PDA

View Full Version : Customization in D&D: Not what you think?



Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-27, 06:10 PM
Ever since first edition, D&D has taken pride in having introduced the concept of character niches (The classic skillmonkey, tank, healbot, and arcanist) to tabletop RPG'ing, among many other things. What this thread seeks to demonstrate is that, actually, said niches are fallacious: most characters are actually far more generic than it's believed. The second thing this thead wishes to demonstrate is that the sum of unique parts does not equal an unique product. This thread does NOT aim to show how one class can do someone else's job: That has been shown as true many times before.

So, where to start? Well, why not start with analyzing this official statement?


In 3.5 edition, you will be able to find a feat to suit any character concept or action you might have in mind.

Extracted from the PHB.

Of course, this is a blatant lie. A Fighter still can't do an impressive charge, taking down enemies, left, right, and center. But I'll deal with that later.

So, let's take a look at the Fighter. This mighty warrior is supposed to be able to accomodate a crafty combatant, a finesse warrior who prefers to end fights before they start with single, decisive strikes. This is not such a unique concept so as to be unsupportable by the rules: Indeed, the fighter who prefers finesse rather than brute strength, the melee equivalent of a sharpshooter or sniper, is a common character concept.

But what happens when we try to bring this into play? It comes crashing down. No feat allows me to forego multiple strikes for a single, more powerful blow. No feat gives me the chance to spend some time studying my opponent, analyzing and dissecting him, so that I may defeat him with a single blow. One could make a case for Improved critical, but that depends on luck of the dice, not skill. It doesn't allow me to do a critical any time I like if I spend time studying the victim of my strike, or make them more powerful. It just makes it more likely, but since my character is already supposed to be a precision fighter and not a guy that got lucky with a random shot, this doesn't work out. Indeed, it's not before the EPIC levels, when a character is supposed to more or less stand on equal footing with gods that I can pick up overwhelming and devastating critical, which are more like the concept, but still depending on luck and coming at a point where the character should be able to carelessly do a simple attack and, without any previous study of the opponent, breach his defenses and kill him dead, NOT randomly do a finessed strike if he's lucky.

So, what does this tell us? The pretended ability to give you something specialized enough to fit any (Or at least most) character concepts is a blatant lie. In truth, a fighter's sole real damaging option is to full attack until the cows go home, or perform a bunch of ineffectual, rather brutish maneuvers (Bull rush, overrun, trip). Yes, I can DESCRIBE it so that my fighter is not actually doing a lot of attacks, but rather a single, devastating strike, but in truth, the game is not letting me play my concept, and I'm forced to be delusional about what he's doing to make it work.


Now, let's take a look at what other systems could do. I'll pick the definitive, ultimate example in genericness: GURPS. Yes, THAT system. GURPS also says I can do anything I want, but clearly states that that's because the system has been tailored to be able to fit even the wildest, craziest dreams of a concept, not because the system is going to give me the mechanics to play them (Or make them). GURPS, indeed only provides me with a few generic equations, and then leaves me to my devices (Yes, saying "a few" is a gross oversimplification, I know that. No need to point that out.). A few generic equations cannot POSSIBLY provide me with something specialized and complex, if a system that boasted of how it would allow me to fill niches failed miserably, right?

Wrong. It is, in fact, easy to crunch out a skill/ability/power/whathaveyou that, at the cost of a few turns, will let me inflict increased damage with a single attack.

Of course, someone will be now quick to point out that this is what it's called homebrewing, and that if I made the crunch, the comparison is voided.


But there's a crucial element being forgotten there: GURPS encourages me to do so, and gives me the tools for the job. Meanwhile, D&D doesn't even give me guidelines. What should the requirements for the feats I'd need be? What should be the benefit? There are no indications for that. Quite simply, I'm left to stumble and fail at creating the feats I need (Or succeed, if I'm of the rare breed of skilled hoembrewers), until some game designer takes pity on me, and has the brilliant idea to create the feats I need for the concept. Failing an official creation, I'm left to take shots in the dark.

Now we've reached a paradox: How can some generic equations provide a unique, individual product tailormade for me, and some unique skills and abilities give me a single generic method of attacking, forcing me to make up a description and pretend that's what happens?

Because, the truth is, sans spellcasting, D&D is actually a very stiff, generic system, only prepared to support a few alternative, while GURPS is a variable, flexible system that decided to use genericness to allow me to craft uniqueness.

As I said, however, there is an exception to this: Spellcasters. Via making us swallow some handwavium and nonsensoleum, Gygax Et al convinced us that, because it was magic, it should be able to do ANYTHING. Thus, we have an extremely broad spectrum of choices for spells, while everyone else has just method A, B, or C, and that's it.

Note: It might seem that I have a GURPS bias if you read the text below. I do not. I just picked it because it stands out as a polar opposite to the D&D philosophy. Arguably, it succeeded at it's idea, while D&D failed, but that doesn't concern us.

Still unconvinced? Read this examples for further proof.

Concept: In one of R. A. Salvatore's non-Drizzt based book series, The Crimson Shadow, two of the heroes find themselves fighting in a massive cathedral against a horde of mooks in the beginning of the second book. The hero and his sidekick perform this maneuver: Spreading his legs, the hero allows the sidekick to tumble past them, catching a mook offguard, allowing him to plunge his rapier deep into the mook's stomach. I wanna replicate that in D&D and GURPS.

D&D: Play a rogue, take Spring attack and adaptable flanker, tumble through the square the hero occupies describing the attack. To do this, since the sidekick is a halfling, and likely not a Strongheart, he must be level 18, one of the most powerful rogues out there at that, and have invested almost all of his feats into feat chains to perform this one stunt and get sneak attack damage out of it.

GURPS: Design a maneuver costing X number of points. If you succeed on Y dice roll, and your friend succeeds on a minor Z die roll to react quickly like the hero did, you inflict extra damage to your foe and catch him or her offguard. Don't need to have too high a level for this one.


Concept: A staple of fantasy here. In a war or battle against loads of mooks, the hero cuts his way through the army like a scythe, annihilating foes that try to stop him.

D&D: Take the Cleave line of feats until Superior Cleave, kill the first enemy, do cleaving until you roll a one, and pray you don't do it. This is reading superior cleave as granting you the five foot step ALONG with the attack. If not, you can't do it, period.

GURPS: Be a high level character, create S/A/P/W that makes it so that, if you hit and kill the first mook, you may deal damage equivalent to that of that attack to other mooks you can hit, and you can move until you have moved three times the amount you normally could or something like that, hitting every mook along the way. Repeat until the effect of cutting your way through the army is achieved.

Having thought that, I arrived at an interesting conclusion. There has been, and will be, a lot of argument about ToB and fourth edition. Many debates center around what is called fluff or flavor. But perhaps the reason the argument of not liking the flavor is used is actually because flavor is not an issue, but because those two subjects did a 180º degrees turn on the classic philosophy of D&D (The one that brought us the full attack rules), providing instead an overwhelming variety of things to do? 4th edition powers are rather generic in concept, but in the same way as Imagination is a Generic idea. Imagination is practically limitless. The potential for crafting new powers to suit your demands might be like that if it is well designed, as are the ToB maneuvers and the spells of spellcasters (Which DO have guidelines, albeit pretty crappy ones). Perhaps that's the true reason of the dislike for those two things?

Kalirren
2008-03-27, 06:33 PM
OP: I don't think that versatility and adaptability of the system language is really the issue here. From what I've seen, a lot of people who are opposed to the idea of 4e and ToB also support more versatile system language. The trend I -do- see is that they feel that the effects that ToB disrupt the aesthetic coherence of the setting - one person I know thinks it's a really bastardized mystification of wuxia, and another one objects to the idea of encounter-dependent recharging of magical effects.

That is to say, I think that anti-ToB'ers and anti-4e'ers feel that despite the lack of solid mechanics within D&D core that define the properties of magic and the way its forces actually interact with the mundane world, the existing arcanomechanic still function in a certain semi-predictable manner that gives a sense of intuitive and aesthetic familiarity to them. To them, ToB and 4e fall outside these lines of familiarity. They have associated the settings of D&D, including Eberron, Faerun, Greyhawk, even Oriental-Adventures type worlds, with this particular aesthetic. The same people who dislike ToB and its quasi-magical effects are the ones who believe that the Extraordinary abilities and the versatility of the fighter should be buffed and will agree that the full-attack-centered combat system in D&D needs to be revamped (but are often a little chicken to replace the system with another one in its entirety.)

Indon
2008-03-27, 06:36 PM
I posted this in another thread, but it's actually more appropriate here. I'll go spoiler it in the original thread after posting.

I think the difference between long-term character options (or build options) and short-term character options (or tactical options) is extremely important.

The presence of short-term character options help to make a game interesting, but must be carefully managed - too few and you have characters who are bored because they can only do one thing in most situations, while too many and you have characters who are bored because they always have the right option available to solve a problem decisively.

However, the presence of long-term character options help to develop a character's sense of identity and can provide an easy starting point for role-playing.

They really are quite different in terms of impact on the game.

But that's not all.

In terms of D&D vs. a generic system (I've never played GURPS, so I'll assume for the sake of argument that it's similar to the point-based, generic aspects of White Wolf products), I'm sorry, but D&D has vastly greater possibility for mechanical build options. Why? Because while you can certainly use your imagination and create new powers in GURPS, you can do the same thing in D&D.

I'll give an example. So in GURPS you can make a power for a high-power character that lets you cleave through armies. And you certainly can't do that in 3'rd edition D&D... unless you make a high-level feat... that has you cleave through armies.

Only in D&D, you don't even have to do it that way. You could do the same thing in 10 mechanically distinct ways. You could make the aforementioned feat. Or you could make it a maneuver. Or you could make it a spell. Or you could make it a homebrewed class ability. Or you could borrow from one of the even more exotic mechanics sets and tweak it until it works ("I cleave through the opposing army with my Greataxe!" "But... that's a Warlock Invocation.")

D&D is not limited to a narrow, generic system. While this makes homebrewing more awkward, certainly, and a more daunting and certainly difficult proposition, it is ultimately far more versatile than a less mechanically versatile system.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-27, 07:07 PM
I'd like to clarify something: GURPS is certainly not too similar to WW products. Indeed, while those are more or less built and ready from scratch, and, like D&D, give you templated options made by game designers, GURPS makes YOU the game designer, more or less. They come up with a generic and "simple" system that works for just about any game concept you have, and tell you "Okay, the mechanic building tools are yours, now go and make your mechanics". Of course, they also have Pwn setting books, but that's fluff and is not what I'm speaking of.

In D&D, you don't have those guidelines, and the guidelines set are really crappy (Item of True strike at will for the cost of a first level spell anybody? At will of cure light wounds and never having to worry about healing again? what about Rary's Mnemonic enhancer and Mordenkainens thingy?). Imagine the requirements of a feat that would allow you to cleave through enemies if you hit a single foe while moving up to three times your move. The system is not suited for that, you're expected to use the mechanics given in supplements.

Indon
2008-03-27, 07:14 PM
So you're saying the difference is that GURPS is easier to houserule. I'd already noted that D&D is more difficult to houserule (I'd make the feat require Whirlwind Attack, Great or maybe Superior Cleave, and Run, more than likely - or just make it epic) - the point is that the system is too versatile to produce easy houseruling. Because you can create something in so many different ways, is D&D's advantage.

For instance, I noted what that feat's requirements would be. As a Maneuver, it would probably be a 9'th level maneuver in a discipline in which momentum would be good to include. I'd probably make a series of increasingly more powerful maneuvers that did the same thing in better ways until it reached that level, in fact.

Obviously, it'd be easy as a spell.

Or, as a class, I could modify the features of a Dervish to be apporpriate, perhaps mixing it in with features of the War Hulk.

Yeah, without a doubt GURPS is easy to homebrew. Heck, white wolf products are pretty easy to homebrew in. But I'm not seeing how a generic system can beat a diverse, well, set of systems like D&D in potential.

Draz74
2008-03-27, 07:38 PM
So basically ... GURPS isn't a system, it's instructions on how to create a system.

Not that that's inherently a good or bad thing. In fact, this thread kind of makes me want to look into GURPS more than I ever have before.

But it also quickly demonstrates one particular way that D&D is better: D&D requires less work, at a minimum, to make things go.

Pyroconstruct
2008-03-27, 07:41 PM
Sounds like you want to play HERO, which pretty much works as you describe - come up with an ability you want [in the broadest sense of the word "ability,"] the system gives you tools to describe it mechanically, then tells you how much this ability costs to have as a character. If you dislike the inflexibility found in "plug and play" mechanics RPGs such as D&D or White Wolf, HERO is the opposite end of the spectrum, a "toolkit" style system.

EDIT: It should be noted that, as the poster above me said, the drawback of a toolkit RPG is that the minimum amount of work is higher. However, the maximum amount of work is much lower, though, because you never really have to "homebrew" stuff, although in a sense the whole thing is a guideline for how to homebrew everything, then examples.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-27, 07:48 PM
If you want to know how, look at the concept of the finesse fighter I explained in the OP. In D&D, the system simply is not supportive of single attacks that are more effective than a full attack. You're expected to take full attacks if you're someone who fights with weapons.

In GURPS, meanwhile, if I want to do single superpowerful attacks, I can. If I want to do multiple consecutive and less likely to hit attacks, I can too. If I want to create a character who wins by missing attacks, I can too. That's how the generic system can be better than a niche system, even on niching. GURPS tried to be like imagination: With endless possibilities. Of course, it didn't succeed, but it got damn close. D&D, meanwhile, doesn't even give you guidelines on how you should build things. Rather, it favors an approach that could, metaphorically speaking, be summed up by this: "Beg, bitch! You're at my mercy now!". Either you have to make shots in the dark, or wait 'til WotC or a third party makes it.

Cainen
2008-03-27, 07:49 PM
So basically ... GURPS isn't a system, it's instructions on how to create a system.

Not that that's inherently a good or bad thing. In fact, this thread kind of makes me want to look into GURPS more than I ever have before.

But it also quickly demonstrates one particular way that D&D is better: D&D requires less work, at a minimum, to make things go.

That's dependant on what you're trying to do. It took forever and a half for me to implement half of the rules I did for several d20-based games, whereas GURPS didn't even need them. Since the system isn't class/level/feat-based, if you have the ability to grab something you almost always can; I can create a far more thorough character and stat his personality from his advantages/disadvantages. Doing the same in D&D is a mishmash of traits, flaws, feats(which 99% of the time can be spent on something more optimized), and class levels almost all of the time.

DementedFellow
2008-03-27, 08:03 PM
So basically ... GURPS isn't a system, it's instructions on how to create a system.

Not that that's inherently a good or bad thing. In fact, this thread kind of makes me want to look into GURPS more than I ever have before.

But it also quickly demonstrates one particular way that D&D is better: D&D requires less work, at a minimum, to make things go.

I don't know if I would agree with that. GURPS is somewhat newbie friendly. You can make a character in a fraction of the time with it, while, DnD can cause people to agonize over which PrC or feat to take. A precursory glance at the build help questions on this board alone will show many instances of people saying, "Halp!"

They both have their advantages. GURPS is easier to tweak because you don't need supplement after supplement to have a simple campaign.

If, on the other hand, I was going for that coveted verisimilitude with an over-arching campaign that created a whole world to explore, I would go with DnD.

That's how I relegate them, anyway.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-27, 08:13 PM
That's more or less how it works for me too. Number crunching for obscure things such as vehicles in GURPS can be fearsome, but the basic stuff is more or less easy.

Indon
2008-03-27, 08:20 PM
In D&D, the system simply is not supportive of single attacks that are more effective than a full attack. You're expected to take full attacks if you're someone who fights with weapons.
I would recommend the maneuver system for this. Caster ripoff? Yes, kinda. Supports powerful single weapon-based attacks? That too.

You don't need to buy the Tome of Battle to learn basically how maneuvers work, and knowing how they work, you can make them for yourself if you like.


Either you have to make shots in the dark, or wait 'til WotC or a third party makes it.

You often don't have to make 'shots in the dark'. There are a number of implied homebrewing baselines in D&D - for example, flaws generally take the benefit of a feat, negate it, and increase it by 50%. For things like spells, you can compare spells of a similar level for the kinds of things a spell could be expected to do.

Homebrewing well in D&D may be a more time-consuming affair, with almost as many parts art as science, but that doesn't make it worse, unless convenience is a high priority for you.

Yahzi
2008-03-27, 08:25 PM
arcanomechanic
Now that's a cool word! :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I have problems with D&D magic not making any sense, too. Why can you cure Deafness and Blindness at 5th (which surely require regeneration of something) but not regenerate missing fingers until 11th lvl?

Why are some spells uber-cool, and others so lame no one ever bothers to scribe them, let alone use them (Message, I'm looking at you!)

Although actually we used a Message spell once. It was great. We secretly warned a vampire that an unpopular PC was sneaking up on him in the shape of an ant. Apparently you can still lose levels as an ant. :smallbiggrin:



DnD can cause people to agonize over which PrC or feat to take.
I think, in no small part, because once you choose it, you can't change it. You pretty much have to know at level 1 what you're going to be at level 20.

How much more like a computer game can you get? And even WoW lets you respec now.

KIDS
2008-03-27, 08:27 PM
The common answer to your descriptions is usually "just roleplay it". While it has some merit, I find quite a lot of your remarks describing the situation well. For me ToB and such things proved a reasonable middle ground that I enjoy.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-27, 08:32 PM
I would recommend the maneuver system for this. Caster ripoff? Yes, kinda. Supports powerful single weapon-based attacks? That too.

You don't need to buy the Tome of Battle to learn basically how maneuvers work, and knowing how they work, you can make them for yourself if you like.



You often don't have to make 'shots in the dark'. There are a number of implied homebrewing baselines in D&D - for example, flaws generally take the benefit of a feat, negate it, and increase it by 50%. For things like spells, you can compare spells of a similar level for the kinds of things a spell could be expected to do.

Homebrewing well in D&D may be a more time-consuming affair, with almost as many parts art as science, but that doesn't make it worse, unless convenience is a high priority for you.

ToB is not a good thign to argue with at this thread. I explicitly mentioned how it and 4th edition seem to have done a 180º on the common D&D philosophy that pervaded for three and a half editions.

Indon
2008-03-27, 08:40 PM
ToB is not a good thign to argue with at this thread. I explicitly mentioned how it and 4th edition seem to have done a 180º on the common D&D philosophy that pervaded for three and a half editions.

I used ToB as an example of one of the many, many systems that can coexist within the loose 3.x framework.

Had you, say, asked about characters who could be powerful with less reliance on magic items, I might have brought up Incarnum instead. Or discussed class features or feats which have wealth-like progression (like the Soulwhatever classes and Vow of Poverty) and might be tweaked over to fit your needs.

Or say you didn't like Vancian casting and wanted a caster who didn't just 'run out' of magic. I'd be able to describe a laundry list of general ideas, many running on what are effectively wildly different D20 subsystems.

Your point is ultimately that 4'th edition is not sacrificing character customization by removing all of the myriad subsystems and streamlining everything into a handful of universal character mechanics. And I disagree with that point.

Enguhl
2008-03-27, 09:02 PM
So you are complaining that D&D characters aren't as powerful as GURPS?
I don't see how D&D isn't customizable..

Cainen
2008-03-27, 09:20 PM
So you are complaining that D&D characters aren't as powerful as GURPS?
I don't see how D&D isn't customizable..

No, that was not the point. He was giving examples of similar abilities in both, and how much easier it was to make an equivalent ability for GURPS than it is in D&D.

Most D&D characters are far more powerful than most GURPS characters.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-03-27, 10:09 PM
Your point is ultimately that 4'th edition is not sacrificing character customization by removing all of the myriad subsystems and streamlining everything into a handful of universal character mechanics. And I disagree with that point.

The reason 3.5 has so many more options isn't any inherent part of its design. It's because there's so many damn sourcebooks.

Give 4th edition enough time and it too will have the power of tenfold sourcebook.

However, if you're only satisfied if you can create your own abilities, I'm already convinced 4th edition is superior. In 3.5, if you want to invent and introduce a mechanic, you have to decide if it should be a feat, a maneuver, an invocation, a spell (arcane or divine), a skill trick, or maybe even a psionic power. Say (after examining every divine spellcaster available to players) you choose divine spells. If that was the wrong choice then you just broke your game because you made divine spellcasters too powerful. Alternatively you made your spell too weak, in which case nobody uses it and your work was for nothing. To make it work, you have to compare it to every other example in the category you chose, and then see how it compares to skills, spells, maneuvers, and everything else on the laundry-list. Again, make a mistake and your game is broken, and you have to start over.

In 4e, just pick a class and a level, see how much damage abilities of those levels do, and then add on a neat effect. If it's too weak, maybe let it do a little more damage. If it's too strong, give it a minor tweak and try again. It's so simple that you'll probably get it right on your first time.

Deepblue706
2008-03-28, 01:26 AM
vive le GURPS.

Nebo_
2008-03-28, 02:31 AM
I stopped reading about here because if the rest of the text wall has as little thought as this, then it isn't worth my time.



But what happens when we try to bring this into play? It comes crashing down. No feat allows me to forego multiple strikes for a single, more powerful blow. No feat gives me the chance to spend some time studying my opponent, analyzing and dissecting him, so that I may defeat him with a single blow.

Overpowering Strike (I think that's what it's called) lets you sacrifice your iterative attacks to make a single strike at double damage. As for the second one... Death attack.

SofS
2008-03-28, 02:38 AM
The funny thing here in regard to GURPS is that Azerian Kelimon isn't even talking about the (arguably) easiest methods for achieving what you want to do with an ability, which is to find the book rules and go by them. Building your own abilities from scratch is often the "hard" way to get something, and mild experience makes it laughably easy. I'm not trying to argue anything by this statement other than my belief that GURPS is quite easy to customize.

It's not really house-ruling, either. The system assumes that you do not use all of the rules in the book (as they rather contradict each other). The customization is part of it. It's not really an out-of-the-box system (though it's hilarious to see people try to play it that way anyway. It's like a cartoon exploding).

Anyway. The main point here is rather interesting. While I would agree with the idea that the current edition of D&D makes it very difficult to do what one wants unless one wants exactly what the designers were predicting, this hasn't always been the case with other editions. The rules in older D&D look really strange nowadays, but I've come to realize that this is partially because there was a lot of space intentionally left in the ruleset. In old D&D, if I understand correctly, you wouldn't actually build a character for the purpose of having an ability like the one where you pass through your comrade's space and stab a dude. Instead, you'd say that that was what you were doing and the DM would decide what the chances of success were and how it affected things.

I've noticed that many current players really hate the idea of leaving practically everything up to the DM like that. It's certainly not something that would please the CharOp people, as you can't really effectively optimize someone else's judgement/whim. I think it is taking things a bit farther than I'd like, but there's merit to the idea (note how D&D has been trying to figure out how to effectively do fun stunts in combat ever since they made things more mechanically discrete). Putting rules on imagination is always a game of give-and-take anyway.


P.S. I don't like to keep going on about the same thing, but it might be helpful if people who don't know GURPS but want to talk about it understood the basic idea. Essentially, GURPS is a system where most mechanical aspects of a character have a point value. You resolve tasks by rolling against an attribute of some kind or a skill (which is measured by how much higher or lower than the attribute it is). These rolls are usually modified by circumstance and intended effect (most escalations of an ability's power happen through penalizing skill). There are a few exceptions, but this is pretty much how things work through every aspect of the system. There are no classes or levels and book-guided GM limitation is the only cap on how you spend your points. Hope this helps.

Cainen
2008-03-28, 02:50 AM
IOverpowering Strike (I think that's what it's called) lets you sacrifice your iterative attacks to make a single strike at double damage. As for the second one... Death attack.

You just completely missed his point. Whether it exists or not is worthless; it is the ease of customizability of GURPS' system as compared to 3.X's, where there's not only a lot more to take into account to make it feel like the other part of the game, but I've found that its players are considerably more whiny about house rulings.

I ported a buffed 2E weapon proficiency system to 3.5. It took hours to make sure there weren't any abusable loopholes(these are particularly annoying, since NO player should ever abuse these unless they're just performing thought exercises), that the system was explained clearly, and that it was functional and preserved caster vs. melee balance for just that little bit longer.

GURPS had it out of the box, and its system by default allows porting of things like that with no trouble. Not only did it not need it, but it would've been so much easier because I wouldn't have had to balance against costs without checking several references, I wouldn't have had to wonder about how badly it'd affect game balance, and it would've only taken a couple of minutes to refine the idea and put it on paper at most.

Rutee
2008-03-28, 02:55 AM
Overpowering Strike (I think that's what it's called) lets you sacrifice your iterative attacks to make a single strike at double damage. As for the second one... Death attack.

Nebo, he has a point when you consider that some people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of DnD and its books. And that's not even discussing access. DnD simply isn't /that/ customizable just because I can buy book X that gives me obscure Feat Y. GURPS is customizable because I can /easily/ build any ability I want.

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

Cainen
2008-03-28, 03:16 AM
OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

Do you know how many systems would have to go to make it even remotely as flexible as any other generic system? Class/level is not as flexible as D&D fans tend to think it is, especially since progression is based on level, and that's only the start.

Also, there's a typo in one of the URLs in your signature.

Cuddly
2008-03-28, 03:20 AM
Nebo, he has a point when you consider that some people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of DnD and its books. And that's not even discussing access. DnD simply isn't /that/ customizable just because I can buy book X that gives me obscure Feat Y. GURPS is customizable because I can /easily/ build any ability I want.

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

How else are they going to get you to buy a 30 dollar book, if core has it all?

Cainen
2008-03-28, 03:24 AM
How else are they going to get you to buy a 30 dollar book, if core has it all?

Exceptional fluff, ala GURPS.

SofS
2008-03-28, 03:28 AM
Nebo, he has a point when you consider that some people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of DnD and its books. And that's not even discussing access. DnD simply isn't /that/ customizable just because I can buy book X that gives me obscure Feat Y. GURPS is customizable because I can /easily/ build any ability I want.

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

I think the important part is to have consistency about character resources and how they affect play. Take the general idea of doing more damage on a hit in melee. In 3.5, there is precedence for gaining this extra damage through attack cost (Power Attack), AC cost (that Shock Trooper ability, Rage, other feats), feat opportunity cost (Power Attack again, Weapon Specialization, etc.), action cost (Overpowering Strike, Karmic Strike), and wealth cost (weapon enchantments). Spells are similar, usually requiring feats and spell levels to power up (and sometimes time, in the case of sorcerers) in addition to the ubiquitous power-through-weath approach. A character has a bunch of resources, some related to level and some not, and they're all offered as currency to fuel abilities in a seemingly haphazard fashion.

I think a more elegant and customizable 3.5 would be one where these relationships were clarified and expanded. I can imagine a 3.x-based system where a character had an array of basic actions and could improve on them by spending related resources in a fairly logical fashion. I've been working on using base attack bonus as the resource for difficult moves in combat for an upcoming game, but it's a bit like a bucket under a drip. I still think the idea is more sound than the haphazard application of feats (which can allow you to do anything from "nothing" to "three or four things" depending on what year it is) or using spells for everything (archery rangers really needed all of those new spells).

warmachine
2008-03-28, 06:34 AM
I regard this entire thread as pointless. Of course D&D doesn't let you customize beyond the feats and spells listed in books: it makes no attempt to aid design of anything else. This is obvious from its design. What the OP is asking is clearly beyond D&D's design limitation. If you want to do that, D&D is the wrong system. Aren't we just stating the bleeding obvious?

I like D&D overall as it does what tries to do well: out-of-the box, high magic, action-oriented, fantasy RPG. Spellcasters own the place at very high levels but I never play that level anyway. Rather, my criticism of D&D is the expansions they issue for further customization. Abusive, bizarre combinations from different books can be forgiven somewhat but some things are just unbalanced by themselves. Why didn't the designer of Radiant Servant of Pelor see the brokenness just by looking at it, let alone the editors? My DM simply bans half the feats out there (including a few core) just for game balance.

This is the failure of D&D: the expansions are supposed to be play-off-the-shelf but they're too untrustworthy to do that. I want to knock up a flambouyant, metamagic, 'Master of the Fireball' sorcercer around Arcane Thesis and metamagic feats but I don't want to have it banned because I'm p0wning the encounters. The point of an off-the-shelf product is that the time spent conceiving it and making it balanced has been done for me and the DM. Yet the DM and I have to spend time checking for brokenness. This is the kind of stupid **** you expect from Mongoose Publishing.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-28, 07:31 AM
Nebo, like others said, you missed my point. What I meant was that the system doesn't support my concept, forcing ME to do the work without any idea of how to do it. Like you said, there's overpowering strike. But overpowering strike is much weaker than a full attack. That does not fit my concept, that a single precise attack can be as mighty as many wild hits (In other words, that the british way of shooting can be as good as the american one, AKA shoot a bajillion bullets and hope you hit).

And mentioning Death attack is an autolose. So, now, if I want my concept to be mechanically represented, I have to be an assasin or an exalted jerkass via fist of raziel? Great, I got ONE bit of ym concept, at the cost of losing far more customizability in many other aspects. I din't win anything, I actually lost part of my freedom.

Warmachine, indeed. D&D doesn't do that, we all know it. The reason I posted this is because I found it interesting that D&D prides itself as a niche based system, when in truth it tends to yield genericness and an inability to represent uniqueness.

Matthew
2008-03-28, 08:20 AM
Anyway. The main point here is rather interesting. While I would agree with the idea that the current edition of D&D makes it very difficult to do what one wants unless one wants exactly what the designers were predicting, this hasn't always been the case with other editions. The rules in older D&D look really strange nowadays, but I've come to realize that this is partially because there was a lot of space intentionally left in the ruleset. In old D&D, if I understand correctly, you wouldn't actually build a character for the purpose of having an ability like the one where you pass through your comrade's space and stab a dude. Instead, you'd say that that was what you were doing and the DM would decide what the chances of success were and how it affected things.

I've noticed that many current players really hate the idea of leaving practically everything up to the DM like that. It's certainly not something that would please the CharOp people, as you can't really effectively optimize someone else's judgement/whim. I think it is taking things a bit farther than I'd like, but there's merit to the idea (note how D&D has been trying to figure out how to effectively do fun stunts in combat ever since they made things more mechanically discrete). Putting rules on imagination is always a game of give-and-take anyway.

I was going to say something very similar to this.

warmachine
2008-03-28, 09:20 AM
Warmachine, indeed. D&D doesn't do that [guidelines for homebrewing], we all know it. The reason I posted this is because I found it interesting that D&D prides itself as a niche based system, when in truth it tends to yield genericness and an inability to represent uniqueness.
Is it not obvious that a class-based system can only represent stereotypes, making it obvious that characters are generic and non-unique, as you say? Besides, I thought character niches meant fairly generic characters by necessity. All skill monkey characters must have a number of similar abilities to fulfil their skill monkey niche. This, of course, makes the extract from the PHB not just incorrect but a contradiction of the D&D design philosophy. Create a wise, knowledgeable, talking owl as a character and the game can't handle it because there's no niche for it. That D&D is meant to character niche based automatically means the characters are fairly generic. This is not obvious?

elliott20
2008-03-28, 09:38 AM
I too, felt that the stereotypes of classes is implied. Look at the way each class is written. Some classes practically have the way to play the class dictated for you even before you roll your character.

And so, if you want to get the concept you want, you have to actually be quite skilled at character building within the D&D system. It actually makes D&D a very much skill based game where on top of just playing and improving your character, you have to have a good concept all set up all prior to play. In addition to that, you also have to calibrate it right so that you don't overpower the rest of the party, or stat it right so you can actually be effective in play, etc, etc.

There are a lot of caveats to making D&D work.

Triaxx
2008-03-28, 10:20 AM
A finesse fighter is a class feature away. Instead of gaining an iterative, you take the extra bonuses and add them to damage, or to the attack roll. You end up with a full BAB fighter, that does 2d4+30+Str Mod. Without even adding enhancements or power attack. Or a lance charge. Or a critical.

I've always treated D&D as merely giving me examples, rather than: This is what you must use.

D&D is more customizable than GURPS, because I've seen what it can do, so I know where I can go with it. GURPS is too customizable. I can do anything, so eventually, someone ends up trying to do everything.

I personally think GURPS stands for Generally Useless Role-Playing System. I'd rather use SPECIAL.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-28, 10:23 AM
SPECIAL. Me likey. Brahmin to power!

But to say D&D is more customizable than GURPS...no way. And, BTW, just +30 dmaage and a single attack is pathetic. You don't even scratch strong enemies with that. See why D&D is hard to customize? That seems enough, but for a single attack, it's sorrily lousy.

Rutee
2008-03-28, 10:35 AM
Exceptional fluff, ala GURPS.

I thought GURPS setting books also pre-genned a lot of concepts important to the setting at hand. I didn't look at it, but, for instance, the Girl Genius book would have things like how to make a Spark, Clank creation rules, etc, all streamlined for the setting?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-28, 10:38 AM
Not so many. A few, yes, but it mostly just gives pwnzoring descriptions.

Rutee
2008-03-28, 10:50 AM
Ah. Not worth it for my money then. No offense ot them I just have enough confidence/arrogance in my own ability.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-28, 10:56 AM
They don't do characters, anyway. The books are there to give a very accurrate setting and to suggest how you should make the abilities, how many points they shouls cost, etc.

elliott20
2008-03-28, 11:00 AM
D&D is more customizable than GURPS, because I've seen what it can do, so I know where I can go with it. GURPS is too customizable. I can do anything, so eventually, someone ends up trying to do everything.

not to nitpick, but I think you just contradicted yourself in a matter of a single paragraph.

Personally, I tend to play games that are couched in very heavy fluff, with mechanics tailored specifically for the fluff provided. (i.e. spirits of the century, witch mountain, etc)

When we DO play a game that is pretty much fluff free (such as Prime Time Adventures), we tend to spend a lot more time defining the setting with the group first before we even hit character generation. (luckily, games like Prime Time Adventures have setting generation tips written into the book so it's not as painful)

Indon
2008-03-28, 11:08 AM
And mentioning Death attack is an autolose. So, now, if I want my concept to be mechanically represented, I have to be an assasin or an exalted jerkass via fist of raziel?
No, you don't. That's the point. You are not obligated to play Dungeons and Dragons by the rules as they are written. You can just steal ideas and apply them in your game the way you want them to be.

Of course D&D is going to be static and wooden when you play it like a boardgame. This is a game with a multi-decade legacy of homebrewing and houseruling, here.

Yes, homebrewing in D&D requires certain assumptions made on the part of the game towards its' players. For instance, that the players will not willfully exploit mechanics to break the game, and if something should be too strong or too weak, that players will talk with the DM about fixing it.

It's not even particularly hard to homebrew in D&D, in a practical sense. Why? Because many people love to homebrew for D&D and subsequently make their homebrewing and houseruling freely availible in the community (something which no doubt many roleplaying games have in common, including GURPS). You don't need to make things up because chances are, you can either take and tweak something someone's already made, or even ask them to make something for you. You don't actually have to do that much.

Now, let's look at 4'th edition and its' supposed versatility with the power system. Yes, it's easy to make a power that deals damage and then has an associated effect which goes away on a save. Now, what if you want to make, say, a spell that scares its' target to death? Or a poison that slows its' target (that won't just get tossed off in 10 seconds)? These, and many, many more ideas, are not covered in the power system. You can still homebrew them, though... by disregarding the rules as written just like you would homebrew for any version of D&D.

Only now, this disregarding is less intuitive. Much like with, say, magic items in the present version of D&D, people are less inclined to think of things outside of the restrictive 'guidelines' given to make things. This trend could even weaken the game's rich homebrewing legacy, by producing a mindset where the status quo is to actually use the rules as they are written, treating the game, well, like a boardgame.

Wizards, nor any other gaming company, can not give you freedom. They can only give you convenience... which you can largely get for free from your fellow gamer as-is.

Cybren
2008-03-28, 11:40 AM
I thought GURPS setting books also pre-genned a lot of concepts important to the setting at hand. I didn't look at it, but, for instance, the Girl Genius book would have things like how to make a Spark, Clank creation rules, etc, all streamlined for the setting?

It depends. In 4th edition the books are set up in a heirarchy. There are books that are basically split up into a few tiers

There's additional rules: Martial Arts (Martial Arts for GURPS 4th edition is probably my favorite RPG book of all time), Powers (and this would be number 2. It takes the GURPS rules and shows you how to make a variety of abilities using the advantages in tandem to represent a single power, such as "Super speed") , Magic(Basically an expansion of the magic in basic set, it has more colleges, alchemy, and enchantment rules, as well as some additional magic systems). Also of note are the tech books, Ultra Tech, High Tech, Bio tech. these have equipment and rules concerning various levels of technology, detailing equipment and advantages they could have.


Then there's Genre books, which detail a genre, fantasy, super hero, space, etc. They would detail creating a world to play in, what rules to use for running the campaign, and introduce a few extra ones as well. There's suggestions for how to run the campaign, and like most GURPS books are grounded in a lot of research in both the real world and the fictional worlds that share the genre.

Then there are setting books, such as GURPS Banestorm or Infinite Worlds. These are specific settings and have information on the worlds, abilities, and such found in it. It gets really specific here.

GURPS supplements are astoundingly well written and researched.

Enguhl
2008-03-28, 11:44 AM
Concept: A staple of fantasy here. In a war or battle against loads of mooks, the hero cuts his way through the army like a scythe, annihilating foes that try to stop him.

D&D: Take the Cleave line of feats until Superior Cleave, kill the first enemy, do cleaving until you roll a one, and pray you don't do it. This is reading superior cleave as granting you the five foot step ALONG with the attack. If not, you can't do it, period.

GURPS: Be a high level character, create S/A/P/W that makes it so that, if you hit and kill the first mook, you may deal damage equivalent to that of that attack to other mooks you can hit, and you can move until you have moved three times the amount you normally could or something like that, hitting every mook along the way. Repeat until the effect of cutting your way through the army is achieved.


No, that was not the point. He was giving examples of similar abilities in both, and how much easier it was to make an equivalent ability for GURPS than it is in D&D.

Most D&D characters are far more powerful than most GURPS characters.
D&D: Cleave enemies around you, or with supreme cleave, take a step in the middle. A step.
GURPS: "and you can move until you have moved three times the amount you normally could or something like that, hitting every mook along the way." That seems not 'similar', and in fact like GURPS is more powerful.

Pronounceable
2008-03-28, 11:50 AM
No, you don't. That's the point. You are not obligated to play Dungeons and Dragons by the rules as they are written. You can just steal ideas and apply them in your game the way you want them to be.

But then it's not DnD anymore, is it? The line between a homebrewed system based on DnD, and a DnD game with some houserules is very blurry. Let's say I bring back different XP tables for classes. Just one houseruling... It will affect multiclassing, PrCs, LAs, etc in unexpected (and borked up) ways. So now I have to fix them all. That one single houserule suddenly became a whole new variant. A less radical houserule like changing die on a weapon may not look much. But who can guess what Murphy will bestow upon you? It's like lying. One small one can lead to many collosal ones.

DnD presents itself as "balanced" out-of-the-box, which is wrong. It also claims to be "flexible", which is the point of this thread. It also happens to be not correct.

But DnD is a niche game. Not that it means players have niches to fill. It fills the niche of "Ring their bells with swords and spells" kind of roleplaying.

Indon
2008-03-28, 11:56 AM
But then it's not DnD anymore, is it? The line between a homebrewed system based on DnD, and a DnD game with some houserules is very blurry. Let's say I bring back different XP tables for classes. Just one houseruling... It will affect multiclassing, PrCs, LAs, etc in unexpected (and borked up) ways. So now I have to fix them all. That one single houserule suddenly became a whole new variant.
Multiple, sweeping variants are even published for each edition of D&D.

The game is meant to be homebrewed, even extensively if you prefer.


It also claims to be "flexible", which is the point of this thread. It also happens to be not correct.
Without houseruling, no game is as flexible as any game with houseruling.

So obviously, if you approach an RPG with the intent to run the game out-of-the-box, then yes, your game is not going to be particularly flexible. I would think that's obvious, and similarly obvious how you fix that.

Deepblue706
2008-03-28, 01:00 PM
D&D: Cleave enemies around you, or with supreme cleave, take a step in the middle. A step.
GURPS: "and you can move until you have moved three times the amount you normally could or something like that, hitting every mook along the way." That seems not 'similar', and in fact like GURPS is more powerful.

GURPS also has a 50-something point ability that whipes out all life in the universe. 150 points is well enough for the starting adventurer.

BUT!

GMs are very much encouraged to say "That's dumb, and we're not using it". Also, the thing you're describing is also something that is much more likely to come in high-point games. If you're emulating basic medieval fantasy, then the rulebooks says "try to limit things to these kind of abilities, unless you're going for overly cinematic, etc". *Note, that the phrase "cinematic" is actually included with some skills, giving people guidelines for what is acceptable in certain campaigns right from the get-go* Even then, players won't be able to do the most fantastic stuff until they get very high in point values - and gee, D&D Wizards can kinda do a lot when they have a lot of levels too.

In GURPS, you may have more potential for power, but the system does not encourage you to pour over all books on your shelf for the most absurd ways of gaining power over the universe. It says "Hey look, here's some character traits. Choose ones you like." Then, it continues with "Hey look, here's some flaws and disadvantages. They help to make your character seem more real, and they also give you more points. Some flaws aren't really flaws, because they're actually what a virtuous person has! But, they're a disadvantage, so it's not fair if you have to deal with more crap and get nothing for it."

The way D&D supplements are published, the focus is entirely on your combat ability (with rather insignificant amounts of extra info for fluff - unless it's actually a campaign setting), not about how to flesh out your character. GURPS can be very, very broken if the GM doesn't think twice about what he allows players to grab - but it supports customizability-through-mechanics far better than D&D ever has (and my guess, ever will).

fendrin
2008-03-28, 01:43 PM
Az, D&D is a niche game, GURPS is not. For the exact reasons you state.

In D&D, it is difficult to effectively play outside a provided niche. Note I said difficult, not impossible. Even then I really mean 'relatively difficult', relative to playing in-niche.

GURPS does not have those niches. Thus it is not a niche game.

Niches allow for faster character creation so long as you intend to play one of the niches. They make the game more accessible to beginners, and (if done right) make it harder to make a 'useless' character.

My GURPS experience is very slim. I own the rulebook (an older version maybe?), and played in one short lived game oh, 8 years ago or so.

However, I have more experience with HERO, which is like GURPS on performance enhancing drugs. Only better, because all of the numbers are derived from the same point source, so if you want a rapier that does as much damage as a semi without brakes, you can make one. It is so unrestrained in what can be done that some powers (the basic building blocks of a character's abilities) are printed with disclaimers about how game-breaking they can be.

Now, my first HERO character, despite having just as many points as other characters, was relatively useless in a fight. Why? Because I built him in such a way that although he had a ton of actions and could hit fairly easily, his damage per strike was too low to go though most (non-mook) enemies defenses. Imagine a Level 1 D&D character who can make 10 attacks a round, but each attack only does 1 damage. Pretty good against an orc, right? now have him whack away at anything with DR and he's useless.

So, play in a niche for ease, play out of a niche for complexity. I prefer D&D because it gives the option. HERO requires you to work to make your character.

elliott20
2008-03-28, 02:17 PM
Niche doesn't necessarily allow for faster character generation, playing by the way the designers thought the game was played allows for faster character gen. It also is greatly dependant upon the expansions you allow.

If you just go core, D&D character gen might not take too long. But really, if you're talking about ease of generating characters, I can easily name 4-5 systems off of my head that gives you faster (and frankly, better balanced) character gen.

Of course, the design philosophy and gaming philosophy in those games are catered to a different audience. A lot of these games tend to be far more rules light. But that's what happens to games with a narrativist focus. (Not to go all GNS on you guys or anything)

fendrin
2008-03-28, 03:28 PM
<snip>playing by the way the designers thought the game was played allows for faster character gen.
Which is precisely what a niche is...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-28, 03:29 PM
Nah. A niche is skillmonkey. The way the designers intended is: Pump disable traps, situationally flank, be sneaky and greedy, play rogue. Much like you're expected to take Weapon focus for the base, default fighter.

fendrin
2008-03-28, 03:51 PM
Nah. A niche is skillmonkey. The way the designers intended is: Pump disable traps, situationally flank, be sneaky and greedy, play rogue. Much like you're expected to take Weapon focus for the base, default fighter.

Which is what I said (and what elliott20 said, for that matter).

Although I strongly disagree about the 'greedy' bit.
That's just silly, not to mention wrong.

Cybren
2008-03-28, 04:04 PM
GURPS also has a 50-something point ability that whipes out all life in the universe. 150 points is well enough for the starting adventurer.

BUT!




GURPS doesn't "have" a 50 point ability that does that. It is just possible to build one if you don't put any restrictions on levels of modifiers.

Deepblue706
2008-03-28, 04:13 PM
GURPS doesn't "have" a 50 point ability that does that. It is just possible to build one if you don't put any restrictions on levels of modifiers.

Well, I was trying to make the concept simplistic. A lot of people who play D&D how no bearings on how this kind of thing would function.

Mojo_Rat
2008-03-28, 04:23 PM
Ever since first edition, D&D has taken pride in having introduced the concept of character niches (The classic skillmonkey, tank, healbot, and arcanist) to tabletop RPG'ing, among many other things. What this thread seeks to demonstrate is that, actually, said niches are fallacious: most characters are actually far more generic than it's believed. The second thing this thead wishes to demonstrate is that the sum of unique parts does not equal an unique product. This thread does NOT aim to show how one class can do someone else's job: That has been shown as true many times before.


Id like to point out initially that some of those Niches you talk about have not been around forever. Skillmonkey is a wholly 3.5 Creation. Secondly You cant really compare a a class system within a specific Genre to a Generic point system.

You would be better to compare Gurps to Mutants and masterminds which is at least a d20 derivative. One of the things I find frustrating when dealing with the modern players Is the talk of the base classes being generic or boring and how they are all the same.

To be honest? theres nothing wrong with every fighter being functionally mechanically the Same. ITs up to the player of the Fighter to distinguish him from other fighters in how the character is played. If The same player playes 3 different fighters and they all look the same thats functionally a problem of the player not the system.

the fact is though D&D was never intended to let you design whatever youw ant. You just have alot of choices to diversify but its reasonable to have to build something within the constraints of the system.

Cainen
2008-03-28, 04:45 PM
D&D: Cleave enemies around you, or with supreme cleave, take a step in the middle. A step.
GURPS: "and you can move until you have moved three times the amount you normally could or something like that, hitting every mook along the way." That seems not 'similar', and in fact like GURPS is more powerful.

Start paying attention to his point instead of strawmanning. Power has nothing to do with it at ALL.

Besides that, the average GURPS character starts at around 150. The average D&D character starts at the same, but they start bounding over the GURPS characters because they get what's basically the equivalent of 10 to 20 points every levelup, whereas GURPS characters get 2-4 every session, possibly more if their GM's nice. It's irrelevant if the GURPS equivalent is more powerful if the D&D character has thirty more abilities than said GURPS character.


Id like to point out initially that some of those Niches you talk about have not been around forever. Skillmonkey is a wholly 3.5 Creation.

No, I'm fairly sure there were characters based around skills in a lot of systems before 3E. I certainly made a skillmonkey Shadowrun character far before 3E was even thought up, even if the system doesn't have classes.


Secondly You cant really compare a a class system within a specific Genre to a Generic point system.

Yes, you can. Just because you're using a class system doesn't mean that it has to be inflexible by nature, since it could have any sort of system that class is irrelevant to, and that was his point.


You would be better to compare Gurps to Mutants and masterminds which is at least a d20 derivative.

M&M is far more flexible than D&D's interpretation of d20 and is also wholly irrelevant to what he said. D&D's interpretation of d20 is what he's talking about. What are you trying to do?


To be honest? theres nothing wrong with every fighter being functionally mechanically the Same.

I'm fairly sure that that's entirely wrong. Give me a reason why this is the case, since he certainly gave reasons why it is.


the fact is though D&D was never intended to let you design whatever youw ant. You just have alot of choices to diversify but its reasonable to have to build something within the constraints of the system.

And you act like it's wrong to hold this against it. It's not. It doesn't MATTER if the system was built to be restrictive if being restrictive is still a flaw.

Indon
2008-03-28, 04:48 PM
Skillmonkey is a wholly 3.5 Creation.

I'd say it was a natural evolution of the trap-disarming niche class.