time playing flute is not working on their "fighting skills"

It's never stopped me from choosing the path of flavor; I often cross class into... and really if you have a problem with making this sort of sacrifice, then that's a personal issue. It's not the game's fault; you are the one choosing mechanical effectiveness over flavor. If you don't like it, then change yourself.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-12, 10:56 AM
(...)It can't be because it's easy to remember, because to build the best character for your archetype you need a bunch of sourcebooks.(...)
My group played with only the 3 core books for years, and it was fine. Take Gurps with it's dozens of books, or Vampire with his many tribe/clan/tradition books. You don't *need* the extra sourcebooks. They are there just to add more options.


It can't be because character creation is simple, because if you make a multiclass character, selecting his skills is a very unintuitive way to spend time. It gets even worse if his Int changes.
Gurps is worse. Take half-point skills, and several advantages/flaws that makes things confusing.
Vampire is a lot easier, though, I concede that.
And if you don't make a multiclass character, it doesn't become as hard as you think.


It can't be because combat is simple, because, well, it isn't (grappling rules, for example.
Except for grapple rules, it's way easier than Gurps or Vampire.
Gurps: Roll attack. You can attack twice or attack once and defend. Target can defend, or take the hit so he can attack twice. Roll the chance that the target's armor will deflect the attack by itself. Roll damage, whose dice change according to your strength. Discount damage reduction.
Vampire: Roll 10d10 dices, see how many was 10s and roll again, how many were 1s and discount them... Now roll the target's dodge. Now, roll damage. Now roll target's sack...
D&D: Roll 1d20 + your to-hit number and see if it goes above the target's AC. If it did, roll damage, and discount damage reduction.


So what is it? What makes it so great, so popular? Just pure, raw age?
Mainly, it is medieval fantasy, and, along sci-fi, it's one of the most appeling niches for nerds worldwide, and, thus far, is the best title for medieval fantasy. I played others systems, and none play as good as D&D.

PS: As you noticed, I used only Gurps and Vampire as examples, because that's what I'm more familiar with, and I bet you don't want me to compare it with Shadowrun and it's literally dozens of dice rolls... :smalltongue:

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 11:16 AM
How is that punishment? It's your choice.

If you are a computer programmer and you go take piano lessons instead of taking programming related classes, are you somehow being punished by life because people who focused took programming related classes know things that you don't?

There is only so much time you can profitably spend training any given skill. It is not a simple linear equation; if you spend twelve hours a day taking programming classes, you will not be twice as good as somebody who spends six hours a day. You can be in the top tier of programmers worldwide and have plenty of other talents as well, and many do.

Moreover, it's not a question of realism but of making the game fun. If 30% of your game time is devoted to combat, and 1% to playing the flute, then choosing to be good at flute-playing over combat means you're limiting your ability to do cool stuff and contribute in 30% of the game, in exchange for opening up new avenues in the other 1%. To improve your character's flavor, you are sacrificing gameplay. This should not be a choice people have to make. It is perfectly possible, and desirable, to design a game where you can make a top-notch fighter who also plays the flute.


It's never stopped me from choosing the path of flavor; I often cross class into... and really if you have a problem with making this sort of sacrifice, then that's a personal issue. It's not the game's fault; you are the one choosing mechanical effectiveness over flavor. If you don't like it, then change yourself.

I've often gone the flavor route as well; being good at optimization means I can usually figure out ways to get the flavor skills I want while still contributing as a member of an adventuring party. (It probably helps that I like to play casters; it actually makes the game better if I've gimped my character for flavor reasons, because that brings my character into balance with the rest of the group... like my 18th-level sorceror who specialized in blasting magic and whose 9th-level spell was dragonform.)

But most players aren't that good at optimizing, and so they have to choose whether to have a flavorful character who's dead weight most of the time, or to have an effective but less developed character. The issue crops up especially with folks who like to play fighter-types, who are underpowered to begin with.

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 11:46 AM
Moreover, it's not a question of realism but of making the game fun. If 30% of your game time is devoted to combat, and 1% to playing the flute, then choosing to be good at flute-playing over combat means you're limiting your ability to do cool stuff and contribute in 30% of the game, in exchange for opening up new avenues in the other 1%. To improve your character's flavor, you are sacrificing gameplay. This should not be a choice people have to make. It is perfectly possible, and desirable, to design a game where you can make a top-notch fighter who also plays the flute.Becoming good at playing the flute takes a substantial time investment, though not as much as, say the double reed instruments, or F Horn; Substantial meaning several thousand hours; a high school freshman is still a beginner, and has spent more than 500 hours just in class, not counting music classes before middle school (which often include musical skills that are related) or outside practice (which is generally required). Sure, there are people who are good musicians at an earlier age, but they put in way more time than that to get there.

1000 additional hours makes a non-trivial difference in your fighting abilities, and that's someone who's barely at the high school freshmen level of musicianship.

This is absolutely a choice that you should have to make; if you choose to make a more diverse character, you shouldn't be as effective as someone who chooses otherwise.


I've often gone the flavor route as well; being good at optimization means I can usually figure out ways to get the flavor skills I want while still contributing as a member of an adventuring party. I go with the: I make the character I want to play and don't really worry about how effective I am method. I could care less if I'm "underpowered", if that's the choice that I've made... and making the choice to be diverse is choosing to be underpowered.

The people who try to get out of paying for their choice in diversity seem to be just going through the motions of roleplaying. When you choose something suboptimal, you get something suboptimal, and if you're going to play that role you should play that role, not still be optimal even though you've made suboptimal choices.

Cyclone231
2007-11-12, 12:06 PM
Becoming good at playing the flute takes a substantial time investment, though not as much as, say the double reed instruments, or F Horn; Substantial meaning several thousand hours; a high school freshman is still a beginner, and has spent more than 500 hours just in class, not counting music classes before middle school (which often include musical skills that are related) or outside practice (which is generally required). Sure, there are people who are good musicians at an earlier age, but they put in way more time than that to get there.

1000 additional hours makes a non-trivial difference in your fighting abilities, and that's someone who's barely at the high school freshmen level of musicianship.
Jayabalard, this may surprise you, but it takes an infinite amount of time to study magic in the real world, both arcane and divine! No person has ever managed to prove that they can cast a single magical spell in the last one hundred years! And sorcerers? They make up exactly 0% of the population.

Dragons? They don't exist (insofar as we know), nor do leprechauns and centaurs and elves and orcs and driders and illithids!

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 12:09 PM
I go with the: I make the character I want to play and don't really worry about how effective I am method. I could care less if I'm "underpowered", if that's the choice that I've made.

If that works for you, great. A lot of players get tired of getting whacked in the first round of combat and then sitting around while the other PCs duke it out with the bad guys; or sitting around twiddling their thumbs while everyone else is out on a stealth mission, because they didn't have enough skill ranks to get halfway decent Hide and Move Silently checks. Yet at the same time, they'd like to have a character who's got a bit more background than "I trained to kill stuff, and then I trained to kill more stuff."

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-12, 12:25 PM
Jayabalard, this may surprise you, but it takes an infinite amount of time to study magic in the real world, both arcane and divine! No person has ever managed to prove that they can cast a single magical spell in the last one hundred years! And sorcerers? They make up exactly 0% of the population.

Dragons? They don't exist (insofar as we know), nor do leprechauns and centaurs and elves and orcs and driders and illithids!

So because magic exists in the game-world, it should be easier to learn to play the flute? How does that work? Are people being enchanted with flute-playing skills; absorbing the knowledge directly into their brain, Matrix-style? A wizard did it?

I see this argument all the time on the forums and it baffles me every time.

One thing that is not possible in real world is possible in the game-world.
Therefore, anything that is not possible in real world is possible in the game-world.

GolemsVoice
2007-11-12, 12:32 PM
I think that what also makes DnD great is that it is per se not bound to a specific gameworld. The weapons, armor and spells are common enough to appear in YOUR FAVOURITE FANTASY WORLD!! and in you brother's, too. There is the OGL with WoW for example, and it's many offsprings, and the alternative, world-bound sourcebooks like Ebberon and Iron Kingdoms (have mercy with me if I confuse something). I must admit, we never actually tinker with the rules, such as transferring rules to our own settings or stuff, but if you had a fantasy world you would like to play in, my first idea would be to try DnD rules on it.

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-12, 12:40 PM
I think that what also makes DnD great is that it is per se not bound to a specific gameworld. The weapons, armor and spells are common enough to appear in YOUR FAVOURITE FANTASY WORLD!! and in you brother's, too. There is the OGL with WoW for example, and it's many offsprings, and the alternative, world-bound sourcebooks like Ebberon and Iron Kingdoms (have mercy with me if I confuse something). I must admit, we never actually tinker with the rules, such as transferring rules to our own settings or stuff, but if you had a fantasy world you would like to play in, my first idea would be to try DnD rules on it.

Hmm.... There are a number of assumptions that underlie D&D that don't fit with a great many settings, particularly in magic.
Vancian spellcasting, the arcane/divine distinction, easy access to Detect Evil and magical healing...

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 12:47 PM
I think that what also makes DnD great is that it is per se not bound to a specific gameworld. The weapons, armor and spells are common enough to appear in YOUR FAVOURITE FANTASY WORLD!! and in you brother's, too. There is the OGL with WoW for example, and it's many offsprings, and the alternative, world-bound sourcebooks like Ebberon and Iron Kingdoms (have mercy with me if I confuse something). I must admit, we never actually tinker with the rules, such as transferring rules to our own settings or stuff, but if you had a fantasy world you would like to play in, my first idea would be to try DnD rules on it.

Exactly! The Avatar D20 project is a perfect example of this. The D20 rules are perfect for the system.

puppyavenger
2007-11-12, 12:49 PM
Hmm.... There are a number of assumptions that underlie D&D that don't fit with a great many settings, particularly in magic.
Vancian spellcasting, the arcane/divine distinction, easy access to Detect Evil and magical healing...

nope odesn't work in Midkemia or middle earth.

EvilJames
2007-11-12, 12:56 PM
well for one thing you don't need a bunch of source books to play, or even play well, people just like to by them for ideas on new things to play (same as any game system) The rules are simple and easy to remember (with a few discrepancies to that rule in the various editions)

But the biggest reason is that it's the first. It's the reason you play any rpg all of them owe D&D their existence. It's the granddaddy of them all and that's always going to count for something.


If that works for you, great. A lot of players get tired of getting whacked in the first round of combat and then sitting around while the other PCs duke it out with the bad guys; or sitting around twiddling their thumbs while everyone else is out scouting, because they didn't have enough skill ranks to get halfway decent Hide and Move Silently checks. And those players are not somehow morally inferior because of this.

I should point out that just because you're not fully optimized doesn't mean you are going to die right away or be any less fun to play or even make you a less effective party member. (since when does the whole party go scout any way thats the ranger's or thief's job generally) The "I don't want my character to die" idea is fine and good but their will always be an element of risk and even the most optimized character is just as likely to die as the under optimized the only difference is how long you took to make it.

Counterspin
2007-11-12, 01:01 PM
I play D&D because it is a tactics and crunch heavy tactical fantasy game. I like weird builds, and dual classing, and using a combat grid and tokens. I don't have a huge amount of interest in role playing in a fantasy setting, but it's the system below the world that I really like.

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 01:15 PM
I should point out that just because you're not fully optimized doesn't mean you are going to die right away or be any less fun to play (since when does the whole party go scout any way thats the ranger's or thief's job generally)

Yup, and it's generally dull for everyone else. Off-topic, one of the things I like about Iron Heroes is that it's trivially easy to make a party where everyone has Hide and Move Silently, so you don't get those tedious scouting/stealth missions where the rogue is off doing sneaky stuff and everyone else is sitting around bored.

Anyway--it's true that a not fully optimized character won't necessarily drop dead in the first round of every fight. But the more of your in-game effectiveness you sacrifice for flavor, the more likely it is that you'll be unable to contribute in any given situation. In combat, you may be constantly getting knocked into the negatives, or (more likely) you'll simply fail to do anything useful a lot of the time.


The "I don't want my character to die" idea is fine and good but their will always be an element of risk and even the most optimized character is just as likely to die as the under optimized the only difference is how long you took to make it.

Um. No. This is just flat-out not true. The whole point of optimizing for a given task (say, combat), is to be good at that task. Part of optimizing for combat is making sure you're able to survive it. A melee fighter with low hit points, poor AC, and no other way of avoiding damage is, by definition, not optimized--at least not for melee.

I've often played in parties that contain well-optimized and poorly-optimized characters, and the former almost always outlast the latter in a fight, unless the DM specifically targets the optimized characters.

EvilJames
2007-11-12, 01:20 PM
How is that punishment? It's your choice.

If you are a computer programmer and you go take piano lessons instead of taking programming related classes, are you somehow being punished by life because people who focused took programming related classes know things that you don't?

If you make an in character decision to pursue something other than your normal occupation, such as a fighter who chooses to learn to play the flute really well, then you should be less effective than someone who chooses to focus on their fighting skills. You only have so much time in a day, and someone who spends that time playing flute is not working on their "fighting skills"


Actually many warriors in history learned to play instruments in order to entertain themselves between battles. A hobby isn't going to impact your ability to do your job. Now if you want the warrior to be a concert flutist then that might mean he is less effective as a warrior. Either way the DM should be taking all the characters' skills into account when running the game so if the warrior likes to play the flute the DM should put something into the game where that comes into play. ( a tavern scene at the very least)


Yup, and it's generally dull for everyone else. Off-topic, one of the things I like about Iron Heroes is that it's trivially easy to make a party where everyone has Hide and Move Silently, so you don't get those tedious scouting/stealth missions where the rogue is off doing sneaky stuff and everyone else is sitting around bored.

not if the DM is any good its not (the scouter shouldn't going very far off anyway just enough to check things out and get back so as not to waste game time. or be to far from help if he gets caught)



Anyway--it's true that a not fully optimized character won't necessarily drop dead in the first round of every fight. But the more of your in-game effectiveness you sacrifice for flavor, the more likely it is that you'll be unable to contribute in any given situation. In combat, you may be constantly getting knocked into the negatives, or (more likely) you'll simply fail to do anything useful a lot of the time.
your games must have a lot hasher combat than mine cause that's never really been the case in my games. the fully optimized will be a beast in combat but that never really prevents the flavored from being effective unless he is killing the opponents to fast.




Um. No. This is just flat-out not true. The whole point of optimizing for a given task (say, combat), is to be good at that task. Part of optimizing for combat is making sure you're able to survive it. A melee fighter with low hit points, poor AC, and no other way of avoiding damage is, by definition, not optimized--at least not for melee.

I've often played in parties that contain well-optimized and poorly-optimized characters, and the former almost always outlast the latter in a fight, unless the DM specifically targets the optimized characters.
yes you are good at the task if you are fully optimized but that doesn't make you any more immune to death than the incompetent fighter but then I'm also not talking about an incompetent fighter just one who's is not fully optimized with a little flavor stuff to make him interesting. He's still just as likely to survive most combats so yes it's very true.

Regardless a Dm should be taking his player's characters into account when running the game. and make encounters tailored at leats somewhat to them.

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 01:22 PM
Jayabalard, this may surprise you, but it takes an infinite amount of time to study magic in the real world, both arcane and divine! No person has ever managed to prove that they can cast a single magical spell in the last one hundred years! And sorcerers? They make up exactly 0% of the population.

Dragons? They don't exist (insofar as we know), nor do leprechauns and centaurs and elves and orcs and driders and illithids!I fail to see any relevance in this...

I'm talking about verisimilitude... which has only a passing relation to realism. My comments are specifically directed at not breaking verisimilitude, specifically that the amount of time that it takes to be a good instrumentalist is non trivial, and that anyone who chooses to do so is sacrificing quite a bit of time... time that could otherwise make a non-trivial improvement to your character. And that therefore, having to sacrifice a certain amount of character effectiveness for this particular flavor is appropriate.


If that works for you, great. A lot of players get tired of getting whacked in the first round of combat and then sitting around while the other PCs duke it out with the bad guys; or sitting around twiddling their thumbs while everyone else is out on a stealth mission, because they didn't have enough skill ranks to get halfway decent Hide and Move Silently checks.I've never had an issue with this... my DM's have been smart enough to tailor encounters to the party that I'm in well enough so that people don't get killed out of hand, regardless of optimized or underoptimized they were... and they've certainly never been stupid enough to create stealth missions for us if that's not our forte.


Yet at the same time, they'd like to have a character who's got a bit more background than "I trained to kill stuff, and then I trained to kill more stuff."Since what you want is a non-optimal background, you should probably not complain about creating a non-optimal character in order to include that background. The optimal background for killing stuff is the other guy, the "I trained to kill stuff, and then I trained to kill more stuff" guy... he should be more effective than you.


Actually many warriors in history learned to play instruments in order to entertain themselves between battles.
A hobby like that doesn't require any mechanics to make it work ( anymore than writing "my fighter knows all the words to A wizard's staff has a knob on the end" )... you don't need to add ranks in perform, unless you're trying to squeeze some extra game effectiveness into it. The only time that you have to actually sacrifice anything for this type of flavor is when it stops being flavor.

EvilJames
2007-11-12, 01:45 PM
I fail to see any relevance in this...


A hobby like that doesn't require any mechanics to make it work ( anymore than writing "my fighter knows all the words to A wizard's staff has a knob on the end" )... you don't need to add ranks in perform, unless you're trying to squeeze some extra game effectiveness into it. The only time that you have to actually sacrifice anything for this type of flavor is when it stops being flavor.
actually it does require mechanics since for the most part in d&d if you don't have ranks in something you either can't do it or suck at it. your fighter might know the words but any attempt to sing it would be an utter embarrasment.

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 01:51 PM
I fail to see any relevance in this...

I'm talking about verisimilitude... which has only a passing relation to realism. My comments are specifically directed at not breaking verisimilitude, specifically that the amount of time that it takes to be a good instrumentalist is non trivial, and that anyone who chooses to do so is sacrificing quite a bit of time... time that could otherwise make a non-trivial improvement to your character. And that therefore, having to sacrifice a certain amount of character effectiveness for this particular flavor is appropriate.

You do realize that you're playing in a game where a character can go from a neophyte warrior to a supreme dragonslaying bad-ass in a matter of months? And let's not even get into wizards. The fluff of the game strongly implies that it takes years of training to master the simplest 1st-level spells, and yet we have apprentice wizards blasting all the way up to archmage in a year or two. And all this is achieved, not by careful study and training in a controlled environment, but by roaming the land performing heroic quests and battling horrible monsters.

It's utterly silly to quibble about the verisimilitude of a fighter learning flute-playing, when you have stuff like this going on. I could just as easily say that my 5th-level fighter had so much experience before the game began that he would now be a 10th-level fighter if he'd put all that time into sword training, but he spent those five levels' worth of experience learning how to play the flute instead.


A hobby like that doesn't require any mechanics to make it work ( anymore than writing "my fighter knows all the words to A wizard's staff has a knob on the end" )... you don't need to add ranks in perform, unless you're trying to squeeze some extra game effectiveness into it. The only time that you have to actually sacrifice anything for this type of flavor is when it stops being flavor.

My objection is really to the pricing. A fighter with Perform (Flute) is not going to have nearly as much game-mechanical use for that skill as a fighter with Climb. In fact, nobody is going to get much mechanical use out of Perform (Flute) except the bard, and the bard only does because a slew of his class abilities are dependent on an otherwise minor skill. So Perform (Flute) should not be priced the same as Climb; it should have a mechanical cost appropriate to its mechanical value.

Cyclone231
2007-11-12, 01:53 PM
I fail to see any relevance in this...

I'm talking about verisimilitude... which has only a passing relation to realism. My comments are specifically directed at not breaking verisimilitude, specifically that the amount of time that it takes to be a good instrumentalist is non trivial, and that anyone who chooses to do so is sacrificing quite a bit of time... time that could otherwise make a non-trivial improvement to your character. And that therefore, having to sacrifice a certain amount of character effectiveness for this particular flavor is appropriate.What, like the versimilitude of arcane spellcasters being able to cast fabricate and an economy with skilled laborers (who are not arcane spellcasters) nonetheless existing? The versmilitude of an agricultural society in a world where people can just cast create food and water? Like the versimilitude of giant, nigh-unkillable intelligent monsters that can eat anything and utilize natural magical weaponry... and they don't rule the world?

It doesn't increase the "versimilitude" to arbitrarily make your character less effective because he wants to play the flute. Oh, how fun and exciting, my character becomes disproportionately ineffective. Like Knowledge, Perform and Profession are actually useful for anything other than synergy with other abilities/skills. I can take a hit for learning to play the flute, sure - otherwise no one would not play the flute. But is that flute-playing worth about as much (or more, given that it's cross-class) as the ability to scale a wall or jump across a pit? Will it really be that useful, that often?

Dungeons and Dragons is not a simulation, it's a game. Games are supposed to be fun, not dry and stifling.

JaxGaret
2007-11-12, 02:40 PM
This is one of the few areas where I think 2E actually had it better than 3E, with the secondary skill system. Everybody got a secondary skill, and what secondary skill you picked had no impact on your success as an adventurer. I hope they resurrect that concept in 4E; it sounds like they intend to.

This is easy to implement in 3e. Give every character an extra 2 sp/level called "secondary skill points". Allow them to put the skill points only in cross class skills, barring UMD, and they can't use these skill points to qualify for feats, prestige classes, or anything else that has skill requirements.

Except that that last bit is really unrealistic - so it's not really viable that way, either, is it?


Also, if any of you haven't read this excellent article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html), please do.

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 02:49 PM
What, like the versimilitude of arcane spellcasters being able to cast fabricate and an economy with skilled laborers (who are not arcane spellcasters) nonetheless existing? The versmilitude of an agricultural society in a world where people can just cast create food and water? Like the versimilitude of giant, nigh-unkillable intelligent monsters that can eat anything and utilize natural magical weaponry... and they don't rule the world?I don't ever play in a world where any of that is an issue; either magic is relatively rare, in which case fabricate and create food/water have little to no effect, or I play in high magic where they're the common where people use those things, or it's a combination where the high magic areas use fabricate and create food/water and the low magic areas are the only ones that are still agrarian. Though even in the high magic areas there are people who make things by hand (just like in the current day world, where you still have artisans that make things by hand rather than by machine).

There are loads of believable and logically consistent reasons why a particular type of intelligent monster doesn't run the world... and if not, it doesn't exist in any of the games that I play in.


It doesn't increase the "versimilitude" to arbitrarily make your character less effective because he wants to play the flute. It does; skill points represent time invested.


Oh, how fun and exciting, my character becomes disproportionately ineffective. Actually, it's proportionally ineffective; it's proportional to how much you invest in those other skills. It's quite proportional, since it's 1:1.


Like Knowledge, Perform and Profession are actually useful for anything other than synergy with other abilities/skills.You're missing the point... we're talking about things that are taken strictly for flavor, so they're not supposed to be effective. If you're talking about something else, then it doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm discussing (which is what I meant by "not relevant").


I can take a hit for learning to play the flute, sure - otherwise no one would not play the flute. But is that flute-playing<Flavor Skill> worth about as much (or more, given that it's cross-class) as the ability to scale a wall or jump across a pit?Obviously not to you; if you look at a more general case (my edit above) then it definitely is to me.


Will it really be that useful, that often?Why would this matter? I wouldn't pick it for it's usefulness. If I expect it to be useful, then we're no longer talking about things chosen for flavor reasons.

There's an "I" in verisimilitude that you keep missing, unless there's some alternate spelling that I'm not aware of, which I guess is possible.


You do realize that you're playing in a game where a character can go from a neophyte warrior to a supreme dragonslaying bad-ass in a matter of months? Yes, I'm aware that some people play the game like that.


So Perform (Flute) should not be priced the same as Climb; it should have a mechanical cost appropriate to its mechanical value.I totally disagree. It should have a mechanical cost appropriate to the time investment needed to gain skill in it. How mechanically useful it is doesn't matter.

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 02:54 PM
This is easy to implement in 3e. Give every character an extra 2 sp/level called "secondary skill points". Allow them to put the skill points only in cross class skills, barring UMD, and they can't use these skill points to qualify for feats, prestige classes, or anything else that has skill requirements.

Except that that last bit is really unrealistic - so it's not really viable that way, either, is it?

Alternatively, go through the skill list and knock off all the "background skills" like Perform and Profession. Move them into a separate "background category" and give each character 2 background skill points per level, possibly modified by Int or Wis. Any game mechanic that depends on a backgrounded skill should be replaced with a non-background skill (e.g., fatespinners might require Sleight of Hand or Sense Motive rather than Profession [Gambler]), or else moved to a non-skill mechanic (e.g., bards use character level + 3 in place of Perform ranks, since no bard that ever lived had less than maxed-out Perform anyway).

Hmm, I might have to do this next time I run a game--if I happen to run another 3.5E game before June 2008 rolls around.


Yes, I'm aware that some people play the game like that.

Okay, exactly how long does it take your character to go up 2 levels? Remember that this is equivalent to doubling your effectiveness in combat; a 6th-level character is generally a match for two 4th-level characters. Do your campaigns routinely span the decades it ought to take a wizard to go from 1st level to 10th?


I totally disagree. It should have a mechanical cost appropriate to the time investment needed to gain skill in it. How mechanically useful it is doesn't matter.

Ah. In that case, you must be truly incensed about how one level of wizard costs the same as one level of bard, and hundred-year-old elves start the game with the same skill set as teenage humans (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).

Quietus
2007-11-12, 03:10 PM
Then tell me how many grapple checks a marilith gets per round, how much damage she does on each successful check (don't forget the constricting damage!), and how many of her non-grappling attacks--e.g., dropping her longswords and making slam attacks--she can use at the same time.

Four grapple checks (At +29/+24/+19/+14), all for her constrict of 4d6+13. She can then follow up with all six slams and her tail slap, as natural secondary attacks : Her slams go from a +24 bonus to +18 , and her tail slap goes from +22 to +18 (24 base, -4 for being in a grapple, -2 for being natural secondaries with the Multiattack feat).

Anyone able to back me up on this?

::Edit:: She may lose the tail slap, since it's being used to constrict.

Cyclone231
2007-11-12, 03:10 PM
It does; skill points represent time invested. Now here's your problem: D&D is not a sim. Skill points don't represent anything except skill points. How many skill points do you have, hmm? If skill points directly represent time invested, shouldn't you be able to easily figure it out based upon how much you've practiced various skill? Am I gaining skill points since I'm currently in school? If I am so gaining skill points, why am I not also gaining hit dice?


Actually, it's proportionally ineffective; it's proportional to how much you invest in those other skills. It's quite proportional, since it's 1:1.I mean I become disproportionately ineffictive as in the effectiveness of my skill is not equivalent to the effectiveness that I give up by selecting it, instead of something else.


Obviously not to you; if you look at a more general case (my edit above) then it definitely is to me.I understand that you have a point of view where you dislike balance (I've read your posts on the subject), but I, and I'm fairly sure most people, don't.


Why would this matter? I wouldn't pick it for it's usefulness. If I expect it to be useful, then we're no longer talking about things chosen for flavor reasons.Oh really? So if I want to play a sort of tricky diviner character, if I select playing a Rogue 1/Wiz X/a couple of prestige classes that I don't want to look up, that's not being chosen for flavor reasons? In order to play a character "for flavor reasons" who is a "tricky diviner", I have to play a Rogue 10/Wiz 10 aka an ineffective character?

There is not a dichotomy between being effective and being flavorful! You should be able to be both at the same time, even if your flavor is not "I'm a guy who kills people all the time really well".

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 03:17 PM
Alternatively, go through the skill list and knock off all the "background skills" like Perform and Profession. Move them into a separate "background category" and give each character 2 background skill points per level, possibly modified by Int or Wis. Any game mechanic that depends on a backgrounded skill should be replaced with a non-background skill (e.g., fatespinners might require Sleight of Hand or Sense Motive rather than Profession [Gambler]), or else moved to a non-skill mechanic (e.g., bards use character level + 3 in place of Perform ranks, since no bard that ever lived had less than maxed-out Perform anyway).

Hmm, I might have to do this next time I run a game--if I happen to run another 3.5E game before June 2008 rolls around.Even simpler would be to allow someone to have whatever flavor skills that they want, as long as they don't have a mechanical effect on the game...


Okay, exactly how long does it take your character to go up 2 levels? Remember that this is equivalent to doubling your effectiveness in combat; a 6th-level character is generally a match for two 4th-level characters. Do your campaigns routinely span the decades it ought to take a wizard to go from 1st level to 10th?With the exception of one shot adventures, and a couple of campaigns that petered out at fairly low level, I can't recall a campaign that I've played in that lasted less than 10 years of game time.


Ah. In that case, you must be truly incensed about how one level of wizard costs the same as one level of bard, and hundred-year-old elves start the game with the same skill set as teenage humans (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).Since I tend to play earlier editions of D&D rather than the more current ones, a level of wizard does not cost the same as a level of bard for me. It's actually one of the reasons that I prefer earlier editions.

I'm pretty sure that elves have almost universally been house-ruled quite a bit younger, so while they start older than humans, they aren't anywhere near 100 years old at the beginning. They certainly have a different skillset than humans, different weapon proficiencies, languages, and so on.


Now here's your problem: D&D is not a sim. Skill points don't represent anything except skill points.You can have abstracts that represent things without being a sim.


I mean I become disproportionately ineffictive as in the effectiveness of my skill is not equivalent to the effectiveness that I give up by selecting it, instead of something else.Yes, I know that's what you mean, but that's not disproportionate... it's it's proportional. You lose effectiveness in direct proportion to the amount of skill points you don't spend on useful things.


I understand that you have a point of view where you dislike balance (I've read your posts on the subject), but I, and I'm fairly sure most people, don't.This has nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with optimization, so I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

considering that the difference in cost between class skills and cross class skills exists as an element of class balance, this seems like a nonsensical argument.


There is not a dichotomy between being effective and being flavorful! You should be able to be both at the same time, even if your flavor is not "I'm a guy who kills people all the time really well".The person who is "I'm a guy who kills people all the time really well" (that's a flavor too) should do it better than someone who does other things with his time.

Taking off a few skill points to drop it into perform: Flute at level one does not make a character ineffective... it does make them less effective. And if you want to be a master Flautist (spending quite a bit of skill points on the skill), then you should definitely be less effective than someone who spends their time on more productive things...

Skyserpent
2007-11-12, 03:33 PM
I think it's because it maintains a balance between Roleplay Fluff and Rollplay crunch. White-Wolf is better for RPing because it's more open-ended and gives a lot more room for quirky character moves. D&D uses "stifling rules" that allow players to operate within set parameters and play a game while still allowing for a bit of roleplaying. Now this "bit" might not seem like enough to some, perhaps because there is almost NONE of it in other systems. Nevertheless, I've found that D&D can be fantastic for genuine roleplaying situations so long as you don't take the more byzantine rules as seriously.

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 03:44 PM
Oh really? So if I want to play a sort of tricky diviner character, if I select playing a Rogue 1/Wiz X/a couple of prestige classes that I don't want to look up, that's not being chosen for flavor reasons? Correct, they're not being chosen for flavor reasons. The mechanical decisions you make aren't being made for flavor. The thing that you picked for flavor reasons was "trickster diviner" and everything else from your description sounds like a mechanical decision.


In order to play a character "for flavor reasons" who is a "tricky diviner", I have to play a Rogue 10/Wiz 10 aka an ineffective character?I think all of those would be "tricky diviner" characters, regardless of how effective they are. I'm pretty sure you could create a character that was a straight Rogue and fit that description (though the diviner portion would be a sham), or a straight wizard, or straight bard, or straight cleric, etc. The mechanical decisions are largely irrelevant as long as you pick something that can accomplish that flavor, which is to be tricky, and to have some sort of divining ability.

Cyclone231
2007-11-12, 03:48 PM
This has nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with optimization, so I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.How do you not see optimization as being deeply intertwined with balance? Indeed, the capacity for optimization, at least at the level that D&D has, is a sign of complete and utter imbalance. No system with Pun-Pun can be defined as being "balanced".


considering that the difference in cost between class skills and cross class skills exists as an element of class balance, this seems like a nonsensical argument.Yes, the important element of class balance - making sure fighters can't play the flute well.


The person who is "I'm a guy who kills people all the time really well" (that's a flavor too) should do it better than someone who does other things with his time.

Taking off a few skill points to drop it into perform: Flute at level one does not make a character ineffective... it does make them less effective. And if you want to be a master Flautist (spending quite a bit of skill points on the skill), then you should definitely be less effective than someone who spends their time on more productive things...Alright, here, let me put it for you in a different way. Suppose that we can directly quantify effectiveness in various fields and that, say, Effectiveness 5 in field A means you're as good at field A as a person with Effectiveness 5 in field B is at field B. Alright? Each field is distinct. Now, if field A takes up one-third of the game time on average, and field B takes up one-twenty-fifth, should being Effectiveness 5 in field A cost the same as being Effectiveness 5 in field B? I hope your answer is "no", because otherwise this is intractable.

horseboy
2007-11-12, 03:53 PM
It's certainly a well selling game, and it's better than a sharp stick in the eye, but not a great game.
Quoted for truth

Jayabalard
2007-11-12, 04:00 PM
How do you not see optimization as being deeply intertwined with balance? Indeed, the capacity for optimization, at least at the level that D&D has, is a sign of complete and utter imbalance. No system with Pun-Pun can be defined as being "balanced".In an imbalanced system, the system taken as a whole is not balanced, but that doesn't mean that it can't have elements that are designed around being balanced. Often there are portions of a game that are balanced, and specific things that are widely out of balance. In D&D, that generally means magic, and I for one enjoy that particular imbalance.

But liking the fact that there are things in D&D that are widely imbalanced has nothing to do with current topic.


Yes, the important element of class balance - making sure that fighters can't play the flute well.Making sure that taking class skills is advantageous over taking cross class skills would be much more accurate, since that's element of class balance that's being referred to.


Alright, here, let me put it for you in a different way. Suppose that we can directly quantify effectiveness in various fields and that, say, Effectiveness 5 in field A means you're as good at field A as a person with Effectiveness 5 in field B is at field B. Alright? Each field is distinct. Now, if field A takes up one-third of the game time on average, and field B takes up one-twenty-fifth, should being Effectiveness 5 in field A cost the same as being Effectiveness 5 in field B? I hope your answer is "no", because otherwise this is intractable. I'm pretty sure that I've answered this elsewhere in in the current thread. The cost should not have anything to do with the mechanical effectiveness, or how often it is useful. So my answer is certainly not "no"

Rutee
2007-11-12, 04:12 PM
To answer the OP: Nothing's really great about Dungeons and Dragons, but it's probably the most gamist fun you can have, of popular RPGs, while telling a good story. I may get tons more options of what I can do in combat in, say, Mage, but I don't have nearly as many different build options. Especially since I wouldn't be trying to max it out, but make a fun build.

At least, that's my guess..

Raum
2007-11-12, 04:12 PM
You can only sue for intellectual property violation if you can prove someone had access to your own game.Close, in a civil suit you only need to prove an issue by "preponderance of the evidence" - beyond a reasonable doubt is what applies to criminal cases.


In either case, having to pay 8-20,000$ to patent the core rules of a game under US patent alone is an outrageous fee and it's choking the industry.You'll also have to show that your mechanic was an innovation. As broken as the US patent laws are, you can't simply patent something you're using if it's been done before. Or even if it's a logical extension of what's been done before.

I think you're mistaken on the effects of patenting rule mechanics in any case. WotC certainly didn't create the OGL because they thought giving the mechanics away would hurt them.

Cyclone231
2007-11-12, 04:16 PM
I'm pretty sure that I've answered this elsewhere in in the current thread. The cost should not have anything to do with the mechanical effectiveness, or how often it is useful. So my answer is certainly not "no"
Well then, conversation over.

SofS
2007-11-12, 04:52 PM
In my personal experience, the game a person ends up playing is mostly dependent on who they can find to play it with, as others have mentioned. When I joined my first gaming group in high school, we played White Wolf almost entirely for the first while that I was there. Playing one game fired up enthusiasm for another game and that kept us entertained for quite some time. Nowadays, we mostly play D&D, and this change can be traced almost entirely to a slightly different group composition that includes people who hate playing most other games that we'd be inclined to try.

I myself have grown pretty tired of D&D by this point. I barely feel like trying with the basic rules anymore due to their alternately bemusing and sleep-inducing nature. There's not much in the way of excitement in the one guy making his 3rd barbarian in a row or the other guy refusing to use anything but psionic and ToB classes (which wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that no one else cares about those books and would therefore have to read at least one new book in order to run effectively for this one character) simply because he seems to absolutely abhor playing any character ever that isn't some variety of arrogant group outsider with mysterious powers who turns to player-killing as a first resort.

Anyway.

D&D can be made whatever you want, it's true. It's generic enough. My problem comes in the fact that design philosophy has moved further and further away from anything of interest to me. It can be whatever you want, but most of the players I've met want the base game, with its standard monster encounters and utilitarian magic and utter lack of mystery or romance. Think now, if you care to, how often you've found yourself thinking happily about a D&D session afterwards. Consider how much the system and setting (if it is a published setting) contributed or detracted from the fun of any session that comes to mind. People often refer to the importance of DM fiat and Rule One and mature players and so forth as the key to good games. If that is the case, what is the importance of the system and settings? Homebrew is almost always more satisfying, but you can't judge the system on the ingenuity and creativity of its players. If D&D is a good game, why does it seem to need so many workarounds and DM calls to be fun?

P.S. Since there doesn't seem to be many (or any) GURPS defenders on this board, I'd like to point out that the examples of GURPS pointed out in Roderick_BR's earlier post are based on the previous edition and that things have been considerably cleaned up since then. I'd also like to say that it really isn't as complicated as people make it out to be, though it is definitely more complicated than most other systems I've encountered. Avoid spaceship battles and radiation damage and you shouldn't have too much unecessary math to do. :smalltongue:

Fiery Justice
2007-11-12, 05:03 PM
Okay, Jayabalard, I've got a question:
Why can a level 20 monk be as skillful in the flute as a Bard, but a level 20 fighter cannot. Legitimately, neither of their primary skill sets (being a creature of blazing fists/a master of swords) are really relevant making a flute master. But yet still, the Monk presists, and the fighter does not.

I can understand individual skills may be inferior to other individual skills, but why is it that one class it takes less time to learn skills with? I mean, that just makes no sense.

Dausuul
2007-11-12, 05:10 PM
I myself have grown pretty tired of D&D by this point. I barely feel like trying with the basic rules anymore due to their alternately bemusing and sleep-inducing nature. There's not much in the way of excitement in the one guy making his 3rd barbarian in a row or the other guy refusing to use anything but psionic and ToB classes (which wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that no one else cares about those books and would therefore have to read at least one new book in order to run effectively for this one character) simply because he seems to absolutely abhor playing any character ever that isn't some variety of arrogant group outsider with mysterious powers who turns to player-killing as a first resort.

I sympathize with your position--I too have found the system sucking my will to play in recent months--yet it does sound like your current gaming group is a major contributing factor. I suspect I'd be more thrilled about D&D if I felt there was more to differentiate the campaigns I played in.

AstralFire
2007-11-12, 05:14 PM
Think now, if you care to, how often you've found yourself thinking happily about a D&D session afterwards. Consider how much the system and setting (if it is a published setting) contributed or detracted from the fun of any session that comes to mind.

One of my players posted this on our game's forum after last week's session:

"Epic session. And I mean, really epic. Not the way we usually throw it around on the internet. Real "Arma virumque cano" stuff."

He didn't get anything but *extremely* hearty agreement from the other players, not to toot my own horn or anything.

Eberron, published setting. No house rules of note.

SofS
2007-11-12, 05:28 PM
One of my players posted this on our game's forum after last week's session:

"Epic session. And I mean, really epic. Not the way we usually throw it around on the internet. Real "Arma virumque cano" stuff."

He didn't get anything but *extremely* hearty agreement from the other players, not to toot my own horn or anything.

Eberron, published setting. No house rules of note.

If you wouldn't mind, could you say what happened or link to a thread that does say what happened? I'd like to see how it's done.

KoDT69
2007-11-12, 05:28 PM
D&D FTW! I have tried many of the supposed "superior" systems much to my disappointment. I house rule a lot anyway, so "D&D needs house rules to be better balanced" is not a valid arguement. Every system has flaws. Period. I hated Star Wars, Shadowrun, Marvel Super Heroes, and even d20 Modern. I don't play D&D for realism, technology, light sabres, starships, or whatever... I play for the mix of swords and magic. So it's not balanced in every campaign. My friends and I play it and have fun, and my DMing style involves even the lowly monk to feel useful every session. Nobody is bored at my table.

AstralFire
2007-11-12, 05:55 PM
If you wouldn't mind, could you say what happened or link to a thread that does say what happened? I'd like to see how it's done.

I'm no master DM - what it basically boils down to is "describing the characters and settings." I make sure the PCs roleplay all of their actions - be it a simple sword swing, they have to describe it, as well as their reactions to being hit. This raises the immersion factor. Frankly, it wouldn't matter much what system we were using for it - the system is a means to an end. I think your group would probably have issue with any system used, D&D, World of Darkness, GURPS, or otherwise, since what I'm hearing is a lack of originality and interest.

Big post follows here:

Between sessions, we do Play by Post to handle what goes on, so that the sessions can be reserved for the most actiony stuff - this helps because my PCs are in charge of a small town, so we all need time to think about the repercussions of decisions. I also have a very open plot, so they can discuss decisions in and out of character before they embark on them. By doing that in PbP between sessions, I both let them have a very real sense of control in the world, and the actual session becomes a jampacked action-and-roleplay-fest, with boring tidbits like "how much to raise taxes" done when we have 15 minutes of free time during the week. I also use the PbP to drop teasers when we're about to start a new arm of the story.

Example Teaser:For the second night in a row, however, sleep is not easy. Even when your eyes close and your souls slip into the realm of dreams, your mind refuses to rest.

There is... a young man with short cropped black hair. He has golden eyes. He's dressed in simple robes of hemp. He bears the mark of Ashbane upon his arm.

He stands... in the middle of a ritual circle. And on that circle is a woman, far taller than a normal person. She is proud and naked. She is gaunt and thin, and her head is bare. She is horrifying, yet beautiful. Two long, red scars stretch down the length of her back, continually bleeding.

"So," the woman speaks. "Midgear was... killed. Again." She clucks her tongue.

"Yes, Goddess." The boy nods his head. "A group of four. I watched as they hunted her down and brought her to her knees... then ripped out her throat."

"All this I already know. I elected not to revive her this time. She has clearly fallen from usefulness, to die twice in such short succession."

The woman purses her lips and takes a step forward. You can hardly tell if she has skin over her ribs. "What concerns me is why there was a week between her death and when her soul finally came between my lips."

"I do not know, Goddess. I heard that her spirit fought once more yesterday."

"Indeed... Midgear must have become very clever. But her soul is mine, fully and wholly, and I am somewhat... sated." She smiles. It's a sickly, disgusting smile that turns your stomach; it quickly becomes a frown. "However, I find it most irritating that a mere child is the only one bearing my mark to remain alive, one who does not even display any hint of Incarnum power. I chose... poorly."

"No, you merely chose with your hunger," another voice speaks up. This one male... and everywhere. Shadows flicker across the faces of the assembled, and they begin to shrink in horror.

The shadows chide the woman. "We others are more gracious than you, Kol Torrant... The Keeper. Your hunger for powerful souls continually pruned your best. While Midgear became a tasty snack, our own scions have become powerful indeed."

"You have the nerve to talk to me so before mortals, Shadow?" The Keeper snorts. "These souls have served me well; if you desire to test your mettle and support your impudence, you only have to ask-"

"Enough!" A third voice interjects. A thin, pale, elegant man enters from the side. He would be quite handsome... if his skin wasn't paler than death, as though it had died years before the rest of its body. He seemed as though a walking, perfectly preserved corpse - only wearing armor. Two bloody gashes scar his back as well.

"I suppose you're somewhat strong, Kol Torrant. But your followers are weak, and mortals are weak enough to begin."

"...The Mockery," the young boy whispers under his breath. The elegant corpse laughs.

"Observant, you are. But I am more so. Do not speak if it is not going to be respectful, boy."

"My apologies, my Lord." The boy clasps his hands and bows respectfully. As he rises up, his neck is suddenly tickled by the point of a scythe. The Keeper's.

"Very well then," the Keeper sighs. "I suppose you two have a point. Well then, boy... you are to be my new protegé... show me how well you can battle."

"As you wish, Goddess." The boy unfastens his belt, and a bladed chain clinks to the floor. "I shall rise to the fight."

The chain blurs upward in an arc of gold.

That session involved the PCs defending their town from a horde of Shifters. Shortly before the actual session, an NPC scout they had sent out revealed that the horde was being followed at a distance by forces from the town of Nordheim which had supposedly warned them, and the Knights of Nordheim clearly had their sights set on the PCs' town.

The PCs decided to rush out, convince the enemy horde that they were being used as part of a feint by the Nordheim Knights. They guessed that the Knights intended us and the Horde to wipe each other out, then the Knights could step in easy and take back the castle. (They resent the PCs being ennobled.) The Iceblood Horde was reluctant to act on this information, especially since it was being delivered by the PC in full knight armor and stuff. However, the party had a Shifter Druidess among them - Druids hold special import in Shifter society, and they are called Moonspeakers. The Iceblood Tribe had special lore about Moonspeakers in particular:

"They say that Bear the Moonspeaker stole the sun from this land, so that Moon would be with him eternal, for he loved her. And the land became dark. At first, Moon reveled in his adoration... but with time, her responsibilities weighed too heavily upon her. The guardian of our people, she knew that we were dying in the endless winter. So Moon sent her son, Owl, to take back the sunlight from Bear.

Owl was clever, for his mother was Moon. So clever Owl watched Bear carefully, from a distance... for Bear had realized that the rest of his people could not live on the warmth of love alone, even if he did not care. So Bear only left his cave rarely. Owl waited and learned the times that Bear would leave to hunt, and how long he would be gone.

And one day, Owl struck. After Bear went out, Owl flew into the cave on his wings of silver, snatching the small box in which Bear had hidden the sun. But Owl was not the only clever one; Bear had noticed his watcher. And Bear raised his mighty paws to strike down Owl. But he had not understood a mother's love. As Bear's claws slashed, Moon herself appeared between them, taking the blows meant for her son. She was rent into pieces.

Stunned, Owl flapped away, for he knew he needed the time his mother had given him. They say that the days come when Owl is able to keep above the horizon, holding the heavy light in his talons.

But that is another story... when Moon was hurt, Bear's rage turned to grief at his senseless act. He invoked his magics and tried to mend her wounds. Normal magic was not enough, however... she had passed over. Yet through dark powers, he was able to raise her... but not as one, as twelve. He begged her forgiveness, but her twelvefold fury was too much to hold back. For his selfishness in first stealing the sun, then attacking her child, and now bringing her back to an existence of misery, she took away his gift. Bear and his descendants were cursed to be like her; many parts split into a whole, and they would never speak to the moons again, tasked to wander the icy lands that their father had made.

I am Bear, as is Thunderclaw, and so are all my brothers of Iceblood. In this life, I have led my tribe to many a war, as previous Bears... previous Czars... have... but where others saw an endless blessing in these many lives, I came to see a curse. The tundra of Frostfell is no place to live. We grew weary of wandering.

We foolishly decided to take the lands of another so that we might survive... not remembering that such selfishness was what cursed us to wander in the first place. Our blood shed in the night is proof and punishment for our evil deeds. When you, Moonspeaker, appeared before us yesterday... I saw, perhaps, a chance to redeem Bear.

When I die, the new Czar and a horned cub will be born; they will be the greater portion of Bear, the portion which Thunderclaw and I share. Moonspeaker, I ask you to tell this to the moons...

Bear... is sorry.

I ask both you and the moons for your fortune. Let my people rest their weary feet."

So her word was able to change the situation (they were about to be gutted) into uneasy trust. The Horde Czar (which, it should be mentioned, have their leaders riding on Horned Dire Polar Bears and use alchemical fires to communicate quickly across the horde - description does a lot to change the mood, I find, elevating a boring encounter to exciting) said that if his scouts found her words to be true, the Horde would fight Nordheim, instead of the PCs' town.

What followed next was three hours of tactical maneuvers and skirmishes outside and inside the castle, with the PCs fighting a few battles faced on sheer numbers. They made some missteps (they didn't anticipate the Knights attacking the stockades and freeing the prisoners) but they also made a lot of clever plans (using the Druids and Rangers they'd gotten good relations with to harry the Knights' progress through some forested areas.)

Throughout the battle, I kept the NPCs moving - they've met a large cast of unique characters, so I used them to fully simulate the chaos of battle as they interacted simultaneously, in parallel, and occasionally in unintentional conflict with the PCs.

I'm also quick to eliminate dead space - if no one's doing anything, I try to use one of the many NPCs at my disposal (a PC has taken leadership, so the cohort follows her around, and in general there's an NPC 'cast' for them to deal with in most situations - we usually play political intrigue) to spark conversation. If that fails, I quickly do a fast-forward and small summarization, so that no one ever has a chance to get disinterested.

At the end, we had the following summary:
The battle raged on even after your triumph; only a mere hour into the conflict, it would be a while before the thirst for blood had been sated.

Cries of "Liar!" rang through the enemy camp in response, but the distinctively cut tabard on the hostage was that of the High Guard... and many dared not fire for fear of striking one of their leaders. Things only got more bleak when the Seven of Strahl leaped into the fray.

Talis the Clever went unnoticed through the fray, his victims only realizing their mortality a split-second after liquid blades impaled their skull. Lord ir'D'yth skewered many with lightning fast, lightning charged strikes. Kyrt and Yenka cut a swath through the crowd to meet with the Icebloods and Wintersebb - those who did not fall to flame and fist ran before the might of bear-mounted archers. The Knight-Lieutenant Talesienn acquitted the Turquoise Guard well, standing alone against the fury of a dozen High Guardsmen. Well, alone except for the small, fiery gnome by her side - Merri would claim many more heads that day. Jacen stood strong at the wall, draining any foolish enough to approach a lord of death. And the changeling known as Eilonwy burned through all she faced, as quick and as consuming as a wildfire, a golden wreath of flame dancing about her body..

When they returned to consciousness, Jade and Jonas took up arms together, defending the passage into the castle. Those who fought them and lived to tell the tale will speak for many years of a human and a gnome who struck with the fury of two, moved with the grace of one, and spoke with the ego of ten. Archiden had to be rushed downstairs, to the Jorasco healers - though his life went out of immediate danger, the shard of metal in his eye slips dangerously close to his brain, and is proving difficult to remove.

The brave men and women and assorted creatures of Strahl Keep fought bravely into the night, against huge odds... and finally, hours later, the Battle of Strahl came to an end. The acting enemy commander, Knight-Captain Gareth Sivorsky, came to the wall bearing a white flag of surrender, his shield and sword left at the camp. Though he was nearly struck down, Amaranth and Aounka saw him for who he was.

Immediately, the Captain and his advisors were thrown into the emptied Stockades, and the enemy knights dearmed. Those peasants who were willing to join the Strahl Soldiers were enlisted - Marquess Nordheim had treated them poorly, and the kind ministration of the Abbess and Kyrt were quickly accepted.

Many names listed are NPCs the PCs have grown to care about, or I have plans to reuse.

Basically, I do lots of small things to keep my PCs involved, by constantly giving them a feeling of "mattering" in the world. This raises the effort they output to play the game, and a great time is had by all.

JaxGaret
2007-11-12, 05:59 PM
Okay, Jayabalard, I've got a question:
Why can a level 20 monk be as skillful in the flute as a Bard, but a level 20 fighter cannot. Legitimately, neither of their primary skill sets (being a creature of blazing fists/a master of swords) are really relevant making a flute master. But yet still, the Monk presists, and the fighter does not.

I can understand individual skills may be inferior to other individual skills, but why is it that one class it takes less time to learn skills with? I mean, that just makes no sense.

What you are really saying here is "Why is Perform not a class skill for Fighters?"

If you feel like it should be, you can houserule that all characters get Perform, Craft, Profession, etc. ("background" or "secondary" skills) as class skills.

Seems fine to me, except for a couple of Prestige Classes that will be easier to get into, but probably no big deal.


One other thing: Perform, Craft, Profession, etc. do have use, just not in combat - they make money for the character. Not a lot of money, but every bit helps.

Rutee
2007-11-12, 06:00 PM
D&D can be made whatever you want, it's true. It's generic enough. My problem comes in the fact that design philosophy has moved further and further away from anything of interest to me. It can be whatever you want, but most of the players I've met want the base game, with its standard monster encounters and utilitarian magic and utter lack of mystery or romance. Think now, if you care to, how often you've found yourself thinking happily about a D&D session afterwards. Consider how much the system and setting (if it is a published setting) contributed or detracted from the fun of any session that comes to mind. People often refer to the importance of DM fiat and Rule One and mature players and so forth as the key to good games. If that is the case, what is the importance of the system and settings? Homebrew is almost always more satisfying, but you can't judge the system on the ingenuity and creativity of its players. If D&D is a good game, why does it seem to need so many workarounds and DM calls to be fun?
What you're looking at sounds like the game encouraging a style of play you don't want. Which does indeed mean you're not going to like it. And really? I don't know why there's a debate. It's as simple as that. That doesn't make DnD good or bad, but it does bring it out of your tastes. Though I'm not saying anything you don't already know, I'm sure.. but don't worry about defending disliking it! It just means it's not for you. Personally, I much prefer Exalted, with a few other systems behind it and in front of DnD, but I don't need any particular system to tell a story (though Exalted and Weapons of the Gods make Wuxia stories much, much easier.. and I do like Wuxia). DnD, as a system, has its own brand of fun, and I never saw that class/character building as being at all exclusive with the storytelling.

Also, Astral Fire, a selfish request.

Could you Pleeease go on the City of Heroes forums and tell Angry_Citizen that it's still gonna be a while before Rutee can get back on CoH? I'm sorry, I know you're a stranger, but.. I can't do it myself ;.;

SofS
2007-11-12, 06:13 PM
Now, see, that's the big problem. We only have a couple of people in the group who DM that well (and rest assured, that seemed very well-run. I particularly liked the narrative interludes and the PbP-to-save-time concept, which we've tried but haven't succeeded at). The last time one of them tried it in D&D, the group seemed to totally ignore all of the effort the DM put into it (most of our best players weren't there, though).

What is the group that you ran this for like? It's hard to tell from this vantage point, but the story seemed remarkably smooth, like everything just fell into place and no one hogged it or distanced themselves from what was happening. Is that how it went, or is that stuff just not coming through in the retelling?

AstralFire
2007-11-12, 06:19 PM
Also, Astral Fire, a selfish request.

Could you Pleeease go on the City of Heroes forums and tell Angry_Citizen that it's still gonna be a while before Rutee can get back on CoH? I'm sorry, I know you're a stranger, but.. I can't do it myself ;.;

I was in the middle of writing up a PM to you to see if you were the same Rutee...

Sadly, I ended up taking a break from City of Heroes when I realized I was starting to get burnt out on it the way I did WoW - and since I hope to eventually return to the game, I immediately stopped so that it'll be fresh again in a half year.

Good to see you around again - sorry I can't fulfill the request. :(

By the way - thanks again for supporting me way back when on that City of Villains thread where people started accusing me of having psychopathy because I didn't really like playing a villain...


What is the group that you ran this for like? It's hard to tell from this vantage point, but the story seemed remarkably smooth, like everything just fell into place and no one hogged it or distanced themselves from what was happening. Is that how it went, or is that stuff just not coming through in the retelling?

The age ranges from 17 to 23; our youngest is a high school senior, and we have two postcollegiates. For the most part, I'd say I was definitely blessed with a fantastic group - one of them can kinda whine sometimes, and my girlfriend's a bit... forgetful... - but they're all extremely unselfish players, and have all gotten rather involved in the plot. The 'hook' I used when I took over as DM was that they all had their souls cursed, so regardless of the characters' altruistic natures (or lack thereof) their prime interest is in breaking the curse this evil cult put on them. Just about all are morally opposed to evil - even if not all are good - so none particularly mind it anyway. And since everyone spent days making their characters, well... they can't *help* but be involved at this point.

I'd say they're all good about sharing the spotlight, and if one is accidentally receding, I make a note to give them an opportunity to shine soon.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-12, 07:21 PM
Also, if any of you haven't read this excellent article, please do.
Yeah, you've said that a few times now. The article is far from excellent - I would go as far as to call it ludicrous. Simply put, it looks at one side of the D&D skill system, and posits that it matches reality (for some unsourced assumptions of "reality"). It entirely ignores the flipside of the skill system, e.g. the part where an untrained person can defeat an olympic champion two or three times out of ten.



It's kind of interesting that in D&D, a first-level elf is (roughly) at the same power level as a first-level human, despite having had several decades more training. This is handwaved in D&D by saying that humans learn faster and elves party more (and :vaarsuvius: spending several years in diapers...) However, it is worth noting that in nearly every fantasy setting, the average elf is way more kickass than the average human. It would seem the writers of D&D sacrificed some verisimilitude for the sake of play balance.



I don't think the game is harmed by giving certain classes more class skills. I mean, it's the fighter we're talking about, and the only reason he isn't bottom-tier is that he's still better than the monk. Giving the poor guy four skill points per level and three additional skills of his choice as class skills (with the exception of UMD) is not going to harm anything.

horseboy
2007-11-12, 07:30 PM
Yeah, you've said that a few times now. The article is far from excellent - I would go as far as to call it ludicrous. Simply put, it looks at one side of the D&D skill system, and posits that it matches reality (for some unsourced assumptions of "reality"). It entirely ignores the flipside of the skill system, e.g. the part where an untrained person can defeat an olympic champion two or three times out of ten.

I always liked how it points out how D&D starts breaking down at around level 5, and everybody is supposed to think it's a good thing. Who knew bathing in enough orc blood gave super powers.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-12, 08:02 PM
Close, in a civil suit you only need to prove an issue by "preponderance of the evidence" - beyond a reasonable doubt is what applies to criminal cases.

You'll also have to show that your mechanic was an innovation. As broken as the US patent laws are, you can't simply patent something you're using if it's been done before. Or even if it's a logical extension of what's been done before.

I think you're mistaken on the effects of patenting rule mechanics in any case. WotC certainly didn't create the OGL because they thought giving the mechanics away would hurt them.

They made it OGL because they have a team of lawyers on hand and it's making enough money they can strangle anyone who even attempts to copy their work, patent protected or not.

Look at how long WoTC spent in the courts, drying out resources while trying to patent the concept of turning a card in a 90 degree angle. Even though they ultimately failed (because they were fighting the US Gov), the same bullying attitude could easily be used against a private individual or organization to suck their funds dry making wotc the victor in court.

The patent laws are screwed up in this country not simply because the US hasn't reviewed and updated them, they're screwed up in this country because of that idiotic Paris Convention back in the 1800s. The International Patent Laws were forged during a time of warfare, imperialistic expansion, and countries trying to screw each other. And because these laws have not been updated or re-formatted, individual country patent laws have been screwed up just because these same countries which are now allies can't violate international patent laws that were signed into agreement 200 years ago with their domestic laws.


Patent enforcement isn't as cut and dry as you may believe, and much of the restrictions on Copyright Enforcement deal with the international patent laws that cross the borders of copyright protection.


It's one massive convoluted mess that makes me want to scream!


For the last three years I've been struggling on trying to get my board game patented in just three of the "easy" countries and it nearly put me in the insane assylum - and I've got a lawyer helpin me!!!!!


All I'm saying is that if the patent laws were re-organized and better handled, by allowing certain patents to be streamlined more into a copyright registration concept than by making them these bogus engineering concepts, we'd have a few more games out there than we do now.

Raum
2007-11-12, 08:29 PM
They made it OGL because they have a team of lawyers on hand and it's making enough money they can strangle anyone who even attempts to copy their work, patent protected or not.While the OGL isn't quite a free license, it does specifically allow copying and reuse under limited conditions.


Look at how long WoTC spent in the courts, drying out resources while trying to patent the concept of turning a card in a 90 degree angle. Even though they ultimately failed (because they were fighting the US Gov), the same bullying attitude could easily be used against a private individual or organization to suck their funds dry making wotc the victor in court.Please say you do not think they should have been granted a patent on "turning a card 90 degrees"! It doesn't meet the USPTO Guidelines on Obviousness (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr57526.pdf) and I suspect it wouldn't pass the prior art test either.


Patent enforcement isn't as cut and dry as you may believe, and much of the restrictions on Copyright Enforcement deal with the international patent laws that cross the borders of copyright protection.It's certainly not cut and dry, there are many tests you'll have to meet for a good patent. Here's a decent resource on US Patent Law (http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050402193202442).

While I wish you luck on getting the patent you're applying for, IMO US patent law is too permissive - we need more stringent tests. It took years to throw out most of Amazon's "1 click" patent...a patent which never should have been approved to start with.
-----

@ SofS & Dasuul - I agree with your sentiments. I find myself playing D&D primarily because that's the game friends want to play. I understand and agree to a point though, there's a high time commitment in switching systems.

I can't say that I dislike D&D entirely either, there are aspects of it I enjoy. But there are also aspects which have become tiresome. Ah well, taking a break over the holidays - maybe that will help. :)

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-12, 08:51 PM
While the OGL isn't quite a free license, it does specifically allow copying and reuse under limited conditions.

Please say you do not think they should have been granted a patent on "turning a card 90 degrees"! It doesn't meet the USPTO Guidelines on Obviousness (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr57526.pdf) and I suspect it wouldn't pass the prior art test either.

Absolutely not, I hate the idea they even tried it. My point was they were trying to win a battle of legal attrition. While you can't win a battle of legal attrition against the Government, companies can win battles of legal attrition against individuals and smaller corporations regardless of the validity of the lawsuit.

WotC has demonstrated its perserverence in suing anyone they can anytime, like any Big Corporation would.

God their lawsuits during the 90s were absolutely ridiculous.



It's certainly not cut and dry, there are many tests you'll have to meet for a good patent. Here's a decent resource on US Patent Law (http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050402193202442).

While I wish you luck on getting the patent you're applying for, IMO US patent law is too permissive - we need more stringent tests. It took years to throw out most of Amazon's "1 click" patent...a patent which never should have been approved to start with.
-----

The patent laws are stringent. Do you know how companies get ridiculous and idiotic patents such as amazon's "1 click" patent? They patent the computer code, which is more or less speghetti. They are approved the patent process for the speghetti code. Then they claim that they own the patent on anything that resembles "1 click" process (which they don't). But what happens is due to the absolutely asinine patent laws ultimately resulting from the Paris Treaty, they can sue anyone who has results that appear to be the "1 click" process, and force the burden of proof onto the subject of the lawsuit by making them fight a legal battle of experts to show that their process isn't the same speghetti code as amazon's speghetti code.

The whole concept of the patent system has become Battles of Legal Attrition.

Yes you are right in that there is no 1 thing easily defined as being THE THING THAT'S WRONG with the situation. However, I'm sure you'll find a LOT of the problems can be traced to how Patents are observed and enforced.

Almost all Observation and Encorcement laws can be traced back to the Paris Treaty (the first real international treaty protecting complex intellectual property). And the major problem today is while that was all fine and good back then, the resulting speghetti laws (I'm Italian I like speghetti), have compounded so many minor problems that it's just become a world where you need to dump down truckloads of cash to protect anything.



Look at the Copyright System! It was NOT made part of some sort of international mumbojumbo. As a result it stayed simple. It stayed relatively pure.

You can file for copyright by spending $35 bucks. If it turns out that you violated copyright, you can get tossed in prison. Otherwise, your work is safe and secure.

The patent system, which used to facilitate the everyday man and woman who had an invention back in the 18th century, was turned into a monster, a living frankenstein, thanks to the Paris Convention.


All I'm saying is if games were only delegated to a much simpler approval process than the current idiotic patent system, then it'd facilitate new games and new game inventions with far more easy than it does now.

/rant over

Sorry for the rant, I just hate the patent process.

Thankfully my board game patent, through many obstacles, is going and has gone through (it got split into two patents by the punk examiner - a sniveling twit of a man that every lawyer I talked to knows by name without me having to mention it). I'm just waiting for Australian and Canadian now.

Goumindong
2007-11-12, 09:07 PM
I always liked how it points out how D&D starts breaking down at around level 5, and everybody is supposed to think it's a good thing. Who knew bathing in enough orc blood gave super powers.

No, the game just stop simulating level 5 power level characters after level 5.

....
2007-11-12, 09:10 PM
I can't think of a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is better than other systems. Can anyone give me one?

It can't be because it's easy to remember, because to build the best character for your archetype you need a bunch of sourcebooks.

It can't be because character creation is simple, because if you make a multiclass character, selecting his skills is a very unintuitive way to spend time. It gets even worse if his Int changes.

It can't be because combat is simple, because, well, it isn't (grappling rules, for example).

So what is it? What makes it so great, so popular? Just pure, raw age?

This is a trick question. Any response will be shot down.

Its a matter of opinion. I could spend and hour talking about all the stuff that sucks about D&D and how complicated ect it is.

The game is great because I have more memories playing it than any other RPG game there. I remember laughing over it, shouting over it, even getting teary eyed once or twice over it. Nothing makes is particularly better than any other system (except like, FATAL and stuff like that), it just works, and serves its purpose adequatly: IE: Letting me play pretend with my friends.

Ralfarius
2007-11-12, 09:58 PM
Vampire: Roll 10d10 dices, see how many was 10s and roll again, how many were 1s and discount them... Now roll the target's dodge. Now, roll damage. Now roll target's sack...
I don't think this has been mentioned, and it's not terribly pertinent to most of the conversations occurring. However, the new World of Darkness ruleset has streamlined combat and skill checks considerably. It's more like "Add appropriate attribute and skill dots, subtract opponent's defense/armor worn, roll that many dice. 8 or higher is a success, 10's grant an extra die rolled." And it works across the board for all skills and such. It's fairly effective for figuring out how to make a skill check on the spot. Just find an appropriate attribute and skill, add or subtract dice for particularly helpful/unhelpful conditions or items, and make a roll.

As for D&D? It's a fairly solid system. It's sort of the "open-faced roast beef with gravy sandwich" of the RPG industry. It's not the most unique choice, but almost anyone can enjoy it, and a fair few people would prefer it to more refined or unusual fare. Also, sometimes it gets messy, but if you have the right utensils at your disposal, everyone can sit down to a hearty, warm meal whichever way they enjoy it best.

... And now I'm hungry.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-12, 10:05 PM
There are TWO reasons I play Dungeons and Dragons.

1) Eberron is made for D&D. Eberron is a sweet setting. This is actually what brought me back to D&D after having given it up for quite a few years in favor of other systems.

2) More people play D&D than anything else. Availability of players is a practical matter.

horseboy
2007-11-12, 10:23 PM
No, the game just stop simulating level 5 power level characters after level 5.
Can I get English subtitles on this?

tyckspoon
2007-11-12, 10:54 PM
Can I get English subtitles on this?

The system doesn't break down; it just moves into simulating a different type of reality. From level 5 on, D&D becomes more and more a game of semi-medieval superheroics. This is a fully intentional result of the design (we think.) If you want a game that models real-world reality, why the heck did you ever think to look for that in D&D? It's got dragons in the name!

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 01:12 AM
Can I get English subtitles on this?

You seem to think the system breaks down after 5th level. It does not, it just stops simulating characters that are about as powerful as a 5th level character after 5th level. A PC has to kill 266 CR 1/4 Orcs to make it from level 5 to level 6. And that is even if CR 1/4 enemies give experience. These characters arent bathing in the blood of orcs, they are bathing in the blood of devils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#beardedDevilBarbazu) and demons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#babau). 4 of them are expected to stand a 50/50 chance against:

A 10 Headed Hydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm)
A frost giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#frostGiant)
Giant Elementals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#airElemental)
Nine Foot Tall Devils made of bone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#boneDevilOsyluth)
Large Sized Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon)

Einstein was 5th level with a high ability score, an age bonus or two, and skill focus.

Look at all the published adventures, they take players through maybe 2-3 levels each. By the time your character is level 5 they would have killed 533 orcs each for 4 characters.

Lets put this in perspective. That is nearly 1/3 of a Roman Legion during the rule of Agustus, when the Empire was at its peak and held 26 legions. This is 1/16th of the infantry that Rome Possesed during the Second Punic war. These are absolutly staggering numbers of combatants.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 01:25 AM
Lets put this in perspective. That is nearly 1/3 of a Roman Legion during the rule of Agustus, when the Empire was at its peak and held 26 legions. This is 1/16th of the infantry that Rome Possesed during the Second Punic war. These are absolutly staggering numbers of combatants.

wow that's... absolutely ridiculous!

Man, doesn't 3e reward clerics for healing, people for using proficiencies, or players for Role Playing!?

My players have never killed or needed to kill that many monsters to level up.

horseboy
2007-11-13, 01:48 AM
The system doesn't break down; it just moves into simulating a different type of reality. From level 5 on, D&D becomes more and more a game of semi-medieval superheroics. This is a fully intentional result of the design (we think.) If you want a game that models real-world reality, why the heck did you ever think to look for that in D&D? It's got dragons in the name!
Which completely breaks any sort of verisimilitude on a planet wide scale. There's no reason other than how many orcs they've killed that they're now "superheros" Why aren't there druids creating orc refuges, only letting in adventures for a hunting season to keep the numbers low. They may as well.


You seem to think the system breaks down after 5th level. It does not, it just stops simulating characters that are about as powerful as a 5th level character after 5th level. Duh, then they're sixth level.


A PC has to kill 266 CR 1/4 Orcs to make it from level 5 to level 6. And that is even if CR 1/4 enemies give experience. These characters arent bathing in the blood of orcs, they are bathing in the blood of devils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#beardedDevilBarbazu) and demons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#babau). 4 of them are expected to stand a 50/50 chance against:

Einstein was 5th level with a high ability score, an age bonus or two, and skill focus. And to think what he could have done, if instead of putting him in a research facility, they gave him an M1 and let him shoot some nazis first. Get another level or two and then he'd have fixed that whole faster than light travel thing.


Look at all the published adventures, they take players through maybe 2-3 levels each. By the time your character is level 5 they would have killed 533 orcs each for 4 characters.

Lets put this in perspective. That is nearly 1/3 of a Roman Legion during the rule of Agustus, when the Empire was at its peak and held 26 legions. This is 1/16th of the infantry that Rome Possesed during the Second Punic war. These are absolutly staggering numbers of combatants.

Yes, and at 4 encounters of them per day that wouldn't take that long.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 01:55 AM
Because NPCs dont gain experience.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 02:01 AM
Because NPCs dont gain experience.

See, that's what I like about 2nd edition : They did gain experience, especially if the game relied on it.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 02:04 AM
wow that's... absolutely ridiculous!

Man, doesn't 3e reward clerics for healing, people for using proficiencies, or players for Role Playing!?

My players have never killed or needed to kill that many monsters to level up.

Its an example based on the core rules for how many orcs you would need to kill. Its not a statement of how many creatures you have defeated, nor is it in any way have anything to do with how games are played. Maybe you should read the 2e rules and 3.5 DMG again and see what it actually says instead of being disingenious.

But in case you are wondering.

1. Players recieve XP for any encounter they defeat based on the percieved challenge rating of that encounter which is based on the simply percentage system. An equal level encounter of any type should take about 1/4 of the players daily resources. An encounter 4 levels higher than the party should leave them with a 50/50 chance of success. CR+2=1/2 resrouces, 75% chance of success.

2. Encounters do not necessarily mean "killing things" but because many computer RPG games have plenty of "kick in the door" type adventures this is the common perception.

3. Its about 13 encounters of equal level per level by base rules. Orcs are not ever an even level encounter, so it requires a lot more to get there. Fighting the things you are strong enough to deal with results if much fewer numbers.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 02:07 AM
See, that's what I like about 2nd edition : They did gain experience, especially if the game relied on it.

No they didnt. NPCs in both editions gain strength in the exact same manner, when the DM feels its convienient. For instance, BBEGs in my game tend to be conviently around 4 levels above my player adventurers for basing stats for each encounter they fight him/her in. This is because each recurring villian fight i like to run around CR +3/4 at, though sometimes i run easier. Its an easy way to give me a basis for how hard the encounter ought to be.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 02:08 AM
Duh, then they're sixth level.

How about this. How about you actually read the DMG[and DMG II]

Rutee
2007-11-13, 02:41 AM
What system provides rules on levelling NPCs?

And why the hell do I need them? They're as strong as I need them to be.

CatCameBack
2007-11-13, 03:51 AM
How do you not see optimization as being deeply intertwined with balance? Indeed, the capacity for optimization, at least at the level that D&D has, is a sign of complete and utter imbalance. No system with Pun-Pun can be defined as being "balanced".




Pun Pun is an exptreme example of "Game Stretching".

All I have to say to that is:

HERO System

Ranged 1 pip Killing Attack, +1 1/2 Autofire, One Hex Aoe, Affects Desolid, Penetrating, +20 Ranged OCV Mod (built in), Improved Knock Back, Indirect

Take a large amount of Killing Damage, and fly across the map (and possibly over the horizon). Did you buy a high Defense Roll? It's Aoe. Did you buy flight? It's Ranged. Did you buy Force Wall? Indirect. Desolid? Affects Desolid. Didn't Kill you? I'll have an action ready to interrupt by the time you get back from where ever I knocked you back.

I don't know as much about the current incarnation of Gurps, but I do remember back when we rolled characters that being slightly Narcoleptic gave me almost as much Disad points as someone with No Legs. Any system can be broken.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 04:06 AM
No they didnt. NPCs in both editions gain strength in the exact same manner, when the DM feels its convienient. For instance, BBEGs in my game tend to be conviently around 4 levels above my player adventurers for basing stats for each encounter they fight him/her in. This is because each recurring villian fight i like to run around CR +3/4 at, though sometimes i run easier. Its an easy way to give me a basis for how hard the encounter ought to be.

There's absolutely no rules in second edition which prevent a standard character generated NPC from gaining exp.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 04:09 AM
What system provides rules on levelling NPCs?

And why the hell do I need them? They're as strong as I need them to be.

Simple and easy: Generate an NPC using standard character creation. You know all those transitions where your players try and figure out what the bad guy is doing? Well, that bad guy is the NPC you created as a standard character. Whatever campaign your players read about him doing, is technically a campaign the NPC should be gaining experience from.

Although I admit I rarely ever run a dual campaign scenario such as that, but there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing this.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 05:22 AM
There's absolutely no rules in second edition which prevent a standard character generated NPC from gaining exp.

There are no rules that prevent a standard NPC in any system from gaining XP. The DM gives them the XP and then they have the XP voila!


Simple and easy: Generate an NPC using standard character creation. You know all those transitions where your players try and figure out what the bad guy is doing? Well, that bad guy is the NPC you created as a standard character. Whatever campaign your players read about him doing, is technically a campaign the NPC should be gaining experience from.

Although I admit I rarely ever run a dual campaign scenario such as that, but there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing this. You are off your bleeding rocker.

As Rutee says

What system provides rules on levelling NPCs?

And why the hell do I need them? They're as strong as I need them to be.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 05:32 AM
Your personal insult as a form of argument tells me that you've obviously never run a war-time campaign where resources, land grabs and encounters determine the actual end result of armies.

The rules for leveling and granting exp are the same rules you'd use for your players. It adds quite a bit more challenge to plot development than if you were to arbitrarily increase NPC level or resources. Especially when your players realize their success/failure/time wasted/choice of adventures all have a direct impact on the final battles.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 05:57 AM
Your personal insult as a form of argument tells me that you've obviously never run a war-time campaign where resources, land grabs and encounters determine the actual end result of armies.

The rules for leveling and granting exp are the same rules you'd use for your players. It adds quite a bit more challenge to plot development than if you were to arbitrarily increase NPC level or resources. Especially when your players realize their success/failure/time wasted/choice of adventures all have a direct impact on the final battles.


You know what doesnt have rules for NPC leveling? DnD

You know what doesnt provide rules for NPC wealth generation over a campaign? DnD

You know what isnt leveling? Gaining resources from your army and special forces units winning battle/capturing them

Do you know what "your NPCs are as strong as they need to be" even means?

Unless the bad guys are being played by players then there is never a reason to give them XP. But if the bad guys are being played by players, then they arent NPCs.

If they arent, then they get resources and levels when you need them to, not by an XP mechanic.

Tengu
2007-11-13, 06:20 AM
Your personal insult as a form of argument tells me that you've obviously never run a war-time campaign where resources, land grabs and encounters determine the actual end result of armies.

The rules for leveling and granting exp are the same rules you'd use for your players. It adds quite a bit more challenge to plot development than if you were to arbitrarily increase NPC level or resources. Especially when your players realize their success/failure/time wasted/choice of adventures all have a direct impact on the final battles.

That's one approach, when you're running this like a wargame. But isn't it infinitely better to make choices that will make the best story, instead of using a set of rules that, apart from being complex, will also result in the players facing boring challenges?

mostlyharmful
2007-11-13, 06:46 AM
The rules for leveling and granting exp are the same rules you'd use for your players. It adds quite a bit more challenge to plot development than if you were to arbitrarily increase NPC level or resources. Especially when your players realize their success/failure/time wasted/choice of adventures all have a direct impact on the final battles.

Resulting in a BBEG with a randomized level... so unless you're really lucky with your Players they'll either have succeded in aquiring lots of xp/gp and be of too higher level to feel in any way threatened by your villan, or they won't in which case the vastly overpowered BBEG will flatten them.

All in all, just choosing your NPCs power and wealth levels results in less work for you and a more reliably enjoyable game for your players.

Raum
2007-11-13, 07:56 AM
wow that's... absolutely ridiculous!

Man, doesn't 3e reward clerics for healing, people for using proficiencies, or players for Role Playing!?Third edition did away with individual awards and replaced it with a group mechanic. In some ways that's good, you no longer have to account for spells cast, traps give experience to more than just the rogue, etc. It does miss some points though, see comments below.


2. Encounters do not necessarily mean "killing things" but because many computer RPG games have plenty of "kick in the door" type adventures this is the common perception.You are correct, but 3.x has two glaring problems with granting non-combat experience. First, the resolution mechanics for many non-combat encounters don't work well. Take Diplomacy as one example - it's easily abused unless you house rule it drastically. And that's the one area where non-combat encounters actually have a resolution mechanic, for the most part there isn't one. The second issue is simply the emphasis & presentation in the written material. How many pages do the DMG & PHB devote to combat resolution? How many do they devote to non-combat resolution? Which do you think is being encouraged by the rules?

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 08:13 AM
Look at all the published adventures, they take players through maybe 2-3 levels each. By the time your character is level 5 they would have killed 533 orcs each for 4 characters.

Lets put this in perspective. That is nearly 1/3 of a Roman Legion during the rule of Agustus, when the Empire was at its peak and held 26 legions. This is 1/16th of the infantry that Rome Possesed during the Second Punic war. These are absolutly staggering numbers of combatants.You're being somewhat misleading... this almost reads like you're claiming that 533 is 1/3 of a legion, which isn't the case; legions varied from 4000-6000 or so as I recall, with the large numbers occurring around the beginning of the imperial period (ie, during the rule of Agustus).

Okay, Jayabalard, I've got a question:
Why can a level 20 monk be as skillful in the flute as a Bard, but a level 20 fighter cannot. Legitimately, neither of their primary skill sets (being a creature of blazing fists/a master of swords) are really relevant making a flute master. But yet still, the Monk presists, and the fighter does not.I would guess because it's a cross class skill for the fighter but not the monk? Just a guess.


I can understand individual skills may be inferior to other individual skills, but why is it that one class it takes less time to learn skills with? I mean, that just makes no sense.Class skills are supposed to represent skills that are related to the class in some way, so you basically get some synergy from the class itself in learning the skill; sometimes this makes obvious sense, and sometimes it kind of makes sense.

Dausuul
2007-11-13, 08:29 AM
You are correct, but 3.x all editions of Dungeons and Dragons ever have two glaring problems with granting non-combat experience. First, the resolution mechanics for many non-combat encounters don't work well [snip]... for the most part there isn't one. The second issue is simply the emphasis & presentation in the written material. How many pages do the DMG & PHB devote to combat resolution? How many do they devote to non-combat resolution? Which do you think is being encouraged by the rules?

Fixed that for you.

Raum
2007-11-13, 08:37 AM
Fixed that for you.Hehe, can't argue. :)

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 10:52 AM
Fixed that for you.

Your fix is absolutely 100% incorrect as far as 2nd edition goes.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 10:58 AM
Fixed that for you.just my take on that: THe attitude of earlier editions was that non-combat resolution didn't need specific mechanics... it was mostly to be determined by DM fiat.

Later editions tend to be more Rule-centric in general, so people expect there to be a rule for every situation... which might be related to why people think that they need to max out perform: flute in order to be able to have their character be able to play the flute, when in reality, you only need those skill ranks if you want to have some specific game effects from that flute playin. You don't need any ranks unless you want those specific game effects, and you certainly don't need to max it out unless you are a master flautist.

Dausuul
2007-11-13, 11:12 AM
Your fix is absolutely 100% incorrect as far as 2nd edition goes.

No, it's entirely 100% correct.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 11:30 AM
No, it's entirely 100% correct.

prove it. All you do is hate on the 2nd edition, and you don't ever prove your comments about the rules concerning them.

Cyclone231
2007-11-13, 11:41 AM
Pun Pun is an exptreme example of "Game Stretching".

All I have to say to that is:

HERO System

Ranged 1 pip Killing Attack, +1 1/2 Autofire, One Hex Aoe, Affects Desolid, Penetrating, +20 Ranged OCV Mod (built in), Improved Knock Back, Indirect

Take a large amount of Killing Damage, and fly across the map (and possibly over the horizon). Did you buy a high Defense Roll? It's Aoe. Did you buy flight? It's Ranged. Did you buy Force Wall? Indirect. Desolid? Affects Desolid. Didn't Kill you? I'll have an action ready to interrupt by the time you get back from where ever I knocked you back.
Hardened rPD/rED. Since it's a 1 pip attack, one point of resistant defense with the Hardened (+1/4) advantage beats it. It gets beaten by a 1.875 point ability. If you want to remove the stun too, then you need 5 resistant defense with the Hardened (+1/4) advantage, which is worth 9.375 points. The knockback is ineffective since each attack does, with Double Knockback, 2-2d6 inches, which is always 0 or less.

Dausuul
2007-11-13, 11:42 AM
prove it. All you do is hate on the 2nd edition, and you don't ever prove your comments about the rules concerning them.

That particular "hate" was aimed at every edition, including Original, Classic, 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, 3E, and 3.5E. And almost certainly 4E as well. D&D is and has always been an extremely combat-centered ruleset, and I expect that to be the case for quite some time to come.

And I was going to put forward some actual arguments, but then I realized you hadn't bothered to, and it seemed like a waste of effort to put together a lengthy reply to "You're 100% wrong."

Referring to my modification of Raum's statement, I believe there were two key points:

First, that 2E has few or no non-combat resolution mechanics. I suppose I should modify that to "non-dungeon-crawling resolution mechanics," since all editions have plenty of rules for moving silently and encumbrance and such. But the only resolution mechanic 2E possessed for non-combat encounters was the Charisma-based reaction table (unless you want to consider charm person a non-combat encounter resolution mechanic). This is substantially less than 3E has, and frankly no DM I ever met actually bothered to use that table. Moreover, it doesn't actually resolve anything, just sets the stage.

Second, that 2E devotes far more space to combat resolution mechanics than non-combat resolution mechanics. I don't have a 2E PHB or DMG handy, but I'll be amazed if you can find more pages dedicated to non-combat encounter resolution than to combat resolution.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 12:26 PM
That particular "hate" was aimed at every edition, including Original, Classic, 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, 3E, and 3.5E. And almost certainly 4E as well. D&D is and has always been an extremely combat-centered ruleset, and I expect that to be the case for quite some time to come.

And I was going to put forward some actual arguments, but then I realized you hadn't bothered to, and it seemed like a waste of effort to put together a lengthy reply to "You're 100% wrong."

Considering the fact you gave me as much consideration about my opinions of 3e, and then turned around in another thread talking about what I was talking about...

I could care less.


Referring to my modification of Raum's statement, I believe there were two key points:

First, that 2E has few or no non-combat resolution mechanics. I suppose I should modify that to "non-dungeon-crawling resolution mechanics," since all editions have plenty of rules for moving silently and encumbrance and such. But the only resolution mechanic 2E possessed for non-combat encounters was the Charisma-based reaction table (unless you want to consider charm person a non-combat encounter resolution mechanic). This is substantially less than 3E has, and frankly no DM I ever met actually bothered to use that table. Moreover, it doesn't actually resolve anything, just sets the stage.

Second, that 2E devotes far more space to combat resolution mechanics than non-combat resolution mechanics. I don't have a 2E PHB or DMG handy, but I'll be amazed if you can find more pages dedicated to non-combat encounter resolution than to combat resolution.

So you flat out deny the concept of saving throws being used out of combat, or those little add ons to stat scores such as:

Open Doors, Lift Gates, Non-Combat ability Checks, Exp Rward for receiving treasure (treasure you get for solving PUZZLES), almost every single thief skill in existence which are designed to accomplish tasks by avoiding combat,

Oh and Chapter 8: EXPERIENCE Page 45 of the DMG 2nd edition handbook. Pretty much goes into detail on for what you should award experience. It basically states that experience from combat is 50/50 with accomplishing the goals of the adventure (which do NOT have to be combat oriented).

This chapter alone pretty much blows all of your comments about 2nd edition and experience out of the water.

Also, there are a few books and campaigns out there which outline these rules (I've seen each and every one of these rules in printed official format from 2nd edition campaign modules and handbooks):

1. 1 exp for each HP healed.
2. 100-500 exp for using non-combat methods to determine a major plot event such as a wizard figuring out who to spy on, or a rogue sneaking into a base to obtain a pamphlet. Never seen this award above 500 but maybe there is.
3. Various exp awards for making various skill and or ability score checks. It tends to be geared toward 100 exp per negative modifier.
4. Treasure/Valuable objects obtained = exp.

etc...

Kurald Galain
2007-11-13, 12:45 PM
The system doesn't break down; it just moves into simulating a different type of reality.
I agree that D&D doesn't break down at level 5 (arguably the play balance breaks down at some higher level, but that's a different story). However, the ruleset doesn't do a very good job at simulating reality below level five. Not that it should, mind you, it's supposed to be a game, but it's simply that modeling the real world as level 1 through 5 characters doesn't work at all well. Because, as I said, a level-1 untrained person has a decent chance of defeating a level-5 olympic champion at his sport. Assuming Einstein's abilities can be measured in the D&D skill system is an exercise in futility.


Man, doesn't 3e reward clerics for healing, people for using proficiencies, or players for Role Playing!?
Actually, no, it doesn't. This is a part I find surprising. While I recall 2E explicitly giving experience for spellcasting, having good ideas, et cetera, 3E appears to be intended to only give XP for "defeating encounters".

Of course, encounters don't have to be monsters, and defeating doesn't have to mean combat, but it does boil down to that most of the time.

On the other hand, in 2E you could technically earn a lot of experience as a wizard by simply casting your entire day's worth of spells for no good reason.



And why the hell do I need them? They're as strong as I need them to be.
Exactly.

Well, 3E suggests leveling NPCs, because according to the skill system a town blacksmith can't be a good blacksmith unless he levels up a few times (and takes skill focus). That's why they invented the Commoner class. Frankly the whole concept of a "20th-level commoner" is self-contradictory. 3E does not, to my knowledge, elaborate how these NPCs level up, but assumedly every day the blacksmith has an Encounter with his anvil, and defeats it with his hammer.



I believe one difference between 2E and 3E is that, while neither has a good system for (say) diplomacy, 2E simply says that it's up to the DM, whereas 3E pretends it has a good system for diplomacy, which on closer examination breaks down.

TheMeanDM
2007-11-13, 12:48 PM
That particular "hate" was aimed at every edition, including Original, Classic, 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, 3E, and 3.5E. And almost certainly 4E as well. D&D is and has always been an extremely combat-centered ruleset, and I expect that to be the case for quite some time to come.

And I was going to put forward some actual arguments, but then I realized you hadn't bothered to, and it seemed like a waste of effort to put together a lengthy reply to "You're 100% wrong."

Referring to my modification of Raum's statement, I believe there were two key points:

First, that 2E has few or no non-combat resolution mechanics. I suppose I should modify that to "non-dungeon-crawling resolution mechanics," since all editions have plenty of rules for moving silently and encumbrance and such. But the only resolution mechanic 2E possessed for non-combat encounters was the Charisma-based reaction table (unless you want to consider charm person a non-combat encounter resolution mechanic). This is substantially less than 3E has, and frankly no DM I ever met actually bothered to use that table. Moreover, it doesn't actually resolve anything, just sets the stage.

Second, that 2E devotes far more space to combat resolution mechanics than non-combat resolution mechanics. I don't have a 2E PHB or DMG handy, but I'll be amazed if you can find more pages dedicated to non-combat encounter resolution than to combat resolution.

Um...what are Non Weapon Proficiencies then (especially in 2nd ed)?
Are they just more "background" filler like that almighty flute-playing?

Roll 1d20 and apply any modifiers, and then roll at or under the target number.

Is that not a mechanic for resolving non-combat situations?

I suppose, though, maybe I should ask about what "non-combat" means to you?

Here is an incomplete list of non-combat (i.e. non-dungeon crawling) Non-weapon proficiencies that 2nd Ed PC's can use:

Necrology
Anatomy
Blacksmithing
Ancient History
Hypnotism
Administration
Astrology
Diplomacy
Law
Oratory
Persuasion
Sage Knowledge
Alchemy
Omen Reading
Prestidigitation
Scribe
Boating
Voice Mimicry
Dancing
Etiquette
Hearldry
Pottery
Mining
Seamanship

There are TONS of Non-Weapon proficiencies that have application outside of dungeon-crawling and are not strictly "CHA" based, as you claim.

In the 2nd Ed PHB, Chapter 5 is Proficiencies. In my PDF version, it covers pages 106 to 135. There are about 2.5 pages dealing with Weapon Proficiencies and Specialization.

So that's what 26.5 pages detailing Non-Weapon proficiencies (and Secondary skills too!).

That's just the PHB. There are also all the "Complete Books" that introduce new NWP's, as well as Skills and Powers and Spells and Magic.

Chapter 9 is "Combat". In the PDF I have it covers pages 178 to the top of 216. That's 37 pages.

So in all actuality, the Combat portion *does* cover more, but not a significant amount more.

What it comes down to, though, is your DM. A good (nay, great) DM will incorporate ALL aspects of your character in the adventure. They will present combat and non-combat challenges to you, enabling you to utilize, again, all aspects of your character.

I put away my broadsword and take out my flute. I begin to play a soothing lullabye, in an attempt to calm the dreadful dragon. Why not! :smallsmile:

AstralFire
2007-11-13, 01:05 PM
Well, 3E suggests leveling NPCs, because according to the skill system a town blacksmith can't be a good blacksmith unless he levels up a few times (and takes skill focus). That's why they invented the Commoner class. Frankly the whole concept of a "20th-level commoner" is self-contradictory. 3E does not, to my knowledge, elaborate how these NPCs level up, but assumedly every day the blacksmith has an Encounter with his anvil, and defeats it with his hammer.

Considering an encounter in 3E is anything that represents a challenge for the character, the problem with that is...?

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 01:16 PM
Considering an encounter in 3E is anything that represents a challenge for the character, the problem with that is...?that "20th level", and "commoner" are contradictory

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 01:53 PM
Actually, no, it doesn't. This is a part I find surprising. While I recall 2E explicitly giving experience for spellcasting, having good ideas, et cetera, 3E appears to be intended to only give XP for "defeating encounters".

Of course, encounters don't have to be monsters, and defeating doesn't have to mean combat, but it does boil down to that most of the time.

On the other hand, in 2E you could technically earn a lot of experience as a wizard by simply casting your entire day's worth of spells for no good reason.


Yeah, a player could try and get away with that, but I haven't met a DM that actually allowed those kind of actions (unless of course the player actively went around using his/her personal spell components to offer assistance to people of the town. City adventures are pretty fun. Think about it. A Wizard having a random encounter by seeing a piano break and threaten to fall on some guy's head? That's a non-combat experience award. A Priest who uses and donates his/her own personal spell components in order to resurrect someone - non combat award! A creative DM can get some pretty sweet games going and a creative player can and should be allowed to level up without entering combat! I consider those worth while award worthy actions).





Exactly.

Well, 3E suggests leveling NPCs, because according to the skill system a town blacksmith can't be a good blacksmith unless he levels up a few times (and takes skill focus). That's why they invented the Commoner class. Frankly the whole concept of a "20th-level commoner" is self-contradictory. 3E does not, to my knowledge, elaborate how these NPCs level up, but assumedly every day the blacksmith has an Encounter with his anvil, and defeats it with his hammer.



I believe one difference between 2E and 3E is that, while neither has a good system for (say) diplomacy, 2E simply says that it's up to the DM, whereas 3E pretends it has a good system for diplomacy, which on closer examination breaks down.


That's what I like about 2nd edition. I've seen some really good professional modules, and custom house rule modules for solving diplomatic relations.

Didn't Dragonlance have some pretty decent framework for diplomacy?

I have also found that diplomacy oriented GURPS modules are easily converted into 2nd edition because 2nd edition does give a great deal of diplomacy oriented power up to the DM, while providing a solid framework of which to base the diplomatic encounters.


I am honestly surprised and ashamed that WotC abandoned honest attempts at diplomatic and non-combat oriented award systems. It really does make me cringe.

Rutee
2007-11-13, 02:20 PM
Yeah, a player could try and get away with that, but I haven't met a DM that actually allowed those kind of actions (unless of course the player actively went around using his/her personal spell components to offer assistance to people of the town. City adventures are pretty fun. Think about it. A Wizard having a random encounter by seeing a piano break and threaten to fall on some guy's head? That's a non-combat experience award. A Priest who uses and donates his/her own personal spell components in order to resurrect someone - non combat award! A creative DM can get some pretty sweet games going and a creative player can and should be allowed to level up without entering combat! I consider those worth while award worthy actions).
None of this is impossible in 3e. At all, really.


I have also found that diplomacy oriented GURPS modules are easily converted into 2nd edition because 2nd edition does give a great deal of diplomacy oriented power up to the DM, while providing a solid framework of which to base the diplomatic encounters.


I am honestly surprised and ashamed that WotC abandoned honest attempts at diplomatic and non-combat oriented award systems. It really does make me cringe.
Why are people talking about Dungeons and Dragons and Diplomacy in the same sentence? This is what Exalted is for; Watching the Eclipse Social-combat the Realm's Dragon-blooded Retinue into obedience.

Also, you will want to bite your tongue even if that IS what you want out of DnD.

"Rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E.

From Ari Marmell's blog -- "Social encounters. For those who don't just want to RP such things without some mechanical impact, the game has rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth." "

From: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-13, 02:25 PM
Rutee- yeah, that's kind of my point. WotC has butchered AD&D beyond recognition by turning it into this combat oriented, brain dead, slug fest that the MMO Industry capitolizes on.

I swear to god, the mentality of "Kill, kill, camp, kill, rare drop OMG THIS IS UBER now I can kill X Monster X times for X drop," has almost completely ruined Role Playing, and made it Roll Playing.

:shudders:

I still can't get over the shock that WFRP (Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing) has more non-combat oriented awards than 3rd edition.

Rutee
2007-11-13, 02:34 PM
Do you not read?
1: 2e was just as bad, if not worse
2: 4e is in fact including rules for social interactions.
3: I have NEVER played or ran a game like that. My current games in fact, are nothing like an MMO. And I play MMOs all the time, I know what they're like.

horseboy
2007-11-13, 02:42 PM
How about this. How about you actually read the DMG[and DMG II]
I did read the DMG. Second worst gaming book I've ever read, and I owned Cinnabar. :smallamused:

Matthew
2007-11-13, 02:45 PM
Hah, I thought this Thread was expanding rather quickly. So, it's another edition war in the guise of a discussion about systems that aren't Dungeons & Dragons? Why do people want hard iron clad rules for social interaction? That's what I can't fathom. What's the point of making it a variant on combat?

webgem
2007-11-13, 03:03 PM
Yeah, I agree with the wondering about hardclad rules for diplomacy, I liked that about 2.0. That works in 3.5 though, you can basically throw out the skill if you want to and roleplay it out if you prefer. That is the thing about d&d as well as others, rule 0, do what the DM wants to do. It's easier to have many rules for combat, because roleplaying combat is harder...otherwise there would only be LARPGs. Do other systems have really complex systems for roleplaying these parts? Also, as far as optimization goes, I haven't played all games, but I did play some white wolf in days past, and I remembered a lot of points being put into things that would help me in combat, not in playing the flute. The issue with a regular bloke being able to beat an olympian though, that is somewhat problematic with the idea of reality. I think a smaller roll than a d20, maybe a d10 might fix that. How do other systems handle this? Finally though, I did really like the article explaining the relation to real life things. With experience things based on out of game encounters, well I suppose I'd have to see how other systems handle this, but I think the DM should handle that for the most part, or it should be based on the c r system as well. Anyway, I do like D&D a lot, because the rules it does have seem a bit more concrete. I could certainly do free form, but that just isn't exactly what I want to do. For example, I find the magic system in D&D now easy to understand, if maybe to powerful. In WW magic confused the begizes out of me!

Rutee
2007-11-13, 03:11 PM
Hah, I thought this Thread was expanding rather quickly. So, it's another edition war in the guise of a discussion about systems that aren't Dungeons & Dragons? Why do people want hard iron clad rules for social interaction? That's what I can't fathom. What's the point of making it a variant on combat?

Well, if you're going to have a socially oriented character, you're going to want the character to actually shine at it. You don't want to spend as much exp as, say, the Invincible Sword Princess, on your specialty and then just get it all handwaved. You wanna get serious screentime, and your own variant of asskicking. Social interaction as combat only works when there ARE socially inclined characters though; Kinda like how the DnD PHB makes Bards sound, for instance.

Matthew
2007-11-13, 03:16 PM
Well, if you're going to have a socially oriented character, you're going to want the character to actually shine at it. You don't want to spend as much exp as, say, the Invincible Sword Princess, on your specialty and then just get it all handwaved. You wanna get serious screentime, and your own variant of asskicking. Social interaction as combat only works when there ARE socially inclined characters though; Kinda like how the DnD PHB makes Bards sound, for instance.

Sure, I understand the whole 'not everybody is great at roleplaying' aspect, but why do we need it to immitate combat? A Modified Charisma Check is surely all that's needed. If you want it to be more complicated, that's fine, but it's a preference, not a necessity or an attribute of a good or bad system.

The game is surely more fun when Players actually have to think about what to say to convince an NPC of something, isn't it?

Fhaolan
2007-11-13, 03:17 PM
I did read the DMG. Second worst gaming book I've ever read, and I owned Cinnabar. :smallamused:

Which version? I remember reading the AD&D DMG when it first came out (what is now called 1st edition), and discovering what is possibly the worst editing job known to mankind. I swear Gygax wrote it as a stream of consciousness, with only a handwaving attempt at organization.

Funny thing is, I still use it. It was full of the most incredible triva, if you accidentally found it. :smallsmile: Where else can you find the random prostitute encounter table, the random demon visage generator, and a dissertation on matching European and Indian nobility ranks...

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 03:19 PM
Hah, I thought this Thread was expanding rather quickly. So, it's another edition war in the guise of a discussion about systems that aren't Dungeons & Dragons?Actually, I think that it's just a specific person trying to divert the topic off to that point .... again...

Rutee
2007-11-13, 03:28 PM
Sure, I understand the whole 'not everybody is great at roleplaying' aspect, but why do we need it to immitate combat? A Modified Charisma Check is surely all that's needed. If you want it to be more complicated, that's fine, but it's a preference, not a necessity or an attribute of a good or bad system.

Sigh. It's not about being good or bad at roleplaying; It's about giving the socially inclined character equal screentime. If you reduce the essence of the wheeling-and-dealing character to 'just a charisma check', but have loads and loads of rules for the fighter, this places the fighter in a more pre-eminent position; You have made this character type, within the rules, a more important person. Designing social encounters as combat only reduces roleplaying if you don't have roleplaying in combat, which the systems that /do/ have social encounters as combat encourages a lot anyway.

Not having those rules there, while encouraging social types of characters is, in fact, a sign of a bad system; You're encouraging people to be awesome in ways the system can't actually support. A Good DM may or may not be able to pull it off, but the fact remains that if the system /did/ support being awesome in the ways it encourages, it'd be a better system. It's not an issue if you don't encourage people to be cool in that way though, it's true.


The game is surely more fun when Players actually have to think about what to say to convince an NPC of something, isn't it?
You need to READ one of these systems before commenting on one, quite frankly; You don't seem to understand how it works, and I'm not inclined to explain a chapter in the rules on a forum.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 03:35 PM
The issue with a regular bloke being able to beat an olympian though, that is somewhat problematic with the idea of reality. I think a smaller roll than a d20, maybe a d10 might fix that. How do other systems handle this?GURPS uses 3d6 for skill checks, with 18 being a critical fail, 3 being a critical success. A contest between an Olympic athlete and some random person would be resolved via a quick contest of skills:
Joe Schmoe has a skill of 7 (no points invested/default with average attribute of 10).
Olympic athlete: has a skill of 20 (lots of points invested in the skill with a 16+ attribute), in addition to the normal crit chance, he gets a critical success on a 10 or under.

both roll 3d6

The Olympic guy can only lose if

Olympic guy rolls an 18 (critical fail, ex: he trips)
or
if Joe rolls a 3 (critical success) while Olympic guy rolls an 11+(not a critical success),


which is something like a 0.7% chance.

Matthew
2007-11-13, 03:35 PM
You need to READ one of these systems before commenting on one, quite frankly; You don't seem to understand how it works, and I'm not inclined to explain a chapter in the rules on a forum.

No need to be rude (or indeed condescending). If you're not inclined to explain your views on how a system works, that's fine with me. I assure you, though, I'm familiar with a good many Skill Based Systems.


Sigh. It's not about being good or bad at roleplaying; It's about giving the socially inclined character equal screentime. If you reduce the essence of the wheeling-and-dealing character to 'just a charisma check', but have loads and loads of rules for the fighter, this places the fighter in a more pre-eminent position; You have made this character type, within the rules, a more important person. Designing social encounters as combat only reduces roleplaying if you don't have roleplaying in combat, which the systems that /do/ have social encounters as combat encourages a lot anyway.

You're misunderstanding me completely. I'm not talking about reducing the interaction to a Charisma Check. I'm talking about Roleplaying out the event and when there is a problem, resolving it with a Charisma Check. Social Encounters don't need to be equivalent to Combat Encounters. They don't need tons of rules.


Not having those rules there, while encouraging social types of characters is, in fact, a sign of a bad system; You're encouraging people to be awesome in ways the system can't actually support. A Good DM may or may not be able to pull it off, but the fact remains that if the system /did/ support being awesome in the ways it encourages, it'd be a better system. It's not an issue if you don't encourage people to be cool in that way though, it's true.

That's a pretty harsh condemnation of just about every Light RPG on the market.

AstralFire
2007-11-13, 03:39 PM
that "20th level", and "commoner" are contradictory

Most PCs aren't expected to get to 20th level. Commoners certainly aren't. The average commoner never gets past level 1 or 2, and the Expert rarely past 5. Aristocrat seems to cap out on NPCs around 7 or 8, Magewright around 12, and Adept I've seen up to 17 in supplements. Note that each progressing NPC class is less commoner-type and is more competent.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 03:39 PM
Not having those rules there, while encouraging social types of characters is, in fact, a sign of a bad system; You're encouraging people to be awesome in ways the system can't actually support. A Good DM may or may not be able to pull it off, but the fact remains that if the system /did/ support being awesome in the ways it encourages, it'd be a better system. It's not an issue if you don't encourage people to be cool in that way though, it's true.That's a pretty harsh condemnation of just about every Light RPG on the market.I agree... there's absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging social type characters and then having no game mechanics to deal with resolutions for social situations beyond roleplaying and DM fiat... in fact, I prefer it to be that way.


Most PCs aren't expected to get to 20th level. Commoners certainly aren't. The average commoner never gets past level 1 or 2, and the Expert rarely past 5. Aristocrat seems to cap out on NPCs around 7 or 8, and Adept I've seen up to 17 in supplements. Note that each progressing NPC class is less commoner-type.Which is kind of the point why "20th level commoner" is contradictory...

AstralFire
2007-11-13, 03:44 PM
Which is kind of the point why "20th level commoner" is contradictory...

I'm failing to see your point.

The rules are included for it, yes. There is no example or even a hint that it should be done. The rules are included for completeness' sake since printing the rest of the table added a whole three inches. What's the problem?

Matthew
2007-11-13, 03:47 PM
I'm failing to see your point.

The rules are included for it, yes. There is no example or even a hint that it should be done. The rules are included for completeness' sake since printing the rest of the table added a whole three inches. What's the problem?
Actually, if I remember correctly, the demographic section of the DMG does make it likely, even normal, that there will be one or two Level 20 Commoners in very populous locales. In fact, it appears that a Level 28 Commoner is not beyond the realms of possibility in a randomly generated Metropolis.

Honestly, though, the Rule Books are somewhat contradictory with regard to NPCs in general.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 03:49 PM
I'm failing to see your point.

The rules are included for it, yes. There is no example or even a hint that it should be done. The rules are included for completeness' sake since printing the rest of the table added a whole three inches. What's the problem?:smallconfused:

someone made an observation:

Frankly the whole concept of a "20th-level commoner" is self-contradictory.
you asked what was wrong with that

Considering an encounter in 3E is anything that represents a challenge for the character, the problem with that is...?
I answered, pointing out the specific piece that has a problem with it:

that "20th level", and "commoner" are contradictory

That's it... there wasn't a point beyond that. I have the feeling that you're reading something into it that isn't there.

Dausuul
2007-11-13, 03:50 PM
You're misunderstanding me completely. I'm not talking about reducing the interaction to a Charisma Check. I'm talking about Roleplaying out the event and when there is a problem, resolving it with a Charisma Check. Social Encounters don't need to be equivalent to Combat Encounters. They don't need tons of rules.

The way I see it, the system should either have no social mechanics at all, or give them full development. If you want social situations to be handled purely by role-playing, with no dice/rules involved, that's great; but then social skills and attributes become traps for unwary players, inviting them to waste resources on stuff that will hardly ever actually come into play. This is why Charisma was such a popular dump stat in previous editions.

The advantage to this system is that it allows roleplaying/social situations to evolve naturally, without breaking off to roll dice. The drawback is that anyone who lacks social skills IRL, also lacks them in-game, and vice versa.

On the other hand, you can go the opposite direction and develop a full set of social mechanics, the way 4E seems to be doing. In that case, your character can be smooth and cool even if you yourself can barely talk straight, and social mechanics are actually worth paying for; but you lose some of that free-flow.

What I dislike are halfway systems. Previous editions were mostly free-form, but then they had things like the Charisma stat hanging off the side. 3E tries to have actual social mechanics, but botches them up by not giving them the kind of careful attention that was given to combat.

Rutee
2007-11-13, 03:54 PM
No need to be rude. If you're not inclined to explain your views on how a system works, that's fine with me. I assure you, though, I'm familiar with a good many Skill Based Systems.
There's nothing rude about "Your perspective on this concept very much seems to be based on a flawed understanding of how this concept works; please read the concept in action before commenting."


You're misunderstanding me completely. I'm not talking about reducing the interaction to a Charisma Check. I'm talking about Roleplaying out the event and when there is a problem, resolving it with a Charisma Check. Social Encounters don't need to be equivalent to Combat Encounters. They don't need tons of rules.
No, they don't, I agree with that. But I could just run a combat encounter through roleplay, and then when there is a problem, resolve it with a check of a character's given attribute. It really does make just as much sense; There's nothing inherently less complex to the intricacies of negotiation and the art of the deal then there is to swinging a sword. Putting them on even ground in terms of base complexity, then making it easy for a GM to handwave one or the other based on what they think'll be fun for the game is simply better, I'm sorry; It means that if the GM /does/ want to run a social encounter as a mechanically complex event, they have all the rules they need for it; If they would rather treat it as a mechanically light event, they have all they need for that.

Put another way, if you want to run a game of court intrigue and deception with DnD, there's very few options that you have with social interaction. You might as well not be using /any/ system. And that's fine, on its own; Systems don't need to be able ot handle EVERYTHING. They just need to be able to handle everything you encourage players to make.


That's a pretty harsh condemnation of just about every Light RPG on the market.
Not my intent, but a valid reading. It is better worded as "It is a negative in any system to encourage social characters then not be capable of supporting them with mechanics. It does not make or break a system, but it does make a system a bit better or worse"


I agree... there's absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging social type characters and then having no game mechanics to deal with resolutions for social situations beyond roleplaying and DM fiat... in fact, I prefer it to be that way.
Your preference works within any system; It is not a system aspect at all, because nothing stops me from doing it that way in Exalted, which DOES have rules for social combat. Just like nothing stops me from handling a melee combat that way in Exalted, or DnD, or anything else. The fact remains that it is better to have social interaction mechanics if you're going to include socially based characters.

Edit: Oh, nifty. Dausuul put the problem in more clear terms, thanks.

TheMeanDM
2007-11-13, 03:57 PM
To answer webgem's question...a little further:

Rolemaster (also called Rollmaster :) ) used percentile dice.

There was something you could do called "open ending".

Rolemaster worked on the premise that your skill was a certain # (say, 30) and you had to reach a higher target # to accomplish what you wanted (let's say, 80).

You rolled your % dice and added the result to your skill. If you totalled the number you needed (or above) you succeeded.

If you hit a certain number range (95 to 100, if I remember correctly) you "open ended" on your skill check. This meant that you got to add the # you rolled, and got to roll again, adding that further number. And yes, you could theoretically "open end" again and keep rolling.

So you could end up with something like:

30 (skill) + 95 (open end) + 100 (open end) + 50 = 275

The higher your # over the target #, the more "spectacular" your result.

But, you could also "open end" low, and get nasty, nasty critical failures.

Matthew
2007-11-13, 03:58 PM
The way I see it, the system should either have no social mechanics at all, or give them full development. If you want social situations to be handled purely by role-playing, with no dice/rules involved, that's great; but then social skills and attributes become traps for unwary players, inviting them to waste resources on stuff that will hardly ever actually come into play. This is why Charisma was such a popular dump stat in previous editions.

The advantage to this system is that it allows roleplaying/social situations to evolve naturally, without breaking off to roll dice. The drawback is that anyone who lacks social skills IRL, also lacks them in-game, and vice versa.

On the other hand, you can go the opposite direction and develop a full set of social mechanics, the way 4E seems to be doing. In that case, your character can be smooth and cool even if you yourself can barely talk straight, and social mechanics are actually worth paying for; but you lose some of that free-flow.

What I dislike are halfway systems. Previous editions were mostly free-form, but then they had things like the Charisma stat hanging off the side. 3E tries to have actual social mechanics, but botches them up by not giving them the kind of careful attention that was given to combat.

That seems a bit 'all or nothing', which I suppose is your point, but I can't say I agree with it. The way I see it, a Charisma Check just gives you an 'out' for when you don't want to Roleplay a situation out or need to create a 'probability' moment.


There's nothing rude about "Your perspective on this concept very much seems to be based on a flawed understanding of how this concept works; please read the concept in action before commenting."

Well, that wouldn't be rude, but the way you put it certainly was. Capitalising the word READ is pretty much an insult in itself, but maybe I'm just over sensitive.


No, they don't, I agree with that. But I could just run a combat encounter through roleplay, and then when there is a problem, resolve it with a check of a character's given attribute. It really does make just as much sense;

Yes, I agree, but just because you have extensive rules for combat doesn't mean you need extensive rules for everything else. It does create an uneven system, but I don't see that as undesirable.


There's nothing inherently less complex to the intricacies of negotiation and the art of the deal then there is to swinging a sword. Putting them on even ground in terms of base complexity, then making it easy for a GM to handwave one or the other based on what they think'll be fun for the game is simply better, I'm sorry; It means that if the GM /does/ want to run a social encounter as a mechanically complex event, they have all the rules they need for it; If they would rather treat it as a mechanically light event, they have all they need for that.

I'm not quite following you here. Why would you want rules that you aren't going to use? That's not better, that's just more comprehensive, which is fine, but not an absolute statement of 'good' or 'bad' (except in that it appeals to a broader audience).


Put another way, if you want to run a game of court intrigue and deception with DnD, there's very few options that you have with social interaction. You might as well not be using /any/ system. And that's fine, on its own; Systems don't need to be able ot handle EVERYTHING. They just need to be able to handle everything you encourage players to make.

Sure, but systems don't need to be able to handle everything to the same degree either. I might seek to put a lot of emphasis on combat, but not have complicated combat rules.


Not my intent, but a valid reading. It is better worded as "It is a negative in any system to encourage social characters then not be capable of supporting them with mechanics. It does not make or break a system, but it does make a system a bit better or worse"

Perhaps, but then D&D has only with this edition decided to really 'encourage' social characters and then barely at all.


Your preference works within any system; It is not a system aspect at all, because nothing stops me from doing it that way in Exalted, which DOES have rules for social combat. Just like nothing stops me from handling a melee combat that way in Exalted, or DnD, or anything else. The fact remains that it is better to have social interaction mechanics if you're going to include socially based characters.

It is actually a system preference to not want (what I may consider)superfluous rules. I'm certainly not arguing that you can't simply ignore or modify rules to have a game play out exactly like another, but that isn't a comment on how the system works.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 04:06 PM
Your preference works within any system;No, actually it doesn't... my preferece is there not to be any rules for social situations beyond, or (failing that) to have as little as possible exist in the system that I'm playing, not just to ignore the ones that are there.

People tend to become dependent on rules and I don't see that as a good thing as all; they even go as far as to claim "you're not playing <system X>" when you start disregarding the holy RAW.


The fact remains that it is better to have social interaction mechanics if you're going to include socially based characters.Nope, that's not a fact... that's an opinion; I happen to have the opposite opinion: that it's best to not have any social interaction mechanics in a system beyond DM fiat and roleplaying.

sure, there are people who want there to be rules to cover every possible situation. It's a pretty large portion of the gaming community. That doesn't mean that it's the only correct way to design a system.... it's just their preference.

Dausuul
2007-11-13, 04:08 PM
That seems a bit 'all or nothing', which I suppose is your point, but I can't say I agree with it. The way I see it, a Charisma Check just gives you an 'out' for when you don't want to Roleplay a situation out or need to create a 'probability' moment.

Fair enough, and I see why you like that. My problem is that in that case you need a Charisma stat or something like it, and it's almost impossible to balance Charisma against the "hard" stats like Strength and Dexterity whose benefits are clearly defined.

It occurs to me that one solution would be to give Charisma "hard" benefits, the way it has in 3E; sorcerors use it for spells, paladins use it for divine grace, bards use it for... whatever it is bards do*, et cetera. Then go with a mostly-free-form system such as you're advocating. Charisma remains useful as the backup in social situations, but it can also be balanced as part of the "hard" rules.

*Yeah, bards are actually a pretty decent class once you learn how they work, but making fun of them is a long-standing tradition.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 04:13 PM
Fair enough, and I see why you like that. My problem is that in that case you need a Charisma stat or something like it, and it's almost impossible to balance Charisma against the "hard" stats like Strength and Dexterity whose benefits are clearly defined. I don't see any problem with charisma being unbalanced against a hard stat, or being loosely defined.

Rutee
2007-11-13, 04:15 PM
No, actually it doesn't... my preferece is there not to be any rules for social situations beyond, or (failing that) to have as little as possible exist in the system that I'm playing, not just to ignore the ones that are there.

People tend to become dependent on rules and I don't see that as a good thing as all; they even go as far as to claim "you're not playing <system X>" when you start disregarding the holy RAW.
Rule no. 1 of every single system ever: Any rule you as GM don't want to follow doesn't have to be there. As long as the entire, sum total purpose of the system is not social encounters, you can run the system without using the system's rules for social encounters. Your preference works in any system, because I have never HEARD of a system where the sum and total purpose thereof is social encounters.


Nope, that's not a fact... that's an opinion; I happen to have the opposite opinion: that it's best to not have any social interaction mechanics in a system beyond DM fiat and roleplaying.
See, I'm fine with 0 Social Interaction mechanics. What I'm saying is bad is having social mechanics (In DnD: Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, some low level spells, related feats thereof, Charisma) and then not have rules for social encounters. You encourage people to waste resources on something you planned on handling solely through roleplay anyway.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-11-13, 04:19 PM
The game is surely more fun when Players actually have to think about what to say to convince an NPC of something, isn't it?

Didn't the excerpt say something along the line of:

Player 1: Say something, make a roll
NPC 1: Reacts according to what is said and what is rolled
repeat until satisfied

The PC still has to say something. I'm not sure how this could be understood as 'PCs will no longer have to talk to NPCs, only roll'.

It just seems like alot of 4th ed. is being blown out of proportion.

As for the topic at hand, I've played a ton of RPGs, and they all have their flaws. To me, it just seems like D&D has the fewest. From my personal experience:

Paladium: Character creation has a lot of variables and number crunching. You have to pick a variety of secondary skills that usually add up to '+2 to physical strength' or '+2 roll with punch/fall' (and who doesn't take boxing to gain an extra action each round?). Once you've selected all your skills, you have alot more numberwork to do. Also, combat was almost always bogged down, especially with 'broken' mechanics like auto-dodge... Also, since it was dirt easy to hit anything, it was almost always best to go for head shots. Combat was usually: I keep 2 actions to dodge/parry, and make 3 attacks. I hit with 2 of them. The enemy dodged your first attack and counter-attacks with his action. I use one of my dodge actions and fail, taking damage. The enemy also managed to dodge your second attack and counter-attacks again. I roll my dodge and succeed. Ummm, who's turn is it again?

GURPS: The flaw system seems flawed (nyuk nyuk nyuk :smallbiggrin: ). I took a flaw that I though would be nice and quirky (Indecisive I think it was), and for a return of 5 points (which isn't much), my character was nigh-useless. Someone else in the party took the flaw 'weak bite' for 2 points, and got a 100% profit for his flaw. After a lengthy character creation (lots of numbers and choices to make, with no real indication of how good a character I'll be in the end), we got in to a bar fight - 4 of us vs. 3 thugs - that lasted 4 hours out of game, and we mainly just discovered that the quarterstaff is the ultimate weapon since it has reach, excellent damage, and a hefty bonus to parry.

WoD: This system seemed much better at the 'fluff' aspect of gaming. I had a werewolf with a very neat backstory and I was quite proud of him. Problem was, I was one of 2 players that was OK with the large amount of d10s rolled, while the 3 other players couldn't stand it. Plus, combat took exceedingly long since any damage I could dish out, the bad guys could soak up. I've never spent so many 'rounds' doing nothing beneficial (and I was quite combat capable to boot). I haven't played the new edition of WoD, though.

CoC: CoC was actually quite satisfying. It was quite rules-lite, so it allowed for alot of possibilities, and the players are 'squishy' enough that they always have to be careful about what's behind the next corner. Combat is quick in of itself, it usually bogged down when a player had to decide what to do for the round. One of the funner systems I've played. Not really good at medieval fantasy, mind you, and it's definately not everybody's cup of tea.

I could also analyze my experiences with Toon, Paranoia, and a few others.

Either way, every system has its flaws. It all boils down to individual preference. All in all, I D&D doesn't seem to bog down too much, unless the DM is unfamiliar with grapple rules (and no one else at the table is), but in that case, the group is likely just beginning, and every system has a learning curve.

As for grapple checks and the Marilith, it's not too difficult to decipher:
Improved grab ONLY works with the tail. If the marilith triggers the ability, it has to choose whether to conduct the grapple normally, or take a -20 on the grapple check to be considered 'not grappled' while grappling.
If it chooses the former, then it comences regular grappling rules. It has +16 BaB, which allows for 4 grapple actions (each at BaB plus strength, so its 4 grapple actions are at +29/+24/+19/+14). Damage is equal to 8d6+22 plus the 'lose consciousness' ability in the constrict entry.
If it chooses the latter, then its grapple check is +9, but it can still threaten, attack, etc... with its remaining attacks, while grappling with its tail. Since the tail's the appendage doing the grappling, it doesn't get iterative attacks, but still deals 8d6+22 plus ability on a successful 'Damage your opponent' attempt.

I'm pretty sure this all adds up, let me know if anything doesn't make sense. This was all taken with a quick glance at the PhB and the MM.

Arbitrarity
2007-11-13, 04:25 PM
I did read the DMG. Second worst gaming book I've ever read, and I owned Cinnabar. :smallamused:

Limiting your experience of horrible RPG books, you didn't read the book that must not be mentioned in this forum.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 04:28 PM
Rule no. 1 of every single system ever: Any rule you as GM don't want to follow doesn't have to be there. As long as the entire, sum total purpose of the system is not social encounters, you can run the system without using the system's rules for social encounters. Your preference works in any system, because I have never HEARD of a system where the sum and total purpose thereof is social encounters.If I'm playing rather than DMing, then flexing rule 0 to make the system not have social interaction rules isn't an option. And finding a group for a system with no (or extremely weakly) defined social interaction rules is much easier than finding one that is being houseruled the way that I prefer.

And even if I am DMing, houseruling them away does not remove them from the system. If you invite people to play a game in system X, and system X has a complicated social interaction ruleset, then people expect to use it.

I prefer it to be non-existent from the beginning...


See, I'm fine with 0 Social Interaction mechanics. What I'm saying is bad is having social mechanics (In DnD: Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, some low level spells, related feats thereof, Charisma) and then not have rules for social encounters. You encourage people to waste resources on something you planned on handling solely through roleplay anyway.you said before that not having social interaction mechanics was bad: "Not having those rules there, while encouraging social types of characters is, in fact, a sign of a bad system" ... which is specifically what I was disagreeing with.

Besides that, if the players know that the social interaction is handled strictly by roleplaying and DM fiat (as in, that's what the rulebook says it's handled by rather than being houseruled away, like I prefer) then I fail to see how they are being encouraged to waste resources in any way.

Raum
2007-11-13, 04:33 PM
Hah, I thought this Thread was expanding rather quickly. So, it's another edition war in the guise of a discussion about systems that aren't Dungeons & Dragons? Why do people want hard iron clad rules for social interaction? That's what I can't fathom. What's the point of making it a variant on combat?I don't think everyone wants rules for social interaction, I certainly don't. In fact I could do with fewer rules for combat. What I dislike about D&D's emphasis on combat vs non-combat is how the DMG suggests you award experience. Don't have the books with me so can't look it up now, but the suggestions for roleplaying and goal driven experience are sparse compared to encounter driven experience awards.

Second edition was different than third, but not really better. Yes, you received experience for gold aquired and spells applied usefully...but how did you aquire said gold or cast the spells? In combat more often than not. I prefer the goal driven experience of games like Shadowrun. You get experience (karma) for accomplishing your goals whether you killed hundreds of corporate wageslaves or no one at all. With the game's lethality and the cost of munitions there was even incentive to find alternative methods of accomplishing your goals. D&D's meme is to win more encounters in order to gain both loot and experience. Avoiding an encounter is discouraged by the game mechanics.


Not having those rules there, while encouraging social types of characters is, in fact, a sign of a bad system; You're encouraging people to be awesome in ways the system can't actually support. A Good DM may or may not be able to pull it off, but the fact remains that if the system /did/ support being awesome in the ways it encourages, it'd be a better system. It's not an issue if you don't encourage people to be cool in that way though, it's true.More rules does not equate to a better system. Nor does a lack of resolution mechanics discourage roleplaying or social conflict. It's the lack of positive feedback (experience / karma / gold / whatever) which discourages roleplaying. If you want to encourage a behavior in a game, reward it. D&D rewards combat. So does Exalted, they've just expanded the definition of combat to include 'social combat.'


You need to READ one of these systems before commenting on one, quite frankly; You don't seem to understand how it works, and I'm not inclined to explain a chapter in the rules on a forum.Should this be restated as "take my word for it just because"? An example might help get your point across.

Matthew
2007-11-13, 04:40 PM
Fair enough, and I see why you like that. My problem is that in that case you need a Charisma stat or something like it, and it's almost impossible to balance Charisma against the "hard" stats like Strength and Dexterity whose benefits are clearly defined.

It occurs to me that one solution would be to give Charisma "hard" benefits, the way it has in 3E; sorcerors use it for spells, paladins use it for divine grace, bards use it for... whatever it is bards do*, et cetera. Then go with a mostly-free-form system such as you're advocating. Charisma remains useful as the backup in social situations, but it can also be balanced as part of the "hard" rules.

There were previously hard benefits to Charisma, but when the game shifted emphasis from 'War Parties' to 'Small Parties', those benefits were reduced. Henchmen and Loyalty Bonus used to be a more important part of the game. Then, of course, there's Reaction Adjustment. At the outset of an Encounter Charisma could make the difference between whether combat occurred or not. Of course, if you're just hacking your way through a dungeon single handed, Charisma is unimportant. I like the approach where all Attributes contribute to saving Throws.


Rule no. 1 of every single system ever: Any rule you as GM don't want to follow doesn't have to be there. As long as the entire, sum total purpose of the system is not social encounters, you can run the system without using the system's rules for social encounters. Your preference works in any system, because I have never HEARD of a system where the sum and total purpose thereof is social encounters.

That's not a system, that's a set of Optional Rules, which is fine, but not the same thing. I could take any game and use the D&D rules, but it wouldn't be the same game anymore. The basic disconnect here appears to be that you are more comfortable taking a Rules Heavy Game and removing parts, whilst I am more comfortable taking a Rules Light Game and building it up. These aren't absolutes, these are just preferences.
As Jayabalard indicates, though, it is important when you're trying to get a group together or participating in game for the actual system to be the one you and they want to play.


See, I'm fine with 0 Social Interaction mechanics. What I'm saying is bad is having social mechanics (In DnD: Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, some low level spells, related feats thereof, Charisma) and then not have rules for social encounters. You encourage people to waste resources on something you planned on handling solely through roleplay anyway.

Heh, I think the whole idea of 'Character Resources' is probably where this debate begins and ends. If you have a lot of Character 'Building Points' this is a problem, if there are virtually none, it's not.


Didn't the excerpt say something along the line of:

Player 1: Say something, make a roll
NPC 1: Reacts according to what is said and what is rolled
repeat until satisfied

The PC still has to say something. I'm not sure how this could be understood as 'PCs will no longer have to talk to NPCs, only roll'.

It just seems like alot of 4th ed. is being blown out of proportion.

No idea, I don't think I'm discussing 4e at all.


CoC: CoC was actually quite satisfying. It was quite rules-lite, so it allowed for alot of possibilities, and the players are 'squishy' enough that they always have to be careful about what's behind the next corner. Combat is quick in of itself, it usually bogged down when a player had to decide what to do for the round. One of the funner systems I've played. Not really good at medieval fantasy, mind you, and it's definately not everybody's cup of tea.

Is this Call of the Cthulu?


Second edition was different than third, but not really better. Yes, you received experience for gold aquired and spells applied usefully...but how did you aquire said gold or cast the spells? In combat more often than not. I prefer the goal driven experience of games like Shadowrun. You get experience (karma) for accomplishing your goals whether you killed hundreds of corporate wageslaves or no one at all. With the game's lethality and the cost of munitions there was even incentive to find alternative methods of accomplishing your goals. D&D's meme is to win more encounters in order to gain both loot and experience. Avoiding an encounter is discouraged by the game mechanics.

I think that was actually 1e that worked that way. You could potentially get a lot more experience for story awards in 2e than you could from combat or loot (depending on which rules were instituted, of course).

Rutee
2007-11-13, 04:48 PM
Yes, I agree, but just because you have extensive rules for combat doesn't mean you need extensive rules for everything else. It does create an uneven system, but I don't see that as undesirable.
Well, an uneven system is bad if you're encouraging people to make whatever's getting screwed. It's the same reason combat balance is important; You want everyone there to have fun, but it's harder if someone can do their own job and someone else in the party's, without being worse at their own job. If you're not encouraging people to make what you're not supporting, there's not an issue.


I'm not quite following you here. Why would you want rules that you aren't going to use? That's not better, that's just more comprehensive, which is fine, but not an absolute statement of 'good' or 'bad' (except in that it appeals to a broader audience).
Well, it actually is a more absolute statement for the game to be good for both me and, say, Bob. The game doesn't necessarily suit me better for having rules I won't use, but it might suit both me and Bob; Further, having those extra rules there doesn't impede on my experience, if I'm being rational. At worst, someone else will use those rules in a game I'm playing in, and they'll get a different moment to shine in, just like I presumably got mine.


It is actually a system preference to not want (what I may consider)superfluous rules. I'm certainly not arguing that you can't simply ignore or modify rules to have a game play out exactly like another, but that isn't a comment on how the system works.
Well, dropping an aspect doesn't require me to change the entire system. Maybe I don't want social combat, but I just plain prefer how Exalted does its regular combat. I'm not talking about modifying the entire system, merely dropping a system aspect you don't plan to use. Same way most people ignore what little DnD has for its social mechanics. It's a perfectly valid way to play, you just make sure your players know ahead of time; You really don't want someone to make a character who sucks at everything you plan on actually focusing on in-game.


If I'm playing rather than DMing, then flexing rule 0 to make the system not have social interaction rules isn't an option. And even if I am DMing, houseruling them away does not remove them from the system. If you invite people to play a game in system X, and system X has a complicated social interaction ruleset, then people expect to use it.
As to people expecting it: Yes, they do. And if they decide, after hearing you say, "I don't want to deal with that, and just plan on handling it in roleplay," not to play your game, what makes you think that they would have played a different system that has it, within its rules, that you handle social interactions that way? They were clearly looking for a game where the social interactions would be just as important as any other type. If you never plan on using rules for a given set of circumstances, then they flatly should not matter for you within a system.

As to playing: If you're playing, well, I just can't see a complaint. The point is that the system can handle both. Player and GM goals clashing is always a problem, and I don't see it as a negative to have another place where goals can clash, if it also means there's another place where more people can have their goals succeed.


you said before that not having social interaction mechanics was bad: "Not having those rules there, while encouraging social types of characters is, in fact, a sign of a bad system" ... which is specifically what I was disagreeing with.

Besides that, if the players know that the social interaction is handled strictly by roleplaying and DM fiat (as in, that's what the rulebook says it's handled by rather than being houseruled away, like I prefer) then I fail to see how they are being encouraged to waste resources in any way.
Within the context of encouraging a social-based character, I mind if you have social mechanics, yes. And that was the established context. Have no social rules, if you're not going to encourage people to make characters that need them.

Who cares if it's houseruled? The DM's going to look over your character before the game starts, and if they KNOW they're not going to run a game that way, they can tell the person building a socialite "Oh hay, no, that won't work, here's why", and let you remake your character, if they're irresponsible enough to wait til then to do it. As long as the GM makes sure you know before character creation, there are no wasted resources, regardless of RAW or Houserule. That applies to anything.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-11-13, 05:02 PM
No idea, I don't think I'm discussing 4e at all.

K, my bad. I probably misread/misinterperated something.


Is this Call of the Cthulu?

Yeah, that's the one. There was always this one player that put A LOT of thought into everything his character did, and it made combat flow unevenly for the rest of the players, who usually either figured it out when it wasn't their turn, or did more spur of the moment actions. It was nothing overly detrimental and we all had fun regardless.


I think that was actually 1e that worked that way. You could potentially get a lot more experience for story awards in 2e than you could from combat or loot (depending on which rules were instituted, of course).

I can't remember if Saga edition works like that, but in the Star Wars d20 it was similar. There was no XP awarded for defeating enemies. It was more situation based, like 'you sliced a computer and found the access codes -> 250 xp' or, 'you all talked your way past security instead of blasting them and alerting the entire complex, so i'll give the party 750 xp', or 'you found out who was behind the nefarious assassination plot -> 1000 xp', and they gave guidelines on how to appropriately dole out XP depending on the situation.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 05:04 PM
As to people expecting it: Yes, they do. And if they decide, after hearing you say, "I don't want to deal with that, and just plan on handling it in roleplay," not to play your game, what makes you think that they would have played a different system that has it, within its rules, that you handle social interactions that way? They were clearly looking for a game where the social interactions would be just as important as any other type. If you never plan on using rules for a given set of circumstances, then they flatly should not matter for you within a system.This involves wasting both of our times, as I have to clearly define what rules are being removed/discarded, and I have to spend time communicating that to other people. Especially since I'm going to be playing in a rules lite environment to start with, I'd prefer to start off with a rules lite system. Like I've said elsewhere, this is a matter of preference.

Just because your preference is to have a rules heavy game and pare it down doesn't make it a better system. It doesn't make a rules lite system (in this case, specifically one that doesn't have clearly defined social interaction rules) a bad system. It just makes it your preference.


As to playing: If you're playing, well, I just can't see a complaint.It's not an option for me to change the rules when I'm playing; your suggestion to use rule 0 (though you call it rule 1) is not a valid suggestion in this case. Finding someone who is running a game using a rules heavy system with the right type of houseruling so that I'd enjoy the game (ie, social rules lite among other things) is much harder than finding someone running a game in a rules lite system.... which is one of the reasons why I prefer systems themselves that have no (or extremely weakly defined) social interaction rules.

Edit for your edit:

Within the context of encouraging a social-based character, I mind if you have social mechanics, yes. And that was the established context. Have no social rules, if you're not going to encourage people to make characters that need them.Social interaction mechanics are not required for running social-based characters. I prefer running social based characters without mechanics beyond roleplaying DM fiat.


Who cares if it's houseruled? The DM's going to look over your character before the game starts, and if they KNOW they're not going to run a game that way, they can tell the person building a socialite "Oh hay, no, that won't work, here's why", and let you remake your character, if they're irresponsible enough to wait til then to do it. As long as the GM makes sure you know before character creation, there are no wasted resources, regardless of RAW or Houserule. That applies to anything.I don't understand the relevance of this to what you quoted.

if you have charisma, and social skills as part of the game system and you know that social interaction is decided by roleplaying and DM fiat and not by some hard and fast set of rules using these things, then where exactly are the wasted resources that you keep mentioning?

Matthew
2007-11-13, 05:07 PM
Well, an uneven system is bad if you're encouraging people to make whatever's getting screwed. It's the same reason combat balance is important; You want everyone there to have fun, but it's harder if someone can do their own job and someone else in the party's, without being worse at their own job. If you're not encouraging people to make what you're not supporting, there's not an issue.

This is true if there is a lot of differentiation within a party. Ideally, I think that each character should be able to contribute to just about every element of play, which removes a lot of the worry about whether the system is even. Fighters, for instance, ought to have social skills, stealth and perception. It's one of those things that people are always complaining about with 3e.


Well, it actually is a more absolute statement for the game to be good for both me and, say, Bob. The game doesn't necessarily suit me better for having rules I won't use, but it might suit both me and Bob; Further, having those extra rules there doesn't impede on my experience, if I'm being rational. At worst, someone else will use those rules in a game I'm playing in, and they'll get a different moment to shine in, just like I presumably got mine.

Well, dropping an aspect doesn't require me to change the entire system. Maybe I don't want social combat, but I just plain prefer how Exalted does its regular combat. I'm not talking about modifying the entire system, merely dropping a system aspect you don't plan to use. Same way most people ignore what little DnD has for its social mechanics. It's a perfectly valid way to play, you just make sure your players know ahead of time; You really don't want someone to make a character who sucks at everything you plan on actually focusing on in-game.

Well, it may if you're a player. If the DM runs the game with the rules and you don't like them, which is kind of the point of having and playing a system that you like as written. That was one of the main criticisms of Dungeons & Dragons 2e, that there were just way too many ways to play the game.

Rutee
2007-11-13, 05:11 PM
This involves wasting both of our times, as I have to clearly define what rules are being removed/discarded, and I have to spend time communicating that to other people. Especially since I'm going to be playing in a rules lite environment to start with, I'd prefer to start off with a rules lite system. Like I've said elsewhere, this is a matter of preference.
"I'm not running social combat, so I suggest not taking anything related to it" is perhaps 10 seconds of your time. It's not about rules heavy, per se. The rules for it don't need to be any more or less complex then combat. It's about a feature of the system. It's like.. geez. I don't call my computer more difficult to use for having Firefox, MS Word and MS Excel. It gives me more options and things I can do with it, and in an abstract sense, makes it more complex, but in practice, having Excel and never using it is not any more complex then not having Excel.


This is true if there is a lot of differentiation within a party. Ideally, I think that each character should be able to contribute to just about every element of play, which removes a lot of the worry about whether the system is even. Fighters, for instance, ought to have social skills, stealth and perception. It's one of those things that people are always complaining about with 3e.
Well, typically, people will specialize. Even if you have the capability to dip into everything, and are encouraged to make a well rounded character, what you will end up doing (and this isn't a bad thing!) is having a clearly dominant focus, while being clearly capable at other things. Most Exalted and Scions, for instance, have more then enough points to be good at literally everything, but they'll be better at something. One may be a Melee Invincible Sword Princess, and be a capable socialite and reasonably intelligent, one may make a super genius, still retain a fairly good command of social skills, and an understanding of how to fight. While I definitely prefer the ability to make well rounded characters, every 'quarter' of that 'circle' that the character is well rounded on needs to still be useful, unless you actively discourage people from specializing in those less useful 'quarters' (Which is fine!).


It's not an option for me to change the rules when I'm playing; your suggestion to use rule 0 (though you call it rule 1) is not a valid suggestion in this case. Finding someone who is running a game using a rules heavy system with the right type of houseruling so that I'd enjoy the game (ie, social rules lite among other things) is much harder than finding someone running a game in a rules lite system.... which is one of the reasons why I prefer systems themselves that have no (or extremely weakly defined) social interaction rules.
I agree, it isn't an option to use that rule (I gotcha, on what Rule 0 is.) The thing is, I consider it a reasonable expectation that if the GM is using that rule, someone besides themselves wanted to use it too. If other people did indeed want to use those rules, odds are, they have a character who was built to use them; Both the player(s) and the GM decided it'd be fun to have this aspect. That's also not system dependent; Maybe they would have preferred adding such rules onto DnD, or maybe they picked that system because it has those rules.

I'm not asking you to like it, or sing the praises of such a thing, mind. What I /am/ saying is that if those players (GM inclusive; The GM is really just the first among equals, after all) wanted to use those rules, then RL social rules apply; It's more considerate to let them have that aspect of the game, provided that you as a player still have aspects of the game you enjoy. Feel free to voice your dislike (Because nobody's psychic, and if you don't mention it, it might not be made known), and let the GM do his best to make everyone happy.

From what I am drawing from your posts, you seem to place the blame for this squarely on the system; I, in turn, am placing it on the players. The rules wouldn't exist at all if people didn't think their game needed it (The concept didn't come out of nowhere, and most game designers /play/ games, in the tabletop RPG industry), and they still wouldn't be used in your game if the players of your game collectively thought it was a bad idea. You may indeed be left the odd man out, and that does always suck, I'll agree.. but it's give and take. Maybe that person made a socialite because combat simply isn't fun for them, or because they thought they'd have more fun, or what have you, and they wouldn't be having fun if they were just supposed to handwave the complexities of a social encounter. It genuinely is better though, for the system to be fully capable of supporting you both; You're just experiencing the magic that we call compromise, and as we all know, compromise leaves everybody unhappy :P


Well, it may if you're a player. If the DM runs the game with the rules and you don't like them, which is kind of the point of having and playing a system that you like as written. That was one of the main criticisms of Dungeons & Dragons 2e, that there were just way too many ways to play the game.
See above; If the GM is using the rules, I consider it a reasonable expectation for more people then just the GM to be enjoying it, and preferring it that way.

Dausuul
2007-11-13, 05:25 PM
This is true if there is a lot of differentiation within a party. Ideally, I think that each character should be able to contribute to just about every element of play, which removes a lot of the worry about whether the system is even. Fighters, for instance, ought to have social skills, stealth and perception. It's one of those things that people are always complaining about with 3e.

With this I very strongly agree. There should rarely be a time when one player is sitting around twiddling his or her thumbs. Even worse are the occasions when all the players but one are sitting around twiddling (the typical case being when the rogue is off scouting ahead).

Fighters should not be as good at social interaction as bards, just as bards should not be as good at combat as fighters, but each should have something to contribute in both situations. For instance, the fighter might be able to boost the bard's credibility by standing there and looking like a tough, well-trained bodyguard that only a person of importance could afford to hire.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 05:30 PM
"I'm not running social combat, so I suggest not taking anything related to it" is perhaps 10 seconds of your time. It's not about rules heavy, per se. The rules for it don't need to be any more or less complex then combat. It's about a feature of the system. It's like.. geez. I don't call my computer more difficult to use for having Firefox, MS Word and MS Excel. It gives me more options and things I can do with it, and in an abstract sense, makes it more complex, but in practice, having Excel and never using it is not any more complex then not having Excel.sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "running social combat" ... can you be a little clearer about what exactly you are changing from the RAW? What about X, Y and Z.

10 seconds is a gross underestimate; it would take me much longer to compile a list of what rules have been changed, let alone communicate that to players (who either have to waste time reading it, or listening to it).

If we meet to create characters and whatnot and half the group decides they don't want to play since I'm making a major change to the system so that we don't have enough for a viable campaign, we've all wasted an entire night.

All in all, it's far easier to just start from not having those rules; noone has any preconceptions about what the game is about, noone wastes time getting involved with the group only to find out that I've cut something and they're not willing to play without it.


Fast Edit: Don't respond to this yet, I'm adding to itif you're going to take that long to edit, you're probably better off double checking to see if anyone has responded, and if they have, just add another post; you got 2 replies while editing. THat's just friendly advice (I have a bad habit of editing myself, so I usually try and check to see if there are any responses and if my edits were additons I just add a new post instead)


From what I am drawing from your posts, you seem to place the blame for this squarely on the system; Sorry, but I don't know what blame you're talking about. I'm just flatly disagreeing with you stating your preference as an absolute. I understand, you prefer systems with rules that you don't use. I prefer systems that are loose frameworks, and if I need more rules I'll add them; I don't see any particular virtue in having extra rules (variants rules excepted, since that turns a system into more of a framework), and I completely disagree with the idea that having less rules, in and of itself, makes a system worse in any way.


It genuinely is better though, for the system to be fully capable of supporting you both; You're just experiencing the magic that we call compromise, and as we all know, compromise leaves everybody unhappy :PThis is your pereference only; it does not make a system better, or worse (which was the claim that I was disagreeing with).

Systems without hard and fast social interaction rules are fully capable of supporting both. Lack of social interaction rules in systems that highly encourage people to create social based classes are not bad systems. Having hard and fast rules for social interaction does not make a system a better system than one that does not; it just makes it a more rules heavy system.

Rutee
2007-11-13, 05:45 PM
sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "running social combat" ... can you be a little clearer about what exactly you are changing from the RAW? What about X, Y and Z. 10 seconds is a gross underestimate.
I was quite unequivocal, within the two rulesets I'm using for my primary example; Exalted and Scion both call Social Encounters that, and they also say within the rules that a GM can pare them off if they don't need them (Relevance below). You would have to be being obtuse to misunderstand that within the context of those games. 10 seconds may be an underestimation, but it should be clear that that was hyperbole, and it wasn't nearly as gross as you're laying it out to be.


All in all, it's far easier to just start from not having those rules; noone has any preconceptions about what the game is about, noone wastes time getting involved with the group only to find out that I've cut something and they're not willing to play without it.

If they weren't willing to play without it, they very clearly looking for that in their game.

Here's a longer example.
<Random Person, to GM> Hey, can I play in your game of Exalted.
<GM> Sure, what'd you have in mind?
<Random PErson> Hm, maybe an Eclipse Solar?
<GM> Ooo, uh, I kinda wanna not-use-the-social-combat-rules..
<Random Person> Aw, alright. Have fun then!

<Random Person> Whatcha playing?
<GM> DnD. Interested?
<Random Person> Nah, that's okay. Have fun!

If RP leaves because of no social combat, when they were clearly looking for that, then they probably weren't going to display an iota of interest in a system that didn't have those rules to begin with, is my outlook. While it gives players and your GM something else to disagree about, potentially, having those rules there also mean there's something else you can make a major aspect of the game, which broadens your options without actually being more complex (Unless that extra option is itself more complex).


if you're going to take that long to edit, you're probably better off double checking to see if anyone has responded, and if they have, just add another post.
You might be right. I'm simply quite used to Double Posts being considerred bad.

Matthew
2007-11-13, 05:51 PM
Well, typically, people will specialize. Even if you have the capability to dip into everything, and are encouraged to make a well rounded character, what you will end up doing (and this isn't a bad thing!) is having a clearly dominant focus, while being clearly capable at other things. Most Exalted and Scions, for instance, have more then enough points to be good at literally everything, but they'll be better at something. One may be a Melee Invincible Sword Princess, and be a capable socialite and reasonably intelligent, one may make a super genius, still retain a fairly good command of social skills, and an understanding of how to fight. While I definitely prefer the ability to make well rounded characters, every 'quarter' of that 'circle' that the character is well rounded on needs to still be useful, unless you actively discourage people from specializing in those less useful 'quarters' (Which is fine!).

I think this is a fair comment for games where you 'build' a character and the build *really* matters, but I think that's why those sorts of games tend to have quite detailed rules for everything. In Class based Archetype play where Attribute spreads don't go very high in either direction, there isn't much customisation to do, so there isn't much room for specialisation. That all turns on playstyle, though, and would require a fairly detailed examination of various games and their potential to explain (which I'm willing to attempt, but not sure I could do justice to).


See above; If the GM is using the rules, I consider it a reasonable expectation for more people then just the GM to be enjoying it, and preferring it that way.

Sure, but that doesn't make the system better or worse, it just creates preferences. It's the difference between games that are designed to be 'universal' by having lots of detailed rules and those that are designed to be 'universal' by having only general rules. A game can be a mix of both approaches and still work fine. How Character Building Resources interact with that may create problems, though. (It's why so many Old School players don't like the AD&D None Weapon Proficiency System).

Let's see if I can explain a bit more thoroughly. If you take the four typical Character Classes in previous editions, Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Wizard and look at them from a Dungeon exploration standpoint, they all have something to contribute and are 'built' with that in mind.
Once you start adding on Skill Systems and 'Feats' that can alter any aspect of the Character and tie that to their other abilities you end up with a system where it is desirable for these aspects to matter and make a difference for 'party success'. If however, these systems are independent of the core of the class, don't require 'Build points' and don't really matter that much, the uneveness of the system doesn't matter.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 05:54 PM
I was quite unequivocal, within the two rulesets I'm using for my primary example; I'm not familiar with either system, so they're not really meaningful examples for me.

I'm not sure when they crept in either... your statement (the one I started disagreeing) was not related to any particular systems as far as I am aware.


You might be right. I'm simply quite used to Double Posts being considerred bad.That's why I suggested checking to see if anyone posted and adding your additions as a new post; otherwise you run the risk of having multiple replies before you're done editing.

MCerberus
2007-11-13, 06:26 PM
This has degenerated into a wall of quotes. Maybe it's time to pack it in and agree that some people do/don't like DnD. The opinions at this point aren't going to change and maybe it's better to let people have them.

horseboy
2007-11-14, 01:27 AM
Which version? I remember reading the AD&D DMG when it first came out (what is now called 1st edition), and discovering what is possibly the worst editing job known to mankind. I swear Gygax wrote it as a stream of consciousness, with only a handwaving attempt at organization.

Funny thing is, I still use it. It was full of the most incredible triva, if you accidentally found it. :smallsmile: Where else can you find the random prostitute encounter table, the random demon visage generator, and a dissertation on matching European and Indian nobility ranks...Yes, it was poorly organized, but it was full (that I remember :smallwink: ) of USEFUL things. Like how to build a quest to cure a PC of lycanthropy, how to model the effect of weather on play, and those wonderful comics about a +2 back scratcher. 3rd takes all the useful stuff, crams it in the back 15 pages and fills the rest with crap that should be titled: Page's Guide to Dungeon Decorating.


But, you could also "open end" low, and get nasty, nasty critical failures.
Imaginary, dead turtles, FTW!

Limiting your experience of horrible RPG books, you didn't read the book that must not be mentioned in this forum.True, I've only down loaded it, haven't read it yet. It would be nice if SR4 got the boot out of the basement.

This involves wasting both of our times, as I have to clearly define what rules are being removed/discarded, and I have to spend time communicating that to other people. Especially since I'm going to be playing in a rules lite environment to start with, I'd prefer to start off with a rules lite system. Like I've said elsewhere, this is a matter of preference.

You say that like it's uncommon for a DM to have to go over 4-10 pages of home brew and RAW re-writes with a player anyway. I know I had to read over 100 pages, and that was for a WotC run campaign.

Why do people want hard iron clad rules for social interaction? That's what I can't fathom. What's the point of making it a variant on combat?I don't see it as being a combat variant, so much as a universally consistent game mechanic.
Why do I like to have it in place in a game?
1) It makes the character sheet look more like a person, and not just a statistical analysis of combat readiness.
2) A gentle nudge to those that are, oh, not sure how to put it, more bloodthirsty(?) that they can solve something other than with a great axe. (WTH? Axe isn't in Firefox's spell check?!?!?!)
3) It chains me to my character. Just as I don't have my character's 10 years of training in sword fighting, he doesn't have my 10 years experience in sales/customer service. It's far too easy for me to talk the GM into something than it is for my character to talk said NPC into. I forget sometimes how to be in the middle, either I'm stuck big and stupid or quick and weaselly.
4) It seems kinda odd, that if my character is going to have to take time to develop all these other skills, then why doesn't he have to also put forth effort to learn social skills as well.
5) Oh yeah, using snide social skills during combat. Nothing quite like dozening your opponent into being so pissed of he gives you an opening.

Matthew
2007-11-14, 01:55 AM
It just seems too complex to bother with for a game like D&D to me. The more complex you make a Player Character, the more complex Non Player Characters become and the more of a chore the preperation. The whole point in having a class and level is to short hand what the character is capable of. But to be clear, it's hard and iron clad rules that I object to, not having a mechanic of some sort in play. I suppose that I really feel the same way about combat.

Dausuul
2007-11-14, 08:12 AM
It just seems too complex to bother with for a game like D&D to me. The more complex you make a Player Character, the more complex Non Player Characters become and the more of a chore the preperation.

Not necessarily true. Complexity of character creation rules does not equate to complexity of in-game rules, which in turn does not equate to strategic complexity/depth of play. And I suspect we will have something like Iron Heroes's "villain classes" for NPCs--although hopefully better implemented, so you really can just pull NPCs out of the box and go.

Jayabalard
2007-11-14, 08:29 AM
You say that like it's uncommon for a DM to have to go over 4-10 pages of home brew and RAW re-writes with a player anyway. I know I had to read over 100 pages, and that was for a WotC run campaign.I think communication has broken down somewhere... that's precisely the point.

If I'm running a game in system X (which has hard and fast social interaction rules), the general expectation is that the rules for system X are in place (including those social interaction rules); if I have to spend time going through 10+ pages of home brew and RAW rewrites before they figure out that I've cut the social interaction mechanics (or whatever rule they consider important in the gaming sytstem, rule Q). That means that if they decide not to play due to the changes to the social interaction mechanics (or rule Q), we've wasted a fair bit of both of our times.

If I'm running a game in system Y (which has no mechanics for social interaction) there are no expectations to have a set of hard and fast social rules. That means that we're less likely to have wasted that time, since people can have a much better understanding of what the game is going to be like, just from the statement "We're playing a <system Y> game. Add in the fact that if this is a rules lite system there aren't likely to be as many RAW re-writes as system X in general.


I don't see it as being a combat variant, so much as a universally consistent game mechanic.Someone was specifically talking about a system that is pretty much a variant of the combat system a couple of pages ago, the quote being "Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E"


Why do I like to have it in place in a game?
1) It makes the character sheet look more like a person, and not just a statistical analysis of combat readiness.
5) Oh yeah, using snide social skills during combat. Nothing quite like dozening your opponent into being so pissed of he gives you an opening
These can be done just fine (and IMO better) in game with no mechanics for social interaction beyond roleplaying/DM fiat.


2) A gentle nudge to those that are, oh, not sure how to put it, more bloodthirsty(?) that they can solve something other than with a great axe. (WTH? Axe isn't in Firefox's spell check?!?!?!)There are lots of other ways to handle this that are much more effective; in my experience having a solid social mechanics has never made an impact on the people just want to kick down the door and kill things, while a good DM can be much more influential.


4) It seems kinda odd, that if my character is going to have to take time to develop all these other skills, then why doesn't he have to also put forth effort to learn social skills as well.I personally don't see any value in this; there's no reason to require some sort of balance between combat effectiveness and a character's personality. I much prefer that having the roleplaying / fluff be handled by handwaving as much as possible. Otherwise you get people complaining about things like: playing the flute as a hobby isn't balanced with using tumble in combat.


3) It chains me to my character. Just as I don't have my character's 10 years of training in sword fighting, he doesn't have my 10 years experience in sales/customer service. It's far too easy for me to talk the GM into something than it is for my character to talk said NPC into. I forget sometimes how to be in the middle, either I'm stuck big and stupid or quick and weaselly.I'm not particularly fond of chaining people to their character. If someone creates a character and then decides they want to play them a different way, they should be free to do so without re-creating that character.

Matthew
2007-11-14, 08:32 AM
Not necessarily true. Complexity of character creation rules does not equate to complexity of in-game rules, which in turn does not equate to strategic complexity/depth of play. And I suspect we will have something like Iron Heroes's "villain classes" for NPCs--although hopefully better implemented, so you really can just pull NPCs out of the box and go.

Perhaps not necessarily, but if you aren't using Building Points to create a character, then a lot of the unfairness of an uneven system goes away. I suppose if you have something as simple as X Build Points assigned to Combat and Social it wouldn't be, but I can't imagine a system being too complicated that's built off two variables (Unless you use Binary, I suppose :smallbiggrin: ).

I am not particularly familiar with Iron Heroes, but I do prefer for Villains and NPCs to be built differently from Player Characters. A Class and Level for everyone is one of the things I strongly disilke about 3e.

Dausuul
2007-11-14, 08:43 AM
Perhaps not necessarily, but if you aren't using Building Points to create a character, then a lot of the unfairness of an uneven system goes away. I suppose if you have something as simple as X Build Points assigned to Combat and Social it wouldn't be, but I can't imagine a system being too complicated that's built off two variables (Unless you use Binary, I suppose :smallbiggrin: ).

I am not particularly familiar with Iron Heroes, but I do prefer for Villains and NPCs to be built differently from Player Characters. A Class and Level for everyone is one of the things I strongly disilke about 3e.

The idea of villain classes is to have a set of special NPC-only classes that are designed to a) be simpler to create and run than members of the PC classes, and b) provide a good combat challenge for a group of PCs. Instead of level, they have challenge rating, and they have much less flexibility than PC classes, since the emphasis is on making them quick to build and quick to play.

I didn't think Iron Heroes implemented the concept terribly well, but it was a damn good idea.

Raum
2007-11-14, 09:06 AM
A Class and Level for everyone is one of the things I strongly disilke about 3e.I'll second that. It'd be better to have fewer but more flexible classes. As it is, there's a class to do whatever you want but it's a specialized niche.


I didn't think Iron Heroes implemented the concept terribly well, but it was a damn good idea.I don't know Iron Heroes myself, but wouldn't it be easier to simplify all of the classes? Take True20 as an example, only three classes but they're simple enough to create quickly and flexible enough to fit any archetype you want to build.
-----

The problem with continually piling more rules on a system is loss of flexibility. With a light system you can work out a method of resolving something not in the rules. With D&D you need to figure out what combination of levels, feats, and abilities will let you do whatever. All too often the answer is some version of "Oh, you need a feat to do that."

Matthew
2007-11-14, 09:07 AM
The idea of villain classes is to have a set of special NPC-only classes that are designed to a) be simpler to create and run than members of the PC classes, and b) provide a good combat challenge for a group of PCs. Instead of level, they have challenge rating, and they have much less flexibility than PC classes, since the emphasis is on making them quick to build and quick to play.

I didn't think Iron Heroes implemented the concept terribly well, but it was a damn good idea.

I see, that's what I thought it must be.

If I'm playing Basic or Advanced Dungeons & Dragons I tend to just give NPC Villains whatever I see fit, since I can usually guess what effect it will have. It's an ethos continued by Savage Worlds, but not so much with Castles & Crusades, as far as I can tell. It's a bit of a problem when you need to formulate hard Challenge Ratings, but since those are rarely that accurate anyway, it's not that big a deal.

With Player Characters, I prefer to minimise the amount of Character Building Resources involved and where they can be allocated. Taking the emphasis off the mechanics provides a great deal of freedom.

So, whilst the concept of Villain Classes sounds intriguing, I suspect it may just be another 'false choice', creating the illusion of variety and play balance. I am interested in examining and exploring the concept in more detail, though.


I don't know Iron Heroes myself, but wouldn't it be easier to simplify all of the classes? Take True20 as an example, only three classes but they're simple enough to create quickly and flexible enough to fit any archetype you want to build.

Yeah, I was reading through Forbidden Kingdoms and Thrilling Tales today and I was thinking how well suited True20 would be to the Pulp genre. I think that can be said of True20 for just about anything except with regard to System Preference.


The problem with continually piling more rules on a system is loss of flexibility. With a light system you can work out a method of resolving something not in the rules. With D&D you need to figure out what combination of levels, feats, and abilities will let you do whatever. All too often the answer is some version of "Oh, you need a feat to do that."

I agree with this, but with the caveat that it's the illusion of choice and limits that these create that causes the problems. The DM decides what is and is not possible, Feats should only really improve your chances for most actions. I think we have identified two distinct types of System Preference. Those who like comprehensive rules that they can 'trim down' and those who like general rules that they can 'expand'. Usually, those who prefer 1e and 2e fall into the latter camp, whilst those who prefer 3e generally fall into the former camp.

Rutee
2007-11-14, 03:43 PM
These can be done just fine (and IMO better) in game with no mechanics for social interaction beyond roleplaying/DM fiat.
You're wrong. Sorry. DnD by itself can be used to disprove that, since that's pretty much all the system has for social interaction, at thsi time. And about 80% of a character sheet, at least, is combat-derived, if not more. Especially since, aside from one's own desire to make a person, there is no benefit to dumping skills into non-dungeon-crawling, non-combat-helpful skills.



If I'm running a game in system X (which has hard and fast social interaction rules), the general expectation is that the rules for system X are in place (including those social interaction rules); if I have to spend time going through 10+ pages of home brew and RAW rewrites before they figure out that I've cut the social interaction mechanics (or whatever rule they consider important in the gaming sytstem, rule Q). That means that if they decide not to play due to the changes to the social interaction mechanics (or rule Q), we've wasted a fair bit of both of our times.

If I'm running a game in system Y (which has no mechanics for social interaction) there are no expectations to have a set of hard and fast social rules. That means that we're less likely to have wasted that time, since people can have a much better understanding of what the game is going to be like, just from the statement "We're playing a <system Y> game. Add in the fact that if this is a rules lite system there aren't likely to be as many RAW re-writes as system X in general.
Oh, that's how you meant it. I pose another question: So what? At least that system, at its base, stood a /chance/ at making you both happy, since it included rules for what you both wanted to do.

And no, this isn't striking the chorus for a 'universal' RPG. Y'all are confusing "Have rules for social encounters" with "Have rules for everything and anything". I strongly encourage you /read/ a system that isn't universal that has rules for social encounters before you continue making assumptions about one.


There are lots of other ways to handle this that are much more effective; in my experience having a solid social mechanics has never made an impact on the people just want to kick down the door and kill things, while a good DM can be much more influential.
A Good DM can't influence someone who has trouble with social skills on this route. You have no mechanics for it, so it falls to the player to have every part of what we call "the social skills", and for whatever reason, they don't (And this isn't an attempt to lambast such people). Unless by "Good DM", you mean "Saint", and by 'be influential', you mean "Teach them every part of it from scratch". And yes, I've known such people, yes, I try to help them, but damned if they had social skills to begin with, and I don't think I'd have had an easy time teaching it without /a/ framework (Which doesn't necessitate a game, certainly)


Someone was specifically talking about a system that is pretty much a variant of the combat system a couple of pages ago, the quote being "Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E"
Oh no, a system used the same basic rules to govern both? Who cares? It's only a combat variant if you don't roleplay in your fights, since they're, on their face, similar. What differentiates them the best are the stunts you pull and the overall feel at the table/channel/thread. Seriously, read a system that has social combat. Exalted and Scion both have one, and Weapons of the Gods has an incredibly interesting and in-genre (That genre being wuxia) way of handling that sort of thing. The former two work them on the same basic system (Differences apply, big time, especially in one's goals with social combat, but there are enough similarities that it's quite intuitive if you understand combat), the latter clearly makes combat different from the various Secret Arts, with the Secret Arts holding a stronger role in influencing combat then being combat (Not that they're not perfectly fine stand alones, either; We're just talking genre-tropes here.)

Another question: Is picking locks a climbing variant because they're both skillchecks?


I don't know Iron Heroes myself, but wouldn't it be easier to simplify all of the classes? Take True20 as an example, only three classes but they're simple enough to create quickly and flexible enough to fit any archetype you want to build.
Honestly? I genuinely prefer DnD stick to its current classes (Maybe not have so MANY of them, but have them in the format they do). But that's actually selfish; On the whole, I consider that simple archetype system better. I just happen to have several games that do that, and only one that does the complicated classes, and that one is DnD :P

...Though, DnD would probably have to get rid of levels altogether as the primary form of advancement. I mean, once you go down to archetypes, you're talking about stripping off the archaic concepts anyway. And there'd be endless crying if you did /that/, I suspect. There'd be (accurate) cries that it's not DnD anymore, but a brand new game. But then, that's why you're talking about a different game and not DnD doing it.. XD

Honestly, this entire debate strikes me as absurd. IT started with y'all saying DnD 3e has no non-combat encounters, then praising 2e for the exp awards for.. trapfinding and spellcasting. The former is right in your DMG (Page 40, for some basic rules on non-combat encounters, and pages 74/75 for rules on Trap CR/Exp), and unless you award exp to the non-casters /just/ for making a jump check, then I don't know why you'd give exp just for casting (Versimilitude be damned; Casters are already better then melee, they don't need faster exp acquisition on top of it). I point out that 4e HAS some new non-combat encounters, and you immediately started whinging about how you /didn't/ want that kind of non-combat encounter; apparently, despite the intricacies of the pen being greater then those of the sword, you're content to just handwave that and accept the players' base talents (whatever they may be) at them, and actively discourage a system that falls under the exact purview you just said you wanted.

Matthew
2007-11-14, 03:48 PM
Honestly, this entire debate strikes me as absurd. IT started with y'all saying DnD 3e has no non-combat encounters, then praising 2e for the exp awards for.. trapfinding and spellcasting. The former is right in your DMG (Page 40, for some basic rules on non-combat encounters, and pages 74/75 for rules on Trap CR/Exp), and unless you award exp to the non-casters /just/ for making a jump check, then I don't know why you'd give exp just for casting (Versimilitude be damned; Casters are already better then melee, they don't need faster exp acquisition on top of it). I point out that 4e HAS some new non-combat encounters, and you immediately started whinging about how you /didn't/ want that kind of non-combat encounter; apparently, despite the intricacies of the pen being greater then those of the sword, you're content to just handwave that and accept the players' base talents (whatever they may be) at them, and actively discourage a system that falls under the exact purview you just said you wanted.

Please don't generalise the opinion of one person as the opinion of everyone and please don't try to paint us as illogically motivated whingers. People can have a difference of opinion without it being necessary to categorise the opposing side as somehow inferior (though I appreciate the irony of my saying so, it's not intended as anything more than a request).

Rutee
2007-11-14, 03:53 PM
Hm, 4 people, but not the two who are most against social encounters. Fair enough, statement withdrawn; The debate's not absurd.

And frankly, it isn't about making the other side necessarily idiots. It's that if you WERE complaining about not-having something, and then were offerred it, and then complained about it again, on a different vector, well...

Matthew
2007-11-14, 03:58 PM
Hm, 4 people, but not the two who are most against social encounters. Fair enough, statement withdrawn; The debate's not absurd.

And frankly, it isn't about making the other side necessarily idiots. It's that if you WERE complaining about not-having something, and then were offerred it, and then complained about it again, on a different vector, well...

Heh, I haven't read back to check, but I suspect that's all the same guy using different accounts. If they're all Dwarves or Pixies, it probably is.

Raum
2007-11-14, 05:19 PM
Honestly? I genuinely prefer DnD stick to its current classes (Maybe not have so MANY of them, but have them in the format they do). But that's actually selfish; On the whole, I consider that simple archetype system better. I just happen to have several games that do that, and only one that does the complicated classes, and that one is DnD :P

...Though, DnD would probably have to get rid of levels altogether as the primary form of advancement. I mean, once you go down to archetypes, you're talking about stripping off the archaic concepts anyway. And there'd be endless crying if you did /that/, I suspect. There'd be (accurate) cries that it's not DnD anymore, but a brand new game. But then, that's why you're talking about a different game and not DnD doing it.. XDI can understand the desire for predetermined niche archetypes, but it's something D&D 3.x has done which prior editions didn't. Granted 2E had kits (and, if you want to discuss horrors, Skills & Powers) but for the most part you multi-classed to create the niche archetypes. You want a ninja? Multi-class as a thief / fighter or possibly a thief / monk, it all depended on your vision.

At some point in the move from 2E to 3.x the classes' flavor seems to have become sacrosanct and unchangeable. Why must I play a barbarian to be seen as an illiterate brute? Why couldn't the fighter, ranger, or some combination of the two be the illiterate tribal type? Enough ranting, I suspect I'm getting even farther away from the subject. My point remains though, the "balkanization" of classes is new to D&D with 3.x.


Honestly, this entire debate strikes me as absurd. Most of the discussions on these boards are absurd if you take them too seriously, that hasn't stopped them yet! :)


IT started with y'all saying DnD 3e has no non-combat encounters, then praising 2e for the exp awards for.. trapfinding and spellcasting. I think you're lumping different opinions from different posters together.


The former is right in your DMG (Page 40, for some basic rules on non-combat encounters, and pages 74/75 for rules on Trap CR/Exp), and unless you award exp to the non-casters /just/ for making a jump check, then I don't know why you'd give exp just for casting (Versimilitude be damned; Casters are already better then melee, they don't need faster exp acquisition on top of it). I wasn't advocating either individual experience awards (3.x is almost purely group based) or a return to 2E ability use awards. To reiterate, what I'd like to see is a goal based system...then it doesn't matter whether you defeat the guard in combat, convince him to let you pass, sneak past, or find some alternate method of accomplishing your goals which doesn't involve said guard at all. D&D 3.x gives experience for the first three right now, but not if you're creative enough to bypass the encounter altogether. As long as the rewards are encounter based the players will seek encounters...whether the encounters are combat, social, or some other skill. Being creative enough to accomplish your goal through alternate methods is discouraged by the award mechanics.


I point out that 4e HAS some new non-combat encounters, and you immediately started whinging about how you /didn't/ want that kind of non-combat encounter; apparently, despite the intricacies of the pen being greater then those of the sword, you're content to just handwave that and accept the players' base talents (whatever they may be) at them, and actively discourage a system that falls under the exact purview you just said you wanted.Not everyone you seem to be responding too had that opinion.

We've strayed a long way from the original question of "What makes D&D popular?" Some of the confusion may simply be different posters answering different questions. It might help maintain some continuity if you referenced whomever you're responding to...

Jayabalard
2007-11-15, 08:32 AM
You're wrong. Sorry. DnD by itself can be used to disprove that, since that's pretty much all the system has for social interaction, at thsi time. And about 80% of a character sheet, at least, is combat-derived, if not more. Especially since, aside from one's own desire to make a person, there is no benefit to dumping skills into non-dungeon-crawling, non-combat-helpful skills.None of this has anything to do with whether you CAN make the character sheet look more like a person... it's just a statement that D&D doesn't. Adding a bunch of numbers to represent your character's personality doesn't do anything to make it look like a person. On the other hand, adding a character sketch, and detailed history and backstory can be a part of a handwaving system; it's even easier than doing it in a hard and fast rule system, since you don't have to worry about contradicting some specific rule about how good you can be at something.

And even in D&D, you can get bonuses through handwaving (ie DM fiat) for snide remarks in combat just as easily as you can in a system with hard and fast rule.


Oh, that's how you meant it. I pose another question: So what? At least that system, at its base, stood a /chance/ at making you both happy, since it included rules for what you both wanted to do.I think you've again missed the fact that including a lot of rules that I'm not going to use, specifically something as important as social interaction, means that I cannot be happy with that system at it's base. That's the primary thing (other than being published by White Wolf perhaps) that makes me take a pass on a system.

Like was said quite a bit earlier, this is simply a difference in preference on rules lite systems vs rules heavy systems. The fact that you prefer having a rules heavy system does not mean that the rules lite system is a bad system, which was the claim I disagreed with.


I strongly encourage you /read/ a system that isn't universal that has rules for social encounters before you continue making assumptions about one.I strongly encourage you to not assume that I haven't.


A Good DM can't influence someone who has trouble with social skills on this route. You have no mechanics for it, so it falls to the player to have every part of what we call "the social skills", and for whatever reason, they don't (And this isn't an attempt to lambast such people). Unless by "Good DM", you mean "Saint", and by 'be influential', you mean "Teach them every part of it from scratch". And yes, I've known such people, yes, I try to help them, but damned if they had social skills to begin with, and I don't think I'd have had an easy time teaching it without /a/ framework (Which doesn't necessitate a game, certainly)Yes... they can certainly influence someone who has trouble with social skills. They don't have to be a "Saint", but they do need to "be influential"

Influence != turn someone into a social butterfly.


Oh no, a system used the same basic rules to govern both? Who cares? Obviously, both the people who don't like the idea care, and the people who want that sort or ruleset care; even some of the people who are kind of "meh" on the whole idea care.

Specifically though, that statement was to point out to horseboy why people were talking about social interaction as a variant combat system (I think that he had missed it)


Another question: Is picking locks a climbing variant because they're both skillchecks?Picking locks is pretty universal as RPG skills go, so not in any system that I'm aware of; the ones that don't explicitly cover how locks are picked don't explicitly cover how any skills are resolved.

if you were to make a houserule that climbing skill could be used to pick locks, that could probably be considered a variant rule.

I honestly have no idea where you're going with this one.


I genuinely prefer DnD stick to its current classes (Maybe not have so MANY of them, but have them in the format they do). But that's actually selfish; On the whole, I consider that simple archetype system better. I just happen to have several games that do that, and only one that does the complicated classes, and that one is DnD :PSeems reasonable to me... that's kind of become part of D&D's niche.

But I still wish they'd get away from the "everyone has a class and a level" model.


Honestly, this entire debate strikes me as absurd. IT started with y'all saying DnD 3e has no non-combat encounters, then praising 2e for the exp awards for.. trapfinding and spellcasting. The former is right in your DMG (Page 40, for some basic rules on non-combat encounters, and pages 74/75 for rules on Trap CR/Exp), and unless you award exp to the non-casters /just/ for making a jump check, then I don't know why you'd give exp just for casting (Versimilitude be damned; Casters are already better then melee, they don't need faster exp acquisition on top of it). I point out that 4e HAS some new non-combat encounters, and you immediately started whinging about how you /didn't/ want that kind of non-combat encounter; apparently, despite the intricacies of the pen being greater then those of the sword, you're content to just handwave that and accept the players' base talents (whatever they may be) at them, and actively discourage a system that falls under the exact purview you just said you wanted.
MY debate has primarily been

A brief discussion about the oxymoronic statement "20th level commoner"
A disagreement over the claim that skills chosen for flavor need to be balanced with useful skills, and that the current edition of D&D unduly punishes people for choosing to have a flavorful character.
A disagreement with the specific statement: claiming that the lack of hard and fast rules for social interactions is a sign of a bad system.


oh, and I made a snide remark about that guy coming in and trying to divert the topic over into 2e > all thread, which he's done a lot recently.

So I'd kind of appreciate it if you were a little more specific with your "ya'll" ... since I think that the vast majority of this does not apply to the people that you actually quoted.

Squee_nabob
2007-11-15, 01:35 PM
All I have to say to that is:

HERO System

Ranged 1 pip Killing Attack, +1 1/2 Autofire, One Hex Aoe, Affects Desolid, Penetrating, +20 Ranged OCV Mod (built in), Improved Knock Back, Indirect

Take a large amount of Killing Damage, and fly across the map (and possibly over the horizon). Did you buy a high Defense Roll? It's Aoe. Did you buy flight? It's Ranged. Did you buy Force Wall? Indirect. Desolid? Affects Desolid. Didn't Kill you? I'll have an action ready to interrupt by the time you get back from where ever I knocked you back.

First off, that power is incredibly obvious to anyone who knows HERO. I've never met a GM who would let a character have that power or even give it to an NPC. So making a hypothetically broken power doesn't break the system, since it is very easy to ban a specific power, as opposed to DnD having a lot more hard to notice problems, and hard to fix (it's much harder to fix a batman wizard than a single broken power, i suspect).

Also 1pt Hardened force wall stops you cold, so does combat luck (depending on special effect), hardened armor or forcefield also blocks it. You don't understand how knock back works with autofire obviously as well.

Where is the +20 range ocv mod coming from?

also if I have a higher speed than you, how will you have an action to interrupt me? Or lots of movement? Or a LOS mental attack?

Finally you could at least use a more creative cheese that's not stopped by DFC, or something that's not immediately obvious, such as martial maneuver with v/3, +128 NCM movement, 1x AoE attack, and Luck. 4 Separate powers that combine for pwnage but individually are not broken.