Real Man's D&D

[Samurai Jill]

That's what it looks like on the surface but there's a slightly deeper interaction there than is immediately apparent.

To advance your skills you need to attempt difficult tasks and occasionally tasks that are doomed to failure.

In a high stake situation you might find yourself deciding that your best way to advance your skill is far too risky with too great a consequence. You might look for another way to confront the problem.

But if you have the artha there to spend (and the confidence that you'll be earning more for your actions) you might decide that you have enough dice to attempt the risky move after all and accelerate your advancement at the same time.

I believe that the intent is to encourage gaming because play produces good results.

That's a fair point. In many ways I think one of the neatest things about the BW system is that it can sort of 'funnel' G or S proclivities into N play given time. (The downside being, of course, it's rather high structural complexity.)

[Caphi]

They don't contribute to suspension of disbelief, they actively make it harder. Why should suspension of disbelief be required for skill progression based on practicing specific skills? That's exactly what happens in real life- there is nothing hard to believe about it!

To be quite honest, my suspension of disbelief is ruined far more easily by tracking subexperience for a variety of skills than by simply putting points into [X] and declaring that my character is still good at [X] or has been [X]ing in spare time.

Same goes for point systems as well as level systems, for that matter.

I don't know if you're different from me, but my suspension of disbelief is carried by game flow, not by numerical simulation.

[Samurai Jill]

To be quite honest, my suspension of disbelief is ruined far more easily by tracking subexperience for a variety of skills than by simply putting points into [X] and declaring that my character is still good at [X] or has been [X]ing in spare time.

Exactly how do you rationalise that when your character has been trudging through a lightless dungeon for several days with no opportunity for doing anything of the kind in their spare time?

An ability to not think about this does not constitute verisimilitude.

I can entirely understand that the degree of effort required to track every skill individually may be too much if you really just want to focus on other things (e.g, the overall storyline, or resolving a tricky tactical challenge or puzzle.) Just don't pretend that other thing is making 'suspension of disbelief' any easier.

[Gametime]

They don't contribute to suspension of disbelief, they actively make it harder. Why should suspension of disbelief be required for skill progression based on practicing specific skills? That's exactly what happens in real life- there is nothing hard to believe about it!

At the simplified rates of acquisition and progression present in game systems? No, it doesn't. At the formulaic rate of increase present in game systems? No, it doesn't.

Yeah, I mistyped - should have read "weaken suspension of disbelief," or something similar. Beg pardon.

The point is, any system that quantifies skills is going to take some liberties and do some abstracting. Any system is going to require some suspension of disbelief. The degree may vary - why do you get to choose what level of suspension is allowed for people to enjoy a game?

In Burning Wheel, your decisions *are* the story being told. It is the GM's responsibility to present situations that play upon your beliefs in way that produce a coherent narrative, but there is no predetermined plot structure for you to wreck.

Ah. So it's only okay for the players to organically pursue goals if the system doesn't allow for anything else. If they do it in D&D, it's story-wrecking. Or something.

Thirdly, as I mentioned earlier, narrativist play actually makes the single-minded pursuit of specific goals (i.e, 'winning') quite problematic, for much the same reason it won't tolerate railroading: Drama consists of putting the character in situations where they must choose between two or more things of emotional value to them. The more ambivalent the choice, the more dramatic, and the more unlikely it becomes that the character will pick the same thing over and over again. Conversely, if the player pursues a single goal without wavering throughout the story, drama requires escalating sacrifices to confirm that belief and provide fresh input to theme. If kept up long enough, this will actually destroy the character, either physically and/or spiritually.

Is that what narrativist means? That seems overly narrow. Drama doesn't just consist of putting characters in situations where they have to make a difficult choice between two things they care about. There are plenty of good stories where the goal is obvious and the means to attain it are not.

You just answered your own question. Killing ogres "at random" doesn't demonstrate any clear motivation on the character's part, and therefore provides no thematic input.

It does if the character hates ogres. It's at least as compelling a motivation as killing baby-eating cultists.

The example was intended as hyperbole, though. The point is that there's nothing about level-based systems that prohibit seeking out motivations fitting with your character, and combat isn't the only way to gain levels, so... I'm still not seeing how level-based systems prevent you from engaging in the story.

No, it is not. From the perspective of verisimilitude, measuring proficiency at specific tasks enhances the accuracy of system modelling. There is a very different function here, and there is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, leaving it out would be a substantial oversight- for certain kinds of play.

So we agree that measuring proficiency is a good thing, for some types of game, and that there are different ways to do it that suit different people.

Now if I can just convince you that levels don't encourage me to power game, I think we'll have reached a consensus.

Experience debating this point has convinced me that GMs which believe they are giving players meaningful story input very frequently are not. One example I can recall is a GM who said that if his entire plot revolved around this final confrontation with an evil Duke, and the players decided at the last minute to ride away and not fight him, then it would be perfectly acceptable to have the Duke ambush the party and thereby force the final confrontation that way. In other words, to render the players' input on the subject ultimately irrelevant. GMs, in other words, who believe in using a combination of carrot and stick to gently herd players toward more-or-less predetermined conclusions.

I would have the Duke pursue the players, in the event that he wanted them dead. Possibly he would not do it himself, depending on the reliability of the minions available to him, but if he wanted them defeated he would certainly take steps to make that happen. If he was unaware of them, or unthreatened by them, he would not go after them. My policy is to let the characters do what they want, and attempt to model the consequences of that consistently with the motivations of the NPCs involved.

Of course every number you slap down on top of things is going, at some level, to be too abstract to cover all the nuances of reality (or the imagined reality.) You accept a degree of abstraction for the sake of lower complexity. But the point is that levels and classes both increase abstraction AND increase complexity. They serve a valuable role in certain kinds of play, but if co-op powergaming is not your goal, they are not useful.

Increase abstraction, I can accept. But I disagree entirely about complexity. My players and I enjoy levels and classes because they allow us to choose a broad archetype without having to do too much work figuring out the abilities. There are still some choices and fine-tuning, but the range of choices is narrower and thus the complexity of character creation is diminished.

We accept the increased abstraction in exchange for less complexity. That's a reasonable trade, for us. It won't be for everyone, but I just don't buy that levels and classes are more complex or intricate than systems where you pick every detail about your character independently from every other detail.

Burning Wheel sort of works this way. You do get rewarded for seeking out the baby eating cult so that's the sort of thing you'd choose to do in game.

But at the same time, because the baby eating cult is something that interests you as a player (why pick it otherwise?) the things that'll now happen in game should be things that you are interested in.

You are right about the importance of situation, your belief should tie into the big picture in order to keep party cohesiveness. If you want to go into the dungeon, (because dungeons happen to be awesome) write a belief about why and game it. It produces good results. The situation will change and so will your beliefs.

Right. I think that's generally the best way to play a game - having characters with goals that tie into the story the players want to tell together. Some systems emphasize that more, others less, but there's hardly any game system out there that doesn't at least allow it, which is just the point I'm trying to make.

I also haven't yet seen the system that can't be powergamed, and I'm firmly of the opinion that "acquisition of power" is a sufficient goal for a powergamer.

[Caphi]

Exactly how do you rationalise that when your character has been trudging through a lightless dungeon for several days with no opportunity for doing anything of the kind in their spare time?

An ability to not think about this does not constitute verisimilitude.

It has nothing to do with ability. I just don't want to let it hold up the game. And I don't think camping out for a few days is important enough to cripple my character concept if that concept happens to include, for whatever reason, Knowledge (local), or that taking a spelunking trip should atrophy his status as an expert at Craft (basketweaving), or whatever - and it certainly isn't important enough to tar up the game for the sake of tracking. As far as defining the character is concerned, I have better places to be.

[Samurai Jill]

The point is, any system that quantifies skills is going to take some liberties and do some abstracting. Any system is going to require some suspension of disbelief. The degree may vary - why do you get to choose what level of suspension is allowed for people to enjoy a game?

I am not saying you don't enjoy the game! I am saying that including levels and classes only supports the enjoyment of a particular kind of play, and will probably make other forms harder.

...Is that what narrativist means? That seems overly narrow. Drama doesn't just consist of putting characters in situations where they have to make a difficult choice between two things they care about. There are plenty of good stories where the goal is obvious and the means to attain it are not.

Yes, because they oblige the characters to choose between things that are important to them. In the Lord of the Rings, the ultimate goal is always pretty clear: defeat Sauron. But drama for Boromir comes from the choice between his own potential corruption or endangering Minas Tirith. Drama for Frodo comes from choosing whether to abandon his companions or endanger them by proximity to the Ring, and whether or not to accept Gollum into his service. Drama for Sam comes from deciding whether and how far to follow him. Drama for Aragorn comes from choosing whether to track down Sam and Frodo or rescue Merry and Pippin. Drama for Gollum comes from choosing between his own addiction and affection for his master. But going after Sauron in itself? ...Way too obvious. The clash of good vs. evil is in many ways a huge red herring in stories of this kind- all the drama comes from situations where right and wrong were not clearly defined. Where winning did not exist.

The most fiendish mechanical puzzle in the world or the most elaborate tactical encounter ever devised is thematically dead if no emotional tradeoffs are involved in solving it. You can have any amount of fun solving them, but in and of themselves they won't make for a compelling story.

...The point is that there's nothing about level-based systems that prohibit seeking out motivations fitting with your character, and combat isn't the only way to gain levels, so... I'm still not seeing how level-based systems prevent you from engaging in the story...

...So we agree that measuring proficiency is a good thing, for some types of game, and that there are different ways to do it that suit different people.

Now if I can just convince you that levels don't encourage me to power game, I think we'll have reached a consensus.

I'm not saying they cause you, personally, to powergame, but the fact you can ignore them doesn't mean they don't require ignoring. That's the point! They can send a message that has nothing to do with your ultimate priorities in play, and that can actually interfere with them. (Recall that drama and clear win conditions are not easily compatible.)

Class/level systems, moreover, while they won't inherently prevent a character from having well-defined beliefs and goals, will make it harder for those beliefs and goals to change over time, because a class system locks you into a particular skill set which tends to complement particular goals and beliefs. (If you say that practice-based skill systems do the same thing, you are partly correct, and this is indeed one of the main frictions between sim and nar play, but such systems do allow for more long-term flexibility.)

I'm sure that a dedicated powergamer will try their damndest to powergame regardless of the rules, while a dedicated role-player will try to exhibit conviction and consistency even when the rules make it harder. But there are people in between, and it is in these cases that the rules can be an important 'tipping point'. If nothing else, the right rules will make life easier for the role-player and harder for the powergamer, up to and including discouraging the latter from joining at all- which is a valuable function.

I would have the Duke pursue the players, in the event that he wanted them dead. Possibly he would not do it himself, depending on the reliability of the minions available to him, but if he wanted them defeated he would certainly take steps to make that happen...

"If"? Who decides that, exactly, other than the GM? Who created the character in the first place? I know we like to pretend that the world is a self-contained entity that operates by it's own laws, but it's very easy to contrive a trap for the players that looks perfectly 'organic' from the inside.

Increase abstraction, I can accept. But I disagree entirely about complexity. My players and I enjoy levels and classes because they allow us to choose a broad archetype without having to do too much work figuring out the abilities...

As I have also mentioned, this is fine for creating initial characters: classes are more-or-less okay as templates or examples for typical characters from typical backgrounds. But there is no intrinsic reason why what the character was should magically constrain how they are allowed to develop afterwards.

I would stress, once again, that there is no reason why having an advancement system based on arbitrary XP investment mandates having classes as well. You could still divorce skills from the need to practice without an archetypal straijacket on top. (Nor am I convinced that keeping track of total XP is significantly more tedious than putting a tick next to your skill every time it's used.)

I would also disagree that 'there's no system which can't be powergamed'. Some systems are simply enough that there are no significant loopholes to exploit, and no real power-advancement mechanics to speak of.

[Samurai Jill]

It has nothing to do with ability. I just don't want to let it hold up the game...

Okay, let's stop for a minute. ...How long do you spend resolving a typical combat encounter?

[Caphi]

Okay, let's stop for a minute. ...How long do you spend resolving a typical combat encounter?

Much longer than I'd like, for entirely tangential reasons. Now come back to the actual point.

[Samurai Jill]

Much longer than I'd like...

But no longer than you're willing to, which is the point. You are willing to spend much more time and effort on the minutiae of conflict resolution than you are on modelling character growth. That says something about your relative priorities.

EDIT: I say this in the full knowledge that it's rare to find games which don't have substantial sections dealing with combat mechanics in disproportionate detail. But it's silly to say you won't spend 5 minutes dealing with character growth in a plausible fashion while spending 20 or 30 poring over the tactical arsenal available to you in battle and claim you consider them just as important.

[Caphi]

But no longer than you're willing to, which is the point. You are willing to spend much more time and effort on the minutiae of conflict resolution than you are on modelling character growth. That says something about your relative priorities.

Oh hooray, we're quote mining now. Do I have to spell it out? I have no problem with tactical combat. My combats take time because of players being slow. I can resolve it pretty quickly on my end, and I have fun preparing for and executing tactical decisions.

Modelling skill experience would remove a level of abstraction I have no problem with and add bookkeeping that I don't want to deal with to solve a problem I don't think exists while making it difficult to make characters I want to play. I have absolutely no interest in roleplaying "oh jeez we were in that cave for a couple days and as a result I've fallen behind on my violin practice." That scene would not be enjoyable or interesting.

[Mike_G]

Nice analogy, and it's probably how it should be, but Satyr clearly stated he sees wizard vs fighter as swiss knive vs machette. The swiss knive may win, but only if you're McGuyver, the other dude is a nameless mook and you have plenty of preparation time.

I'll admit I haven't been reading this all that closely since the derail on skill based vs level based systems, so maybe I missed that.

My way of looking at it does more closely mirror pulp style wizards, though. Wielders of mighty forces beyond mortal understanding, but shove a foot of steel in them and they die.

Steven Brust said it best: "No mater how subtle the wizard, a dagger between the shoulderblades will seriously cramp his style."

[jiriku]

Satyr, I skipped most of the debate but read through all the posts linked in your OP. I'm seeing a serious issue that's kind of shot through all of your changes.

Most of the changes make casters better.

If your goal is to empower Conan, you really don't want to make the evil sorcerers even more able to swat him down with a standard action. Here are the issues I see:

1. Higher stats benefit casters more than noncasters, because noncasters get bonuses, but casters get bonuses plus extra spells per day.
2. Higher hit points benefit casters more than noncasters, because extra hit points are more valuable when you have fewer of them, and less valuable when you already have lots. Moreover, it's generally easier for casters to defeat enemies without dealing hit point damage, which means this change handily helps casters defend themselves from noncasters, but doesn't do the reverse very well.
3. Reducing magic penalizes noncasters more than casters, because a caster can often cast a spell to duplicate the effects of a magic item he would have purchased, while a noncaster must simply do without.
4. Gestalting casters with anything, even NPC classes, makes them much stronger by shoring up the weaknesses that were supposed to balance them. A wizard gestalted with warrior gets a better Fort save, better hit points, better base attack, and free armor and martial weapon proficiency. A wizard gestalted with expert gains better hit points, better base attack, better skill points, and proficiency with some weapons and armor. These are not small benefits.
5. Flaws help casters more than noncasters, because caster feats are generally better than noncaster feats (compare Empower vs. Weapon Specialization or Sculpt vs. Precise Shot).
6. Eliminating psionics increases the average power of PC casters. Because psionics-using classes are generally a notch lower in power than their arcane analogues, players who would have played a psionic character are now funneled towards the equivalent, more powerful, arcane caster. You've removed the weaker casting options, funneling players towards the choices that have more dakka.

Additionally, a couple of your stated design goals, such as eliminating flying and teleportation, aren't accomplished by the changes you've published so far. Perhaps you intend to address them in the ban list.

Suggestion: To stop PCs from flying, you'll need to ban the Natural Spell feat to prevent druids from shifting to a flying animal form and using that form regularly in combat. You'll also need to ban air walk, master air, fly, mass fly, swift fly, overland flight, storm tower, false gravity, fire wings, phantom steed, lesser planar binding, planar binding, greater planar binding, lesser planar ally, planar ally, greater planar ally, gate, summon elemental, summon monster III through IX, summon nature's ally III through IX, summon desert ally III through IX, summon ice beast III through IX, alter self, polymorph, draconic polymorph, polymoph any object, shapechange, least dragonshape, lesser dragonshape, and dragonshape, to list the means of flight that I can think of off the top of my head.

I'd strongly recommend that if you want to get the swords and sorcery feel that you eliminate the wizard, cleric and archivist, and perhaps even the warmage. They just don't play nice with Conan. In an admittedly shameless plug, I'll also point up the elemental casters in my sig, which are intended to fill traditional fantasy spellcasting archetypes without the phenomenal cosmic power of the wizzie (although you'd want to prune their spell lists, as they generally do fly and teleport via one means or another).

[Zen Master]

The point of having three separate saves was to more accurately model a character's resistance to different kinds of attack. Is one save, perhaps modified by Constitution, now supposed to model a character's ability to overpower, dodge, and disbelieve different kinds of attacks? The same save vs. massive damage as vs. Color Spray? I mean, you can probably balance it to some extent, but it'll be pretty bland. See below for some speculation on alternatives.

That's an interesting way of looking at it - because, when I look at the same thing, I see something completely different.

What I see is this: The three different saves are there to give wizards the proper tool to defeat anything he meets. But the big, dumb brutes you go for will or dex save, for the clever types you go for dex or con - and so on.

It's a mechanic designed to ensure the wizard is never reduced to having to do actual hitpoint damage.

And yea - it can go. It's not needed for anything.

If you think it bland, how about a different system. The fighter gets one save, based on his attribute of choice.

The wizard gets spells based on different attributes, that give different bonuses to his spells. Chosing the right one gives him better chances of overcoming the fighters resistance.

Eh? Pretty neat - now the wizard actually has to work for it.

[nefele]

The wizard gets spells based on different attributes, that give different bonuses to his spells. Chosing the right one gives him better chances of overcoming the fighters resistance.

Eh? Pretty neat - now the wizard actually has to work for it.

Good idea. However, before that happens, someone has to work a whole lot more to write down exactly how it works...

[Gametime]

Yes, because they oblige the characters to choose between things that are important to them. In the Lord of the Rings, the ultimate goal is always pretty clear: defeat Sauron. But drama for Boromir comes from the choice between his own potential corruption or endangering Minas Tirith. Drama for Frodo comes from choosing whether to abandon his companions or endanger them by proximity to the Ring, and whether or not to accept Gollum into his service. Drama for Sam comes from deciding whether and how far to follow him. Drama for Aragorn comes from choosing whether to track down Sam and Frodo or rescue Merry and Pippin. Drama for Gollum comes from choosing between his own addiction and affection for his master. But going after Sauron in itself? ...Way too obvious. The clash of good vs. evil is in many ways a huge red herring in stories of this kind- all the drama comes from situations where right and wrong were not clearly defined. Where winning did not exist.

Half of those examples stop being true well before the end of the third book, and well before the climax of the story. Some of them are resolved by the end of the first. There is still plenty of drama to be found, including in the "obvious" battles against evil.

To use another example, the Red Wedding in George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series is one of the most dramatic scenes I've ever read. At no point are any of the protagonists at all conflicted in their goals and motivations. (It's worth noting that Martin's series is filled with moral ambiguities and forced decisions between ideals. Based on your description of drama, I think you'd like it. My point is merely that you definition of what is "dramatic" is incredibly narrow, and really just terribly suited to actually encompassing the concept.)

I'm not saying they cause you, personally, to powergame, but the fact you can ignore them doesn't mean they don't require ignoring. That's the point! They can send a message that has nothing to do with your ultimate priorities in play, and that can actually interfere with them. (Recall that drama and clear win conditions are not easily compatible.)

I don't recall D&D having a clear win condition.

Class/level systems, moreover, while they won't inherently prevent a character from having well-defined beliefs and goals, will make it harder for those beliefs and goals to change over time, because a class system locks you into a particular skill set which tends to complement particular goals and beliefs. (If you say that practice-based skill systems do the same thing, you are partly correct, and this is indeed one of the main frictions between sim and nar play, but such systems do allow for more long-term flexibility.)

...Unless the system allows you to multiclass, or choose different skills, or pick feats to customize your selection, or decide from a variety of spells and maneuvers that encompass a broad range of functions.

I can't speak for other level-based systems, but D&D, coincidentally, does all of that.

"If"? Who decides that, exactly, other than the GM? Who created the character in the first place? I know we like to pretend that the world is a self-contained entity that operates by it's own laws, but it's very easy to contrive a trap for the players that looks perfectly 'organic' from the inside.

I decide what the character is like. The players decide how he relates to them. If he is vengeful, then committing a crime against him is likely to attract his ire. If he covets the throne, then the PC who is an heir will probably have to renounce his claim or come into conflict with the Duke. And so on.

I make the characters the PCs encounter. They decide how to interact with them, and then I try to have them respond realistically. If the heroes are set on saving a city from invasion, then yeah, they're probably going to have to face the barbarian army that's about to invade. Does this mean I should never make a threat to something the PCs care about, because then they're forced into fighting it? I think not. If they cared more about not fighting the army than about saving the city, they could always flee. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, here.

Also, I tried to hint at it before, but would you please stop insinuating that I railroad my players? Please? It's insulting, frankly, and I've had to justify myself to you not once but twice. If you don't respect me enough to take me at my word when I tell you how my games go, then you probably don't respect me enough for this discussion to have any purpose anyway.

So, please.

I would also disagree that 'there's no system which can't be powergamed'. Some systems are simply enough that there are no significant loopholes to exploit, and no real power-advancement mechanics to speak of.

Those systems are the easiest to powergame of all. Admittedly, the effects of powergaming are going to be minimal, but if the ceiling is super low then it takes almost no effort to hit it.

[Mike_G]

Good idea. However, before that happens, someone has to work a whole lot more to write down exactly how it works...

Actually, the save bonus is very little work.

Make it equal to the number of HD of the target. You can still use Con to modify Fort to resist poison, Dex to modify reflex for dodging a blast, Wis for resisting charm, etc.

Basing the Save DC for different spells off the Wizard's stats (Con for Fort Saves, Dex for Ref saves and Wis for Will saves) would make the SADest class a bit more MAD.

[Samurai Jill]

Half of those examples stop being true...

"Stop being true"? I'm talking about decisions made. Those don't retroactively cease to exist. And they continue being made right through to the climax. Sam and Frodo's journey is a good example of 'sacrifice escalation'- by choosing the same thing over and over again, the way the book milks it for extra input to theme is by making the choice harder and harder. They come within a hairs' breadth of killing themselves. Heck, the very climax of the book is exactly a moment of this kind- Frodo has to choose between the ring's power or it's destruction, in circumstances where his and Sam's survival seem pretty damn slim.

I can't speak for the example you cite, but I would submit that whatever definition of 'drama' you use, the form I'm talking about is essential to good storytelling. A protagonist who is presented with nothing but a series of obvious decisions isn't a protagonist. S/he is a pawn of circumstance.

I don't recall D&D having a clear win condition.

It doesn't come with one out of the box, but most campaigns revolve around well-established goal conditions, and combat- it's first and foremost focus- certainly does.

...Unless the system allows you to multiclass...

...Which arguably undermines the point of having classes in the first place. Here's a radical notion: Don't bother with classes after character creation.

...or choose different skills, or pick feats to customize your selection, or decide from a variety of spells and maneuvers that encompass a broad range of functions.

...All of which classes make harder to do. You're quoting all the features that classes specifically exist to restrain.

I make the characters the PCs encounter. They decide how to interact with them, and then I try to have them respond realistically. If the heroes are set on saving a city from invasion, then yeah, they're probably going to have to face the barbarian army that's about to invade. Does this mean I should never make a threat to something the PCs care about, because then they're forced into fighting it?...

Never for what style of play? -It's perfectly fine outside of narrativism. But yes, IF you want to give players real input to the story's basic themes, you should never ever put them in situations where they have no real sane choice about how to respond on a broad level. It's not railroading- the technical term is illusionism- but choices with obviously 'correct' responses aren't choices worth speaking of in thematic terms.

Also, I tried to hint at it before, but would you please stop insinuating that I railroad my players?...

Would you stop insinuating that I say these things?!? I am not calling you a powergamer, I am not calling powergaming inherently bad, I am not calling realism inhrently good, and I am not saying you railroad players. I am saying that some of the design features you inexplicably cling to aren't helping you to avoid things you claim to find distasteful.

Those systems are the easiest to powergame of all. Admittedly, the effects of powergaming are going to be minimal...

They're not going to be minimal, they're going to be nonexistant. Are you listening to me? There are games where character power does not progress at all. In Polaris, for example, 'experience' consists of a transition from a zealous novice to a weary veteran, with the next effect that one is exactly as strong as the other- in fact, in many ways the veteran is weaker, since he loses the initiative in conflicts. How do you powergame that, exactly? Please, enlighten me. Was I hallucinating, perhaps?

[Gametime]

"Stop being true"? I'm talking about decisions made. Those don't retroactively cease to exist. And they continue being made right through to the climax. Sam and Frodo's journey is a good example of 'sacrifice escalation'- by choosing the same thing over and over again, the way the book milks it for extra input to theme is by making the choice harder and harder. They come within a hairs' breadth of killing themselves. Heck, the very climax of the book is exactly a moment of this kind- Frodo has to choose between the ring's power or it's destruction, in circumstances where his and Sam's survival seem pretty damn slim.

And the choice of whether or not to follow Frodo has been made at the end of book one. Just because the road keeps getting harder doesn't make the choice harder - in fact, unless my memory fails me, Sam considers turning back again maybe once in the remaining two books. You're illustrating my point perfectly: the remainder of the books is compelling and dramatic not because the characters are constantly having to choose between continuing and not, but because the choice they have already made and never waver from keeps getting harder and harder to carry out.

I can't speak for the example you cite, but I would submit that whatever definition of 'drama' you use, the form I'm talking about is essential to good storytelling. A protagonist who is presented with nothing but a series of obvious decisions isn't a protagonist. S/he is a pawn of circumstance.

Never did I say that a work drama shouldn't involve choices from the protagonist; I said that drama itself can exist in situations where the protagonist has no choice. See: Basically every action scene, ever. If we are already invested in a protagonist, then seeing them struggle to protect the things they care about is compelling even if they don't have to make any difficult choices while doing so.

...Which arguably undermines the point of having classes in the first place. Here's a radical notion: Don't bother with classes after character creation.

So now it's a binary choice? Either I pick one class, for ever and always, or use an entirely classless system?

I'm not saying classes are the greatest thing since sliced d20s. I'm just suggesting they aren't as toxic to gameplay as you seem to think, outside of the one narrow game paradigm you'll allow them to occupy.

...All of which classes make harder to do. You're quoting all the features that classes specifically exist to restrain.

...No? Classes are a means to obtain these abilities, for some examples, and completely separated from them in others. Skills and feats can be chosen regardless, and taking levels in wizard to gain access to spells is functionally identical to spending points to gain spells, or training to gain spells, or whatever other method you prefer to use.

Never for what style of play? -It's perfectly fine outside of narrativism. But yes, IF you want to give players real input to the story's basic themes, you should never ever put them in situations where they have no real sane choice about how to respond on a broad level. It's not railroading- the technical term is illusionism- but choices with obviously 'correct' responses aren't choices worth speaking of in thematic terms.

So what you're saying is that sacrificing verisimilitude for the sake of a good story is fine? Because that seems like a HUGE loss of verisimilitude, right there. There will never be an evil tyrant in a campaign with good PCs? There will never be a slave trader looking to make a profit? There will never be an army invading the home country of the PCs?

You always have a choice. Isn't what you've been talking about making hard decisions between things you care about? Well, if you care more about your ideals than your skin, you'll fight the tyrant/trader/invaders. If you don't, you'll run. How, exactly, is that choice illusory? Because the benefits of each aren't equal? Because one seems like a better option? Should I never present my players with any options that aren't identical in terms of "ideal management?"

The more I hear about your ideas of "narrative," the less credence I feel I can give to your feelings on verisimilitude.

Would you stop insinuating that I say these things?!? I am not calling you a powergamer, I am not calling powergaming inherently bad, I am not calling realism inhrently good, and I am not saying you railroad players. I am saying that some of the design features you inexplicably cling to aren't helping you to avoid things you claim to find distasteful.

If it's just about the design features, then I have to question why you asked me to elaborate on my style of game mastering not once but twice after I mentioned that my players and I care about the story. To be frank, you seemed extremely skeptical of the notion that I was telling the truth (or, perhaps, extremely certain that I was mislead). Is that not the case? Because if not, then I retract my request, but you sure did seem to need a lot of convincing for someone who didn't believe I was railroading in the first place.

They're not going to be minimal, they're going to be nonexistant. Are you listening to me? There are games where character power does not progress at all. In Polaris, for example, 'experience' consists of a transition from a zealous novice to a weary veteran, with the next effect that one is exactly as strong as the other- in fact, in many ways the veteran is weaker, since he loses the initiative in conflicts. How do you powergame that, exactly? Please, enlighten me. Was I hallucinating, perhaps?

If powergaming is a style of play wherein the acquisition of the highest level of power is the first and foremost concern,
And the game system in question is one where acquiring more power than the default is impossible
Then the player has already achieved the highest level of power from the start, and thus powergaming is not only possible but inevitable.

If you define powergaming as being not as powerful as possible but more powerful than everyone else, then it becomes impossible in such a system, but I think that's an unwieldy definition (not to mention the unfortunately competitive undertones it implies).

If you define powergaming as playing for the acquisition of power, but only when you sacrifice something else to do so, then it also becomes impossible in such a system, but again, I think this definition is unwieldy.

If your definition is only concerned with power and priorities, then powergaming is entirely possible even when acquisition of power beyond the baseline is not allowed, as above.

[Zen Master]

Good idea. However, before that happens, someone has to work a whole lot more to write down exactly how it works...

Quite true ... it also isn't an actual proposal, or something I'd go out and do. But it is a different view on the whole caster/melee thing - one I've not seen before - and I thought I'd mention it.

[Satyr]

Satyr, I skipped most of the debate but read through all the posts linked in your OP. I'm seeing a serious issue that's kind of shot through all of your changes.

Yes, I was actually really surprised how controversial and easy to derail this all was; the alternative debates have pretty much drowned the few bits of constructive critique; however, I am very grateful for every bit of concrete criticism.
I wasn't that helpful either, but by now, the meaty parts of the suggestions are now linked in the initial post, and if all things are done, I will try to create one well-structured post which includes all changes.

Most of the changes make casters better.

If your goal is to empower Conan, you really don't want to make the evil sorcerers even more able to swat him down with a standard action. Here are
the issues I see:

Yes, if you do not include the changed action economy, you are certainly right. This was the reason why I wanted to change the casting time from 1 standard action by default to 1 round by default.

Higher stats benefit casters more than noncasters, because noncasters get bonuses, but casters get bonuses plus extra spells per day.

Higher stats are also really helpful to create strong gestalt builds, because through this, the overall MADness of several builds become less significant.

Higher hit points benefit casters more than noncasters, because extra hit points are more valuable when you have fewer of them, and less valuable when you already have lots. Moreover, it's generally easier for casters to defeat enemies without dealing hit point damage, which means this change handily helps casters defend themselves from noncasters, but doesn't do the reverse very well.

You are right; however I guess that the Vitality point system also means that a critical hit can easily end a fight with one hit, and it's usually easier to do so with a weapon than with a spell. If you consider that with the changed action economy, a fighter can move and make their attacks in the same time a spellcaster can only cast one spell; I think it isn't that bad.
What I actually miss in D&D is that injuries have no debuffing effect at all - no pain, no hindrances, no crippling injuries - which I think does neither make any sense, nor does it help with the general concept of spellcaster superiority. If you ask me, it is ridicullous to have detailed rules about turning people into pot plants but not having anyones about bleeding

Perhaps I will change the Vitality points in a way that Wound points are actually constititon ability damage, and add some additional combat options which allows to create status effects or ability damage with usual attacks.

Reducing magic penalizes noncasters more than casters, because a caster can often cast a spell to duplicate the effects of a magic item he would have purchased, while a noncaster must simply do without.

Yes, I am aware of this. Which is one reason why I think that the changed action economy is a legitimate decision, even though it might appear as a bit overkill.
However, spell access is likewise a controlable ressource, especially for casters like wizards or archivists who have to learn spells - I know that this will be be seen as DM fiat, but I found that the Gamemaster can slightly adapt the power of these casters by controlling which spells are available and which aren't.

Gestalting casters with anything, even NPC classes, makes them much stronger by shoring up the weaknesses that were supposed to balance them. A wizard gestalted with warrior gets a better Fort save, better hit points, better base attack, and free armor and martial weapon proficiency. A wizard gestalted with expert gains better hit points, better base attack, better skill points, and proficiency with some weapons and armor. These are not small benefits.

Of course. But the benefit is not equal to the synergy effect of a good gestalt combination in the net gain at least. If the benefit proves to be too large, a stronger limitation of gestalt combinations would be an alternative (especially if you reduce the choice to "commoner").

Flaws help casters more than noncasters, because caster feats are generally better than noncaster feats (compare Empower vs. Weapon Specialization or Sculpt vs. Precise Shot).

One of the obligatory flaw has to concern the spellcasting abilities however, and these tend to be actually disadvantagous. But, again, you are right.

Eliminating psionics increases the average power of PC casters. Because psionics-using classes are generally a notch lower in power than their arcane analogues, players who would have played a psionic character are now funneled towards the equivalent, more powerful, arcane caster. You've removed the weaker casting options, funneling players towards the choices that have more dakka.

Okay, you have a point here, even if this a good example for non-linear thinking.
Actually, I think that a purely psionic approach would be a better choice, but really felt that necromancy is such a staple of the genre I have in mind, that leaving this out would not work that well.
If I weren't that lazy, I would probably ban both psionics and Vancian spellcasters, use the warlock as the default spellcaster and recreate any effect I miss as an invocation of various power; and probably create an alternative class feature or two reintroduce supernatural healing, and other utility effects. Then introduce something like the 4e rituals for useful smaller stuff which are then open for every character who spare the feats and skill points to learn them (rituals are then basically skill tricks based on Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion) or Craft (Alchemy)). But that would be really work.
Basically adding something like a benevolent white magic buffer warlock, a pale, ruthless necromancer warlock, a dreadful dark curse-slinger warlock (with stuff like the hexblade abilities) a deep wood nature friend "druid" warlock and a number of different elemental warlock (think "elemental bending" à la Avatar).

Additionally, a couple of your stated design goals, such as eliminating flying and teleportation, aren't accomplished by the changes you've published so far. Perhaps you intend to address them in the ban list.

Indeed. I think I did so. Natural spell is not issue if druids have only the shapeshift alternative class feature from PHB II.

I'd strongly recommend that if you want to get the swords and sorcery feel that you eliminate the wizard, cleric and archivist, and perhaps even the warmage. They just don't play nice with Conan. In an admittedly shameless plug, I'll also point up the elemental casters in my sig, which are intended to fill traditional fantasy spellcasting archetypes without the phenomenal cosmic power of the wizzie (although you'd want to prune their spell lists, as they generally do fly and teleport via one means or another).

I will give your casters a look. From the basic idea, I think that elemental spellcasters would work well in this context, mostly because they fit to my personal sense of aesthetics.


Generally I think that your criticism is very accurate, but as it does not include the changed action economy. I hope that the number of smaller benefits you describe are compensated by the generally much slower spellcasting. However, in the true form of this thread, the public votum will probably prove that the changes make spellcasters much more powerful while they nerf them into unplayabilty at the same time.

[potatocubed]

What I actually miss in D&D is that injuries have no debuffing effect at all - no pain, no hindrances, no crippling injuries - which I think does neither make any sense, nor does it help with the general concept of spellcaster superiority.

The Silhouette system doesn't use hp at all - rather you just take 'injuries', each of which puts a -1 or -2 penalty on your ability to do anything, and they stack up until you're incapable of acting. There's a rule for falling unconscious in there somewhere, but I forget what it is. Mutants and Masterminds uses something similar.

Anyway, have you considered stealing that idea? Say, every time someone is hit you roll on a table and add the damage the attack dealt - low numbers are 'no additional effect' and high numbers inflict temporary penalties, stunning, ability score damage, bleeding, etc. You could track this in addition to hp damage or do away with hp entirely, although in that case you'd need to find another way to simulate a warrior's greater physical toughness.

[Eldan]

Actually, the M&M system, pretty much unchanged, would be interesting when imported into D&D.

Every character has a toughness score instead of hit points, and attacks don't deal damage, they have a damage score. You roll damage against toughness to see if the attack has an effect.

Whenever you take damage, you progress downwards on a list of effects.


As for spellcasters, how about the following:

-Take the Warlock for the standard caster.
-Get the Tome of Magic's binder for a summoner, with some reflavouring. They draw circles, chant invocations, then bind a powerful creature into their body.
-Instead of the druid, I'd recommend the following: I've made a character with what is pretty much a custom class cobbled together from parts of others, but: take the Wildshape Ranger, i.e. a ranger losing his combat style for wildshape. It's quite powerful. However, instead of Wildshape, give it the PHBII shapeshift class feature. That gives you a quite versatile shapeshifter, especially if you allow alternate forms (there's a list of shapeshift feats for that on the forum). At higher levels, it even gets a few druidic spells.

[Satyr]

Anyway, have you considered stealing that idea? Say, every time someone is hit you roll on a table and add the damage the attack dealt - low numbers are 'no additional effect' and high numbers inflict temporary penalties, stunning, ability score damage, bleeding, etc. You could track this in addition to hp damage or do away with hp entirely, although in that case you'd need to find another way to simulate a warrior's greater physical toughness.

When we actively worked on Serpents and Sewers, we playtested an alernative damage system that was more simiar to the damage system of Shadowrun; it didn't work that well. Not because of the rules, which were okay, but because it just didin't feel right to play D20 without hitpoints. Yes, they are not a very good solution to deal with injuries and injurie effects (apart from being simple), but they have a certain nostalgia appeal, at least when it comes to D&D, at least for me.

I think that something like ability damage should occur on most succesful attacks;
perhaps something like this:

"For every 10 points of net damage, a succesful attack deals one aditional point of ability damage. The damaged ability is based on the used damage type of the weapon. As this damage is active desctruction, it also affects creatures which are otherwise immune to critical hits or precision damage."

Weapon Effects and Injuries
{table=head]Damage Type|affected ability|description

bludgeoning

|

Dexterity

|bruises, fractures, shattered bones

piercing

|

Constitution

|bloodloss, open wounds, organ damage

slashing

|

Strength

|cut muscles, teared tissue
[/table]

[Eldan]

Well, you want to play to level 20, so, let's see what that does.

Let's assume a fairly unoptimized barbarian, on a charge. He uses a greataxe (1d12) for flavour, has 24 strength (not many magical items), power attacks for full and rages for another +6 strength. Somewhere, he also got the ability to get x3 damage for his power attack.

Damage: 1d12+13+60, or about 80 damage on average. That's 8 ability damage. Fair enough.

To compare, a level 4 (new level 1) rogue: 1d6 (shortspear for constitution)+2d6 (sneak attack). He's two-weapon fighting, so gets two attacks. That gives him 6d6 damage, or about 21 on average. 2 ability damage. The 2 constitution damage makes this about 4 more damage.

If he fights a fighter with 18 constitution, the damage will kill that guy long before the con-loss does.

So, doesn't seem to bad. I'm not sure what happens if you include spells for ability damage, though. Shivering touch is bad enough on it's own...

[Oslecamo]

What I actually miss in D&D is that injuries have no debuffing effect at all - no pain, no hindrances, no crippling injuries - which I think does neither make any sense, nor does it help with the general concept of spellcaster superiority. If you ask me, it is ridicullous to have detailed rules about turning people into pot plants but not having anyones about bleeding

Oh, D&D characters do feel pain.

It's just that REAL REAL men filled with true TESTOTERONE can shrug it off. Conan may roll down and curl into a fetal position crying because he was stabbed in a fleshy point. Regdar on the other hand gets stabbed on a fleshy point and keeps going trough sheer hotbloodness untill all his muscles and bones have been broken.

[Samurai Jill]

If powergaming is a style of play wherein the acquisition of the highest level of power is the first and foremost concern,
And the game system in question is one where acquiring more power than the default is impossible
Then the player has already achieved the highest level of power from the start, and thus powergaming is not only possible but inevitable.

That is the most head-bangingly, self-evidently, downright vacuous argument I have heard in a long, long time. Congratulations. You win the argument forever.

*turns away, shaking head*

[Satyr]

It's just that REAL REAL men filled with true TESTOTERONE can shrug it off. Conan may roll down and curl into a fetal position crying because he was stabbed in a fleshy point. Regdar on the other hand gets stabbed on a fleshy point and keeps going trough sheer hotbloodness untill all his muscles and bones have been broken.

If this would be the case, everything would be okay... but according to the D&D rules, every squirrel and every three year old is completely unaffected by pain as long as it results from physical harm (including torture btw); it makes sense for player characters who are used to physcial harm, but for wizards, little children and
But it only becomes really absurd if you recognize that pretty much every effect an inury could have - pain, slowed movements, limbs which cannot properly used, ability damage, or even continuous damage are A-Okay and completely included in the rules, as long as they are induced by magic, not physical means. And that's just stupid.

[Samurai Jill]

Yes, I was actually really surprised how controversial and easy to derail this all was; the alternative debates have pretty much drowned the few bits of constructive critique; however, I am very grateful for every bit of concrete criticism.

Satyr, I am honestly trying to point out how ultimately futile this whole project is in spirit. All the things about D&D that don't mesh well with Sword and Sorcery- the 'christmas tree effect' in particular- are precisely the logical outcome of things you insist on keeping: classes, levels, HP, XP, and so forth. You're essentially trying to cure gangrene with an aspirin.

I would also echo that you seem to be hung up over some 'genre conventions' that aren't actually conventions of the original genre.

What is heroic fantasy, sword-and-sorcery, et cetera? Best to start with explaining what it is not. It is not:

...2. What book publishers and straight-to-video call sword-and-sorcery, which usually includes-
* A grumbling, douchy dolt of a protagonist with gymnasium musculature.
* Incredibly stupid sorcerers whose plans make no sense and whose magic, bluntly, doesn't work.
* Fetishistic attention to macho posturing, the approval of other guys, and owership of a sword(!)
* Models looking bored and uncomfortable in their clothes.

3. What you find in the majority of so-called "fantasy role-playing games"-
* A feverish concern with killing monsters and surviving momentary perils.
* Mechanical, possessions-based competence, that is, where being better depends on having more stuff.
* Long lists of highly specific spells, essentially a technology called magic.


...Throughout this period, certain pastiche conventions crept into the genre, both in the additions to the Conan stories and in the host of imitations. You are certain to recognise them:
* "Barbarian" means an irritable psychopath with no actual fun qualities who hates and fears magic.
* The hero never loses a fight, and his combat prowess is expressed in terms of raw strength. (Howard's Conan won fights primarily through speed, stamina, and skill- and he didn't always win.)
* People run around wearing loincloths, displaying musculature that wasn't even possible prior to the invention of the Nautilus machine. (Howard's Conan wore a shirt, most of the time.)
* Women conform perfectly to the Madonna/whore complex. (Howard had his faults concerning female characters, but not this one.)
* Faceless red-shirt "city guards" appear at plot junctures for the hero to kill. As far as I can tell, such characters and scenes are completely absent from the literature until the 1960s.
* Conflict concerns threats to the manly-man image rather than human relationships or confrontation with true horror.

If you want to take a look at something solidly Gamist that will probably come close to approximating the combat you want, I would suggest investigating Rune. There's a free PDF for download with the basic mechanics, including a hack'n'slash limited-HP system with basic pain penalties.

[PersonMan]

I don't know if this has been suggested yet, but if you stick with the HP system, perhaps you could employ a condition track, sort of like the one used in SWSE? So that as you lost more HP you got more and more penalties? Maybe make it that for every 1/10 of total lost, you get -X to A,B and C, while at 1/2 HP you get an additional -Y to A, B and C. Or something like that.

[nefele]

"For every 10 points of net damage, a succesful attack deals one aditional point of ability damage. The damaged ability is based on the used damage type of the weapon. As this damage is active desctruction, it also affects creatures which are otherwise immune to critical hits or precision damage."

I like this aesthetically (that horrible abstractedness of hit points always bugged me), but the bookkeeping implications are daunting, and I'm not sure if it's worth it. I guess I could get used to it over time, but at first glance it seems... well, daunting as I said.

A lot of numbers on the character sheet are derived from Str, Dex and Con - especially in Gestalt, where the "X to Y" bonuses are most often used. (In fact, when I build a high-level character, the first immunity I usually try to get is Ability Damage, simply to avoid the horror of recalculating everything.)

But maybe the particulars of the system would alleviate that a bit? I'm sorry if I missed it, but what's your take on PC races? If it's humans only in order to stick to the "real men" theme, or even if it's Core only, maybe it wouldn't be too much of a problem. If you allow monsters with LA and RHD, however, the "X to Y" bonuses will definitely come into play, and we're back to bookkeeping nightmare. IMO.